Chad Schuldt, who is on of Steve Hildebrand’s paid bloggers, has been attacking those parents who have taken issue with the Sioux Falls Middle School’s sex education programs. He has called them Fundies and prudish. Apparently Schuldt thinks you are prudish unless you think it is OK for High School students to have sexual activity in the back of a bus after a football games. Steve Hemmingsen said this about that Sioux Falls High Schools incident:
Sex education seems to be viewed as a "how to" manual.
Then today Schuldt made this statement in regard to what he called the position of the Catholic Diocese on the sex education program:
I think the Catholic Church would be spending their time a little better if they focused more on their sexual perversion problems rather than casting stones.
Schuldt received this comment in response:
Greetings in Christ! I am the priest who made the above statement and I just wanted to point out a few things. First of all that statement is from me, not the Diocese of Sioux Falls. It was/is a personal statement from an individual, not a statement made on behalf of the entire diocese.
Secondly, the issue of sex education and the priest abuse scandal are two different things. I abhor the fact that priests have abused children. It is a shame and needs to be corrected. But this too needs to be corrected. Educating a generation of children to accept immorality as normal will help nobody, it will only make the widespread sexual perversions that we see spreading in our world, on our tv's and on the internet worse. I hope you have the intelligence to see that these issues are not the same. I believe in logic class we called this the fallacy of false analogy.
To which Schuldt said
I am glad you have made your position on the rampant problem of priests sexually abusing boys and girls clear. It is a serious problem, and it is my hope you will use your position of authority to call the Catholic Church to take serious efforts to remove priests who engage in sexual activities with children -- and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law -- rather than just moving them to a new dicoese like they have done in the past.
That being said, you are correct that this is a fallacy of false analogy. I just find it odd that you would be focused on the sex ed curriculum of a public school when there are much larger problems for you to worry about in your own Church.
Even that all aside, I think it is important to realize that what I said in the original post -- that your rhetoric is baseless and is what causes people to so easily dismiss organized religion -- using words like "educate children straight into hell" or from your comment "educating a generation of children to accept immorality" is just that; rhetoric.
I think we all know that the Sioux Falls Public Schools aren't "educating a generation of children to accept immorality" or "educating children straight into hell".
But go ahead, keep up the rhetoric. But by this kind of rhetoric, you greatly underestimate the intelligence of the people of Sioux Falls.
We should not be surprised to see a partisan Democrat use such a disrespectful tone toward a Priest. No wonder they get defensive when called anti-religion. Schuldt only needs to look at the incident involving the Roosevelt High School football trip for evidence of the Sioux Falls Public Schools "educating a generation of children to accept immorality". Even Steve Hemmingsen is smart enough to figure that out. And Schuldt only needs to look at the large number of Middle School teachers being prosecuted for having sex with their students to understand that the ‘mainstream’ does not approve of sending their children into such immoral environments.
What Schuldt demonstrates is the hatred the far-left has with religion. They believe religion is conservative. They believe conservative parents deserve to have their values undermined through their children while attending government schools. This is evident from the web site of Planned Parenthood, which states:
Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest challenges to the nation's sexual health. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the "family values" movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students' constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual health information in class, at the school library, and through the public library's Internet portals. They violate students' free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. Abstinence-only programs often promote alarmist misinformation about sexual health and force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception. In doing so, they endanger students' sexual health.
What we have here is the far-left using the government schools to undermine conservatives, and so-called sex education is one of the far-left’s propaganda tools designed to turn children of conservative parents against the parents and their religious and family values. They argue that the children’s nonexistent Constitutional rights to sex overrides the parents’ Constitutional right to freedom of religion, in the same fashion that they argue a women’s nonexistent Constitutional right to privacy overrides an unborn’s Constitutional equal protection to it’s right to life.
The White around the Collar web site’s post on sex education was right on point with this statement:
This material minimizes the role of the parents in educating our children about sex, and undermines the parent-child relationship.
The Planned Parenthood statement confirms that this is part of the agenda. You don’t have to be prudish to think that this is a problem. You only have to be pro-family, which is something Chad Schuldt and the far-left of the Democrat Party do not understand.
