PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, MAY 21,19 80, WHITBY FREE PRESS r i b yPublished ei'ery Wednesday w tîitbyby M.B.M. Publishing and Photography lue.. Phone 668-6111l The Free Press Buiidîng Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - ManagigEio 131 Brock tetNrh lie only Whitby newspaper independently owvned and operated by Wbitby residents for Whitby residents. P.O. Box 206, Whitby, (J j/ ArI/fE P6&Ye edE4'f Gommunity Editor * MikO ICnII production Manager Advertislng Manager ig, int. Pefrili No 460C Beto S~tusnt'ss qEjft'du W o' T fçi AI34f 7Zf/r:P/6& if sexeducation is to be taught, moral values should be utaught During the last few weeks, a number of parents throughout the region have been angrily protesting the Introduction of sex education courses in the 97 or'so schools under the jurlsdiction of the Durham Board of Education. This debate should not be over where children learn about sex, but when and how they learn. According to officiais at the Board, the course will be taught with taste and discretion and wil take Into consideration at ail times, the feelings and sensitivities of both parent and chiid. This, in tself, seems reasonable. That is not disputed. However, If the Board deems it necessary to teach sex ejucation, it should also be necessary to teach the chlldren rel Iglous education. If the board is golng to teach the fundamentals of human relationships and reproduction, It should also teach the accepted moral standards for the carryling out of these relationships. If the Board is going to explain the intricacies of human sexuality, they shouid also explain the Christian method of performing sexuality roles. It does flot matter whether the parent, the child or the teacher is a "church-goer" or even a Christian, they have been raised by the Christian moral code - L.e. the Ten Commandments and the teachlngs of Christ. This publication has neyer given its support to any organized (or unorganized) Christian denomination, but il upholds the Christian stan- dards of conduct and morality. We believe that this code Is a good and proper one and it is not our intention to take sides in any religmous issue (which we will not), but simply to say that since most of us accept this moral code, it should be taught in schools. Such instruction should not be along denominatiorlal lines or even taught by a member of the clergy, but it should outline the accepted moral code of behaviour. Such a course shouid be devoted to the standar- ds of conduct, not the theological issues involved. The Bible should be a textbook for such instruc- tion, especially If they are going to teach sex education. It is not held here that sex education is bad, nor is It implied that it is a good course of action to take. There are many advantages to such a course being given. Firstly, It may g(ye our children a bet- ter understanding of themselves as sexual beingti and will give them insight Into the functions of the family unit. It is possible that the course will teach children to cope with the changes that their bodies go through and how to recognize them. Ours has become known as the permissive or sexuaily iiberated society and this has been documnented by such things as Playboy Magazine, sex therapy, "The Joy of Sex" by Masters and Johnson, the availability of the pili and other con- traceptives. Chlldren wil iearn about sex. The question is, how do we teach them? Do we let themn find out about it themselves, or do we attempt to teach them about it while giving them moral standards to live by. While the Board's intentions may be goodi and honorable, they have overlooked the keyissue. It should not be that authority's, gr indeed, any authority's, decision to say what is'right or wrong about sex, however, they should teach the basics of what is considered right or wrong. To teach sex educationl s undoubtedly a good thing. But to teach it without givlng children an un- derstandlng of the moral code that our society lives by 18 not a good thing. The Board may argue that it is the parent's prerogative to teach children their moral standards. This is flot disputed. However, using the samne logic, parents could also argue that sex education Is also thelr prerogative. It would be, by far, the wiser If both assumed the responsibillty for teaching both. In this case, the responsibilities are clear. If our schools are going to introduce courses ln sex education, then they must introduce courses that will give children some understanding of the moral code that society and their parents accept-.and that necessitates some form of religlous education. Perhaps the Ministry should stand up and be counted. i q - Kamfl ThOffPaOO M I