Because Pastors Know So Much About Sex

[Skwim]

.
Yeah, sure.

South Carolina School District Seeks Three Pastors for Sex Ed Advisory Board

In South Carolina, every public school district is required to have a 13-member advisory board to make decisions regarding sex education. The Charleston County School District is looking to fill those roles for the coming school year, and this was the strange invitation posted on their website:

Why on earth do they need three clergy members making decisions on sex ed? Why do they even need one?! And why are there three times as many clergy members as medical experts? That’s what some local parents want to know:

“Initially I was in disbelief,” [mother Kate Quertermous] said. “It just seemed so strange. This is a health advisory committee. There’s no gray area here. This is black and white.”

Jill Handegan, another concerned Charleston County parent, also said clergy don’t belong on the committee. “It’s dumb and stupid and archaic and it’s ridiculous,” she said.

“I don’t know why clergy need to be on there at all,” she added. “There’s so many different religious thoughts and perspectives and teachings, you’re always going to leave someone’s teachings out of it.”​

Those parents are making all the right points. They were appalled by what they saw on CCSD’s website, but it turns out CCSD is simply following orders from the state. South Carolina law actually requires three clergy members on each 13-member sex ed advisory board, going back to 1988.

That’s especially problematic when you realize that the state only wants schools to talk about sex within the context of reproduction. What about all the other kinds of sex? The law says “Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.”

In other words, the problem isn’t this school district. The problem is the state law.

By the way, a few years ago, the CCSD sex ed board removed a part of the curriculum that included sections on AIDS, HIV, contraceptives, and LGBTQ relationships.
source

.​

 

[We Never Know]

.
Yeah, sure.

South Carolina School District Seeks Three Pastors for Sex Ed Advisory Board

In South Carolina, every public school district is required to have a 13-member advisory board to make decisions regarding sex education. The Charleston County School District is looking to fill those roles for the coming school year, and this was the strange invitation posted on their website:

The Charleston County School District Board of Trustees seeks community representatives (3 Clergy, 1 Medical, 2 Parent, 1 Teacher, and 2 Student – one being at least a junior in high school and the president of the student body) to serve on the District’s Health Advisory Committee.

Why on earth do they need three clergy members making decisions on sex ed? Why do they even need one?! And why are there three times as many clergy members as medical experts? That’s what some local parents want to know:

“Initially I was in disbelief,” [mother Kate Quertermous] said. “It just seemed so strange. This is a health advisory committee. There’s no gray area here. This is black and white.”

Jill Handegan, another concerned Charleston County parent, also said clergy don’t belong on the committee. “It’s dumb and stupid and archaic and it’s ridiculous,” she said.

“I don’t know why clergy need to be on there at all,” she added. “There’s so many different religious thoughts and perspectives and teachings, you’re always going to leave someone’s teachings out of it.”​

Those parents are making all the right points. They were appalled by what they saw on CCSD’s website, but it turns out CCSD is simply following orders from the state. South Carolina law actually requires three clergy members on each 13-member sex ed advisory board, going back to 1988.

That’s especially problematic when you realize that the state only wants schools to talk about sex within the context of reproduction. What about all the other kinds of sex? The law says “Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.”

In other words, the problem isn’t this school district. The problem is the state law.

By the way, a few years ago, the CCSD sex ed board removed a part of the curriculum that included sections on AIDS, HIV, contraceptives, and LGBTQ relationships.
source​

This may be a little off topic but I have wondered that since the bible says the lord said to be fruitful and multiply, why does the catholic church want the priest and nuns to be celibate.

 

[Enoch07]

That’s especially problematic when you realize that the state only wants schools to talk about sex within the context of reproduction. What about all the other kinds of sex?

That's because sex education is about teaching about the reproductive system. Birth control, safe sex, how to prevent STDs and the biology behind it all.

Sex ed is not meant to be a school program teaching kids about how "fun" sex is.

 

[David T]

That's because sex education is about teaching about the reproductive system. Birth control, safe sex, how to prevent STDs and the biology behind it all.

Sex ed is not meant to be a school program teaching kids about how "fun" sex is.

Well i will agree till someone comes forward to dispell that.

