Posted on 06/03/2002 2:05:58 PM PDT by Keyes For President
Sugarcoating poison
By Alan Keyes
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Millions of decent American parents today are forced to wage a continual battle to preserve the innocence of their children – particularly in sexual matters – against a rising tide of morally corrupting influences in the media, in the government schools and in the culture at large.
But safeguarding the souls of children largely consists of protecting them from hearing about, thinking about or – God forbid – experiencing perverse possibilities that they would never consider on their own. Unfortunately, sometimes this means that decent parents become too childlike – coming to believe that no one would seriously propose such perversities, or seek their acceptance. It is the Achilles heel of the struggle for innocence that we can so convince ourselves that certain things are unthinkable and unspeakable that we lose vigilance in opposing those who are quite ready to think, speak and do the most monstrous things.
Hence the perverse service that Joycelyn Elders has performed by contributing a preface to a new book by Judith Levine, "Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex." If you have somehow managed to believe that the institution of childhood itself is not under attack, think again. This book explicitly advocates the view that sexual activity among young people is a good thing, and that sexual relations between adults and children aren't necessarily bad. And Dr. Elders has helpfully contributed a sanitizing aura of "educational" legitimacy to sugarcoat this very real poison.
What is the appropriate response to such an attack? We must, of course, unconditionally reject the spurious doctrine of sexual exploitation of children "for their own sake" with all the moral outrage that has been so rightfully directed to the Catholic priests, and others, who have already been acting on the Levine doctrine.
But we should reject it with the confidence that comes from knowing the reasons that sex is bad for children. This society has a rational moral preference against childhood sex, and we must defend that preference with coherent and compelling argument – not just with outrage. When adults speak the unspeakable, we must respond with argument.
The sexual "liberation" of children requires the denial of any connection between human sexuality and family life. It means, accordingly, the failure to school the heart, mind and conscience of children to look at their sexual being in a way that is rooted in the mature moral possibilities of human life – the relationships, responsibilities and commitments that are the key to genuine happiness.
The Planned Parenthood mantra that the key issue in sexual formation is "education" treats sexuality as if there is a body of factual knowledge that any 13-year-old can acquire that will make him capable of responsible decisions in such matters. Nothing could be more false.
The knowledge that makes humanizing sexual choices possible comes, in part, from moral experience that is simply not available to the young. Sexual responsibility is a crucial part of moral responsibility. That means it requires the formation of character, and of the ability – among other things – to forego present gratification for future goods. Moral responsibility includes the ability to appreciate the importance of things like honor, decency and obligation to family that may seem abstract in the short term, but turn out to be all important to human happiness.
It is a simple fact of human experience that the tides of passion must begin to swell before the ability to handle those passions can develop. The formation of moral character occurs crucially during the years of maturation and struggle with such passions. The proposal that young children can be beneficially "informed" about and then manage sexual practices is at best utterly morally obtuse. Whatever the "liberationists" may claim for the child, what invariably occurs is exploitation.
The first and foremost component of sex-related education must be the family itself. The first thing that children can learn and ought to learn is not about physiology, but about what it means to be a mother or a father, and the connection between moral discipline and the love and tenderness that is shared within a family.
Once children are introduced to this understanding of true family life, their attention starts naturally to focus on their assumption of that role for themselves. Then, and only then, as the formation of their moral character approaches the maturity of adulthood, it becomes appropriate and fruitful to introduce them to the mysteries of the married state.
Tune into Alan Keyes' new show "Alan Keyes is Making Sense" on MSNBC, Monday through Thursday, 10 p.m., ET. And be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.
Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.
Hence the perverse service that Joycelyn Elders has performed by contributing a preface to a new book by Judith Levine, "Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex." If you have somehow managed to believe that the institution of childhood itself is not under attack, think again. This book explicitly advocates the view that sexual activity among young people is a good thing, and that sexual relations between adults and children aren't necessarily bad. And Dr. Elders has helpfully contributed a sanitizing aura of "educational" legitimacy to sugarcoat this very real poison.
Ping.
Because he refused to sugar-coat the truth to make it more palpatable to the masses. Can he be abrupt? Yes. Can he be condescending? Yes. Is he usually right (although, not always)? Yes, again. I voted for him in the primary and I'd do it again. While I don't agree with him 100%, at least he seems to understand that to compromise means to give up something that you'd rather keep. IMHO
I asked myself the same thing in D.C. Oct 31 1998.....
You are so correct. Unfortunately to many in our country today, being "charming" is more important in a candidate than their stand on the issues or their adherance to principle.
Dr. Keyes did speak out at a time when others were conspicuously silent, didn't he?
I wonder why others didn't speak out against a popular president at that time? Most Freepers were sure glad he did. At least Keyes is consistent.
Regards,
I also voted for him in the primaries, because logic demands one vote on issues, and not personalities.
The real reason he's not POTUS is because his views are (sadly) way out of step with the average American voter.
Guess that's one of the main reasons that I like him - I'm pretty far out of step with most of the sheople, too!! LOL
Sadly, you are probably correct. Even the following excerpt, which makes all the sense in the world, is probably out of step with our culture:
It is a simple fact of human experience that the tides of passion must begin to swell before the ability to handle those passions can develop. The formation of moral character occurs crucially during the years of maturation and struggle with such passions. The proposal that young children can be beneficially "informed" about and then manage sexual practices is at best utterly morally obtuse. Whatever the "liberationists" may claim for the child, what invariably occurs is exploitation.
The first and foremost component of sex-related education must be the family itself. The first thing that children can learn and ought to learn is not about physiology, but about what it means to be a mother or a father, and the connection between moral discipline and the love and tenderness that is shared within a family.
Once children are introduced to this understanding of true family life, their attention starts naturally to focus on their assumption of that role for themselves. Then, and only then, as the formation of their moral character approaches the maturity of adulthood, it becomes appropriate and fruitful to introduce them to the mysteries of the married state.
Even sadder is when people who agree with him bash him because they don't like his personality, or the fact that he dares to speak the truth even when one of "ours" is in office.
Sexual connection with animals, same-sex, corpses, children, incest and adultery are to be severely restricted if an all-around healthy society is to exist.
It's a matter of survival.....and then some....
Yes, I love him too...
I suspect it's the fact that he can explain, at length and in detail, why unconditional support of unrestricted sexual activity is not a good thing, and libertarians and most conservatives are embarrassed to, unable to, don't want to, or just plain won't pass judgement on those who wish to... well, do things like have sex with a chain link fence if the impulse strikes. Ratcheted down, that's a logical conclusion of contemporary ethical pre-suppositions.
The family is the most basic unit in our society...morals and values should be taught there in the atmosphere of loving parents concerned with the welfare of their children....
Human beings are not rutting animals contrary to what Ediot Elders would have the world believe....and if we were, we would not have society....there would be herds and flocks.
... and trying to get people to understand this will bring forth an army of suburbanites armed with flashlights and weed-whackers instead of farmers with torches and pitchforks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.