Protecting the Young

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27825

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.

I like Keyes generally but he seems( correct me if I'm wrong) to be suggesting expanding the government "for the children" here. When I hear "for the children" i get pretty suspicious( I do support child abuse laws of course no drunken parent with anger management problems should be able to beat the crap outta their kids for no reason but otherwise...).

Very good and informative article. I believe anyone who has raised a child, taught a child, seen a child or been a child knows that from the age of approximately six to approximately twelve, a treasure is very much present that increases in value month by month, year by year. I believe the experts call it a "latency period." It is during latency that the mental forces are built up which are later to impede the base of sexual instinct. These mental forces include feelings of disgust, shame and formation of moral ideas. Although these mental barriers are inborn; to be effective later in life they must be strengthened during latency. Sex education given to six to twelve-year-old students interferes with proper sexual maturation by keeping sexual impulses stirred up, disrupting both sexual growth and personal and cultural achievements. The six to twelve-year-old student who has not been sexually disturbed is normally a most responsive individual and probably among the least likely to be involved in sociopathic behavior.

In short, sex education taught to children during this latency period is like taking a vehicle straight from the showroom to the motorway, leaving it in the charge of one who has studied a general handbook but has no driving experience.

I wonder if he'll be running for president again. This is the type of message I thought Bush would send because he 'said' he had Christian values. Instead, he threw money at the public schools, hired sodomites, and did nothing to stop the outrage of PP.
In other words, I, my spouce, church, and various friends are chosing another to vote for in 2004 (if there's anyone worth voting for by then). So far, Keyes/good, Bush/bad.
I'd like to see Keyes run again.

Wait a minute! Exactly when did G. Bush hire a bunch
of 'sodomites'? I do know he hired a few gay people
for positions that had nothing to do directly with chiildren!
Also , when did he help the PP? If I remember right,
after he was innaugurated, he brought back R. Reagan's
Mexico City Policy. Didn't that have something to do with
not giving money for family planning orgs. if they counseled,
or supplied abortions.

When did he give money and support to PP? If so, where is
all the love and support for him, that B. Clinton got from PP?
In case you hadn't noticed, a lot of this has to go through
Congress. Also , it couldn't have escaped your notice that our
Congress isn't just made up of strong conservatives. I think you
need to go back and study this a little more, and come and tell
me just how G. Bush was supposed to get very many conservative
policies through with the Senate being led by extreme liberal
Democrats!

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.