Although teaching creationism and intelligent design as science or even remotely in the science class room is the identical problem.. I doubt there is any ban on that in south carolina and most likely very much the opposite. If thats the case it would render your statement problematic as science when we want it screw science when we dont want it problem.

 

[Shad]

.
Yeah, sure.

South Carolina School District Seeks Three Pastors for Sex Ed Advisory Board

In South Carolina, every public school district is required to have a 13-member advisory board to make decisions regarding sex education. The Charleston County School District is looking to fill those roles for the coming school year, and this was the strange invitation posted on their website:

Why on earth do they need three clergy members making decisions on sex ed? Why do they even need one?! And why are there three times as many clergy members as medical experts? That’s what some local parents want to know:

“Initially I was in disbelief,” [mother Kate Quertermous] said. “It just seemed so strange. This is a health advisory committee. There’s no gray area here. This is black and white.”

Jill Handegan, another concerned Charleston County parent, also said clergy don’t belong on the committee. “It’s dumb and stupid and archaic and it’s ridiculous,” she said.

“I don’t know why clergy need to be on there at all,” she added. “There’s so many different religious thoughts and perspectives and teachings, you’re always going to leave someone’s teachings out of it.”​

Those parents are making all the right points. They were appalled by what they saw on CCSD’s website, but it turns out CCSD is simply following orders from the state. South Carolina law actually requires three clergy members on each 13-member sex ed advisory board, going back to 1988.

That’s especially problematic when you realize that the state only wants schools to talk about sex within the context of reproduction. What about all the other kinds of sex? The law says “Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.”

In other words, the problem isn’t this school district. The problem is the state law.

By the way, a few years ago, the CCSD sex ed board removed a part of the curriculum that included sections on AIDS, HIV, contraceptives, and LGBTQ relationships.
source

.​

Against it as it stands. I could be convinced if the clergy part was changed religious consultation which is tailored to the student and their religion. This would not be a full-time staff position but based on situation and need. Religious advisors are paid, if at all, for services rendered not for being on standby. They would not take part in any board meetings unless requested and involving the specific religion. Ergo no pastors at meetings regarding football

 

[Enoch07]

Although teaching creationism and intelligent design as science or even remotely in the science class room is the identical problem.. I doubt there is any ban on that in south carolina and most likely very much the opposite. If thats the case it would render your statement problematic as science when we want it screw science when we dont want it problem.

True, but I didn't see anything about creationism or i.d. being taught in place of sex ed. Just as it is not the school priority to teach about religious affairs, it is also not their priority to teach about orgies, fetishes, and "other types of sex". It has to stick to the biological parameters. That being said the biological function of sex is reproduction. Despite the secularist claims it's about "fun".

 

[Skwim]

Further information about sex education in South Carolina

" SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) State Profile


SOUTH CAROLINA
​

South Carolina Sexuality Education Law and Policy
Schools in South Carolina are required to provide sexually transmitted disease (STD) education beginning in grade six; but cannot provide information on STDs to students prior to grade six. Schools are not required to teach about HIV or AIDS. State law specifies that age-appropriate instruction in reproductive health may be offered for grades kindergarten through five. STDs and reproductive health are required to be included as a part of comprehensive health education in grades six through eight, and pregnancy prevention may be addressed. Students must also receive at least 750 minutes of reproductive health education and pregnancy prevention education at least one time over the course of grades nine through 12.” Pregnancy prevention education must be provided in gender-divided classes.

According to the law:

“Reproductive health education” means instruction in human physiology, conception, prenatal care and development, childbirth, and postnatal care, but does not include instruction concerning sexual practices outside marriage or practices unrelated to reproduction except within the context of the risk of disease. Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.​

The law explains, “[c]ontraceptive information must be given in the context of future family planning,” which has been interpreted to mean that any information about contraception must be in the context of use during marriage. In addition, no school may distribute contraceptives. Abortion may only be discussed in the context of the complications that it may cause and “must not be mentioned as a method of birth control.” Finally, the law specifies that:

The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships, except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases.​

The state does not require or suggest a specific curriculum; however, the state’s health education curriculum standards cover sexuality education, including an “[e]mphasis on the rights and responsibilities of family members; on understanding, accepting, and managing one’s sexuality; and on acquiring the skills that promote abstinence.” In order to develop its curriculum, each local school board must “appoint a thirteen-member local advisory committee consisting of two parents, three clergy, two health professionals, two teachers, two students, one being the president of the student body of a high school, and two other persons not employed by the local school district.”
source​

Anyone surprised?

