Robert

I am fairly close to actually agreeing with you. I have no doubt at the end of the day that once a child is old enough and has been informed of consequences that they have to make their own choices. The surrendering attitude believing they are going to be immoral anyway (normally by people who gave in themselves) does not have to be the norm. I know a number of well adjusted kids at uni who live very 'normal' lives without having to degrade themselves. No doubt these kids must get up the authors nose.

Surprise. surprise we read of a young girl of 5 in Tasmania being sexually molested by 2 young boys straight after sex education classes. The educators can be really proud they did such as great job for this girl. More fruit of secular humanism.

Wow Runner!

I bet you raced onto OLO to announce that one.

So how many times has sex education resulted in rape now? One?

Compare that to the amount of unwanted pregnancies that you're so staunchly against aborting, and your messy logic just doesn't add up.

Oh that's right, a belief in God's word is all we're supposed to need in order to remain pure. Well gee, I can see how that works with all the perverted Pastors and Priests out there.

What's that? They're not really following the teachings of Christ?

Well perhaps the school boys weren't really following the lessons of the teachers giving sex education lessons too...

runner, I guess the issue I have there, is that your perception of secularism appears to be that promiscuity is good.

That's not it at all. Secularism is about letting people be responsible enough to make their own choices - something, at least in part, you agree with.

It is advertisers and elements of popular culture that drive a message of underage sex and so forth.

The irony is, that secularism is about the only framework that is accepting of multiple faiths. We couldn't have a purely christian government that gave due consideration to other religions.

Secularism is the tradeoff. I don't want a christian government, but presumably, you don't want a muslim one. The agreement, is to live and let live.

So I wholeheartedly concur with R0bert's earlier assessment - that the best option is to tell teenagers you believe they shouldn't engage in underage sex - but you DO need to provide proper sex education to avoid STDs. This is why I find your insinuation about sex ed very damaging.

Another irony here, is that countries that have permissive abortion laws and extensive sex education, have far less abortions.

The statistics have proved that conclusively - so if you're genuine in your desire to have kids avoid things like STDs and abortions, you'd be pretty damn keen on sex education, even though it doesn't fit the typical conservative christian mould.

TRTL

you write
' I guess the issue I have there, is that your perception of secularism appears to be that promiscuity is good.'
I don't think that their is any doubt that the more secular a nation becomes the more promiscuity occurs whether intentionally or not. That is why many secular people want their children educated in a 'Christian' context. I have no doubt the Tasmanian incident is not an isolated case.

Runner,

<<I don't think that their is any doubt that the more secular a nation becomes the more promiscuity occurs whether intentionally or not.>>

Or could it just be that it's more out in the open now than it used to be?

According to your logic, it would be reasonable to argue that the more Christian a nation becomes, the more hidden and under-wraps rape and pedophilia are, and that it becomes harder for someone to report it – just like the good ol' days.

Actually, now that I think about it, that theory could be backed-up with many past (and even present) examples.

Hmmm... Funny you've never mentioned the links along this line though...

<<That is why many secular people want their children educated in a 'Christian' context. I have no doubt the Tasmanian incident is not an isolated case.>>

Could you point me to some sort of reference, or some statements from 'Secular Humanists' saying that the reason they're sending their children to private schools is because of the 'moral' foundations they provide? Or is this just something you're assuming, as you do with every other one of your arguments?

I would argue that the reason for increasing enrollments into private school education is because people these days generally have more money to spend than they used to, and that private schools are chosen because of their good 'academic' reputation – not 'theological'.

In fact, of all the 'Secular Humanist' parents that I've ever known to send their kids to a private school, did so 'despite' the religious education, not 'because of' it.