Even worse material from the Texas sex education curriculum

[orichalcum]

So, I've posted before about my deep outrage at the farcical nature of abstinence-only sex education, which spreads lies like the idea that condoms have a 30% failure rate and that sperm and HIV can go through condoms anyway.

I had not realized, however, that at least for 9.5% of children in the  Texas public school system, this was being mixed with even more fun (and illegal) religious indoctrination, with questions in the curriculum like:

"Things to Look For In a Mate:

How They Relate to God
A. Is Jesus their first love?
B. Trying to impress people or serve God?

<lj-cut>
...
F. Attitude
    1. Willing to obey God, or hesitate to obey
    2. Humility - willing to accept correction, put other first (Phil 2:3)
    3. Industrious - Proverbs 31:17

Question: What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?
Answer: Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage/premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20, Romans 1:29, [and a bunch of other Biblical citations, all interestingly from the New Testament.)

Question: Are we supposed to be actively looking for a spouse, or waiting for God to bring a spouse to us?

Question: Is this person [potential mate] a Christian, meaning has she or he been born again? God tells us, as believers, not to become unequally yoked by marrying an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:14-15), because those living in the light (of Christ) and those living in darkness cannot live in harmony.

From the "Wonderful Days" program, used in 3 school districts in the Fort Worth area:

"You will be amazed when the "sperm" of His Spirit connects with the "ovum/egg" of your spirit and you become a "new person" with His character. How? Read about it in your Bible: (NT passages cited.)

</lj-cut>

Comments

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

The relevant organization is trying to raise awareness, but there are no lawsuits with standing yet that I know of.

[cerebralpaladin.livejournal.com]

You may not be using standing in the technical sense, but establishing standing should not be very difficult. A suit by a custodial parent along with a child who attends the relevant school would fairly clearly meet the test for standing. A suit by a taxpayer within the relevant school district might also have standing, but why borrow trouble when you can get clear standing with a different set of plaintiffs?

It is kinda weird, though-- getting these struck down would be like shooting fish in a barrel, even in the Fifth Circuit, and attorneys' fees would be available. In light of that, it's surprising nobody has sued (although the social consequences of doing so might be severe.)

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

In a non-lawyerly way, this was my first thought as well. What it does more than anything else is make me worry about the authenticity of the source. I mean I'm sure that some school districts in Texas are pulling stunts, but 10% of the kids, in districts that hillarygayle says are not amongst the most conservative? It's just so easy to pick on Texas, and things like this have turned out to be hoaxes before.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

If you see above, jab2 vouches for the source - and it seems very well documented and done by reliable university professor researchers. It's not that easy to get someone who wants to face the social and logistical consequences of suing, I guess - and it may be percolating through the courts as well. Plus, since sex ed courses are usually optional, I suspect that the districts may have an out by simply saying that non-Christian kids can choose not to take the course.

[julianyap.livejournal.com]

First Amendment standing = easy.