.

 

[Skwim]

Against it as it stands. I could be convinced if the clergy part was changed religious consultation which is tailored to the student and their religion. This would not be a full-time staff position but based on situation and need. Religious advisors are paid, if at all, for services rendered not for being on standby. They would not take part in any board meetings unless requested and involving the specific religion. Ergo no pastors at meetings regarding football

As I understand sex education, it isn't about religion or any morals derived from religion, but rather the physical aspects, problems, skills, and development of the sexual self.

.

 

[David T]

True, but I didn't see anything about creationism or i.d. being taught in place of sex ed. Just as it is not the school priority to teach about religious affairs, it is also not their priority to teach about orgies, fetishes, and "other types of sex". It has to stick to the biological parameters. That being said the biological function of sex is reproduction. Despite the secularist claims it's about "fun".

No, creationism and or id taught as bio science.

True, but I didn't see anything about creationism or i.d. being taught in place of sex ed. Just as it is not the school priority to teach about religious affairs, it is also not their priority to teach about orgies, fetishes, and "other types of sex". It has to stick to the biological parameters. That being said the biological function of sex is reproduction. Despite the secularist claims it's about "fun".

Creation science bill in South Carolina

The above is what i am talking about.

This contradicts the strict "keep it scientific" of the sex ed class thrust.... So to speak. . Not that i disagree with you, thats fine, but the above bill is absolutely not science. Its not even religious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pastors know a great deal about sex.
There must be over 200 circumstances where it's sinful.
And the one where it's not.

 

[David T]

As I understand sex education, it isn't about religion or any morals derived from religion, but rather the physical aspects, problems, skills, and development of the sexual self.

.

How exactly is that science? Sorry i might as well read "psychological studies show" what i believe is fact. We arent talking science at all and to THINK that sex ed as a how we navigate our sexuality is BS and is not remotely science. That is as bad as creationism ID is science nonsense.

 

[David T]

Further information about sex education in South Carolina

Oh i read. I thought enoch might have a point and i dont have a problem with keeping it pure science but some of this has zero to do with science. Which isnt surprising.

" SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) State Profile


SOUTH CAROLINA
​

South Carolina Sexuality Education Law and Policy
Schools in South Carolina are required to provide sexually transmitted disease (STD) education beginning in grade six; but cannot provide information on STDs to students prior to grade six. Schools are not required to teach about HIV or AIDS. State law specifies that age-appropriate instruction in reproductive health may be offered for grades kindergarten through five. STDs and reproductive health are required to be included as a part of comprehensive health education in grades six through eight, and pregnancy prevention may be addressed. Students must also receive at least 750 minutes of reproductive health education and pregnancy prevention education at least one time over the course of grades nine through 12.” Pregnancy prevention education must be provided in gender-divided classes.

According to the law:

“Reproductive health education” means instruction in human physiology, conception, prenatal care and development, childbirth, and postnatal care, but does not include instruction concerning sexual practices outside marriage or practices unrelated to reproduction except within the context of the risk of disease. Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.​

The law explains, “[c]ontraceptive information must be given in the context of future family planning,” which has been interpreted to mean that any information about contraception must be in the context of use during marriage. In addition, no school may distribute contraceptives. Abortion may only be discussed in the context of the complications that it may cause and “must not be mentioned as a method of birth control.” Finally, the law specifies that:

The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships, except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases.​

The state does not require or suggest a specific curriculum; however, the state’s health education curriculum standards cover sexuality education, including an “[e]mphasis on the rights and responsibilities of family members; on understanding, accepting, and managing one’s sexuality; and on acquiring the skills that promote abstinence.” In order to develop its curriculum, each local school board must “appoint a thirteen-member local advisory committee consisting of two parents, three clergy, two health professionals, two teachers, two students, one being the president of the student body of a high school, and two other persons not employed by the local school district.”
source​

Anyone surprised?

.

