19 July 2007

The Three Rs... and the "S"

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856

Yay! I'm so glad we have a candidate willing to stand up and give the American people what they want in public schools! We need discussions about private parts and sexual touching for five-year-olds. We need to have the state take care of *every* aspect of our childrens' development. They're already offering breakfast and lunch at school. Now how about we just drop them off at age three and they can have dinner there, too? Maybe a cot for overnight pedophilia -- I mean, fun educational sleepovers? It would be mighty convenient to have someone else raise our children. We all have other things to do, you know.

))shudder((

This man just *might* be elected President. Can we all spend a little time on our faces in prayer? We need to ask God to do some amazing, mighty work in the hearts of the American people or we are all in really big trouble.

Praying once again that I will get the green light to homeschool the Emperor who will be in kindergarten next year. Stuff like this does NOT help me get to sleep at night.

4 comments:

  1. C - Considering that 12-year olds are now having sex, starting sex ed at 5 is not a bad plan. It's a bit naive to think that all parents are as engaged with their kids as you are. School is the only place some of these kids are going to get the education (not to mention a balanced meal). I'm one of them - dad wasn't exactly helpful in this area. He wasn't able to teach a girl what being a woman meant. I was taught in Sex Ed. class.

    Erin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, and I'm sure that there are some THREE-year-olds being molested by their step-dads out there, but I don't think the answer to that is to teach all three-year-olds about good touch/ bad touch.

    At the very least, parents should receive a form asking, do you WANT your child taught this? And then make them sign it before their child hears that message. In my opinion, sex ed shouldn't be taught AT ALL. But practically speaking, it should at least be an opt IN situation instead of an opt OUT one.

    Having two boys in the "upper" grades I can't tell you what a pain in the rear end it is to opt my children OUT. You would think I was absolutely unreasonable from the reactions I get from the coaches and the staff.

    Too bad!

    It really comes down to the question of WHOSE child it is, once again. Do they belong to the state and do we as a community have the obligation to make sure they hear this "information"? I would say not.

    Incidentally, did you read what the requirements are for sex ed in Massachusetts? It's shocking.

    Mrs. C.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alexander Pope said:
    "Vice is a monster of so frightful mein, as, to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

    Awarenss of sin does not decrease incidence of sin--as evidenced by the fact that men still get caught on Dateline: To Catch a Predator!

    The government teaching our children what good touch is is a joke! It does not stand to reason that because the child may not hear it at home that it's the governmnet's job to fill the gap. That's a slippery slope! My kids will not hear that homosexuality is healthy and normal in my home. And I certainly don't want the government filling that gap in their social knowledge!

    Enough ranting...

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... and you quoted Alexander POPE too. That man was an awful crude writer LOL!!!

    OH, and you're right about the Predator series. I just read some of the stuff on NBC webpages and see that the pervs DO know that they could get caught... they're just more careful!

    Mrs. C.

    ReplyDelete

Non-troll comments always welcome! :)

Bringing Garbage Home

Some people up the street were throwing this table away. It was in pretty bad shape and one of the legs was off. I've glued the leg back...