Sex education in schools

Press, 10 August 1985, Page 18

Sex education in schools

Sir,—Your correspondent, E. R. L. Wilson, demonstrates that he has absolutely no idea why “opponents to health (sex) education in schools . . .” (sic) are so concerned. Anyone who can seriously suggest that guilt is the opposite of innocence in respect of children and in the context the word has been used would be better employed learning the language. He is equally adrift in imagining that knowledge has a lot to do with wisdom. However much a child (or an adult) is loaded up with “knowledge” it is of precious little use without a measure of wisdom to determine the proper use of that knowledge, however it is acquired. Often, premature knowledge can lead to disaster. Presumably, a young child could be taught to fire a machine gun. I would not like to be in the same vicinity if he got his hands on a Vickers. — Yours, etc., J. V. PIERSON. August 5, 1985. Sir,—John Dobson is probably sincere, but people can be sincerely wrong (“The Press,” August 1). I too was reared as a conventional Anglican and was sincere when I made a convenant with God to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil. My position is not changed, and I am committed to expose falsehood of both the Left-wing humanist type, as well as the Right-wing fascist type. John Dobson is wrong on two counts, in accusing me of being Right wing, and of trying to impose my values on society. If he is still a conventional Anglican, he is required, as are all Anglicans, to warn people that God says all sexual immorality, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc., is unacceptable conduct and that such people who defy God’s laws and persist in such practices (and others) will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Like Jim Walshe, John Dobson is challenging God’s wisdom with the wisdom of man. I remain under obligation to bow my will and wisdom to the authority of God. — Yours, etc., NEVILLE M. RUSH. August 1, 1985.