Oh this has some way not science aspects to it. Not surprisingly.

Just keep "psychological studies have shown" what i believe is fact nonsense out of schools!!!!

Hell i would like to see all "psychological studies have shown" posts on RF MOVED TO THE COMEDY SECTION. PLEASE.
.

 

[Enoch07]

This contradicts the strict "keep it scientific"

The bill is also not passed yet. So it's irrelevant to the current topic as of now.

 

[David T]

I don't know. Did someone say that sex education is science?

.

Of course it is my father was an artificial insemenator. Its sort of like being a bovine yenta! Did you think storks were involved? I always thought you a bit more cynical Than that!!!

 

[Valjean]

This may be a little off topic but I have wondered that since the bible says the lord said to be fruitful and multiply, why does the catholic church want the priest and nuns to be celibate.

Because "you cannot serve two masters." Marriage is for those whose spirits may be willing, but whose flesh is too weak to stay out of trouble without a sanctioned outlet.

 

[David T]

The bill is also not passed yet. So it's irrelevant to the current topic as of now.

Well sex ed is easy so i have no idea why this seems difficult. Queer is in nature as well so sexual tendencies are also in the domain of science. Sex as fun or life choices and all the bagage etc. That isnt science for sure.but a lot of whats proposed is not science as wellfrom the more bible oriented crowd as well.

Maybe they should just teach bovine reproduction and AI(ARTIFICAL INSEMENATION.). Talk about coral fish lizards and all kinds of bizaare sexual manifestations in nature and let the kiddies decide!!! That would be scientific and fun for them and bypass their dysfunctional screwed up parents.

 

[David T]

Because "you cannot serve two masters." Marriage is for those whose spirits may be willing, but whose flesh is too weak to stay out of trouble without a sanctioned outlet.

My flesh was very strong as a youth not to weak. As an elder i find celibacy getting stronger as the flesh gets weaker!!!!! Although i do enjoy taking the flesh out for a youthful. Reminder now and then. When she wants me to. God bless my lady!!!!

 

[Enoch07]

Maybe they should just teach bovine reproduction and AI(ARTIFICAL INSEMENATION.). Talk about coral fish lizards and all kinds of bizaare sexual manifestations in nature and let the kiddies decide!!! That would be scientific and fun for them and bypass their dysfunctional screwed up parents.

Anatomy, biological functions, safe sex, birth control, STDs, pregnancy, and personal responsibility to keep yourself healthy is good enough for sex ed. Which is usually middle school (6,7,8th grades). Just keep it to the facts and science based curriculum that is all the school is for.

Well sex ed is easy so i have no idea why this seems difficult. Queer is in nature as well so sexual tendencies are also in the domain of science. Sex as fun or life choices and all the bagage etc.

Nuances of sex they can figure out on their own. Middle schoolers brains aren't even developed enough to handle the countless nuances of the adult sexual world. They need time to grow and understand it on their own. Teaching them too much at such an young age will be counter productive and just cause more confusion than it would provide answers.

 

[Valjean]

Anatomy, biological functions, safe sex, birth control, STDs, pregnancy, and personal responsibility to keep yourself healthy is good enough for sex ed. Which is usually middle school (6,7,8th grades). Just keep it to the facts and science based curriculum that is all the school is for.



Nuances of sex they can figure out on their own. Middle schoolers brains aren't even developed enough to handle the countless nuances of the adult sexual world. They need time to grow and understand it on their own. Teaching them too much at such an young age will be counter productive and just cause more confusion than it would provide answers.

On the other hand, the younger the child the less discomfort they'll feel about the subject. What's shocking or disturbing has to be taught, we're not born modest.

 

[Enoch07]

On the other hand, the younger the child the less discomfort they'll feel about the subject. What's shocking or disturbing has to be taught, we're not born modest.

I'm not taking a wild guess here.

At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed?

Most Neurologist agree that the human brain usually doesn't fully develop until around 20 years old. 13 year old and under children's brains are just not developed enough to handle the complexity and nuances of sex. It's just a fact.

It really worries me how many adults on here advocate for children (under 13) to be taught sex beyond that of biological function, STDs, and the reproductive system. Extreme pedo vibe I'm sensing here on RF lately.