Like misery, corruption loves company. It also despises innocence. This could explain why a Christian Illinois high-school senior now faces punishment for refusing to be party to our Sexual Devolution. As CBN News reports:
An Illinois high school senior is set to face a disciplinary hearing after she refused to participate in the school’s Student Gender and Sexuality Program and requested a religious accommodation exempting her from the class.
First Liberty Institute, a religious rights law firm, sent a letter to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) located in Aurora, demanding the school immediately approve senior Marcail McBride’s request.
“Under Illinois law, schools must provide religious accommodations for their students, and they must also honor requests to excuse students from programs with sexual content,” said Keisha Russell, counsel to First Liberty Institute.
“Schools should never violate the religious conscience of their students. We hope [IMSA] President [Jose] Torres ends the school administrators’ clearly unlawful behavior and protects the religious liberty of every student by granting an accommodation to the family,” Russell continued.
WND.com adds to the story, writing:
IMSA says its gender and sexuality program is designed to make students “experience discomfort.”
The institute described the program in its letter.
“Students participating in the program use sexual language to identify sexual preferences and gender identity,” First Liberty said. “In identifying the ‘stages of allyship,’ the program classifies anyone who believes homosexuality is sinful or immoral as being in the same category as those who are repulsed by it or think it is ‘crazy.’ The program offers students the opportunity to become an ‘ally,’ recording the students who agree and rewarding them for their affirmation with a SafeZone sticker and pin. The program thus does not respect differing religious beliefs about gender and sexuality and pressures students to affirmatively signal their agreement with the curriculum.”
The McBrides asked that their daughter be exempted from the requirement because of a conflict with her religious beliefs, but schools officials refused.
Unfortunately, such sexual devolutionary indoctrination is hardly unusual today. Yet paralleling what I wrote Tuesday about “ethnic studies,” people will argue about what should constitute sex education but miss an important point:
There should be no sex education.
Not in schools, at least.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
This statement may raise eyebrows because it’s contrary to modern assumptions. But first consider a correlation: The United States’ out-of-wedlock birthrate in the 1940s, prior to sex-ed’s advent, was approximately four percent.
Now it’s 40 percent.
Society has changed markedly since the ’40s, and this illegitimacy phenomeon is due to multiple factors. Yet they’re all explained by one factor:
Civilization has become highly sexualized.
And school “sex education” absolutely is part of this — as research has shown. For example, a “survey conducted in the UK has revealed that teenage pregnancy rates are highest in areas that have been most aggressive in promoting sex education,” wrote LifeSite in 2004. “The report revealed that explicit sex education and providing condoms to young girls simply encourages them to become sexually active.”
This really is just common sense, as the sex-ed mentality ignores man’s nature.
As author and former presidential candidate Alan Keyes once noted, social pressure is the greatest force known for controlling human behavior. For sure. Why do you think political correctness/cancel culture so effectively stills tongues?
And social pressure explains earlier America’s greater chastity. LifeSite also pointed out that abstinence programs work, and I don’t doubt it. Yet what’s most effective is what we had in the ’40s: a whole society that was an “abstinence program.”
Back then, there was great stigma attached to a girl becoming known as a runaround or, perish the thought, getting pregnant out of wedlock. There also was more pressure on fathers and brothers to “protect womanhood.” That’s what a man did. But women today are far too “liberated” (from morality?) for all that passé stuff.
Moreover, people many decades ago were more likely to have Christian faith and be instilled with its attendant virtues — one of which is chastity.
In contrast, there can be social pressure now to have sex while young. Sex-ed doesn’t help, either. At best, it portrays matters in what people might call a “value neutral” fashion, which isn’t really value-neutral at all. Rather, the message is that at issue are legitimate behavior alternatives.
This reduces sexuality to essentially a matter of taste. And not only are tastes beyond judgment, but what here would serve to counteract the temptation to indulge? If anything, sex-ed just sparks kids’ curiosity. As one man put it years ago, the first thing he did after his sex-ed class was go “home and ____ the girl next door.”
But it’s no surprise that sex-ed bears bad fruit — it was born of a bad tree. Know that it originated with the “work” of bug researcher and self-proclaimed sex expert Alfred Kinsey, who, though glorified in media and popular culture, was actually a sexual deviant and pedophile enabler. This is all illustrated vividly in my 2009 essay, “According to Kinsey, Deviancy Is the New Normal.”
The end result of all this is that, as a lady friend once put it, 60 “years ago you knew who the bad girls were. Now you know who the good girls are.”
For sure. One of them is sticking out like a sore thumb in Illinois right now.
