During the week,Fox news has aired stories ranging from how unethical it is for teaching children as young as 5 years old about human sexuality,the reproductive system,etc, this is physical science,not sex acts,not porn.

Today they aired a story about how the Tea Party is 'reaching out' to this same age group, teaching the US Constitution,making sure these same children will be knowledgeable in the ways of government.These kids can't vote,they won't be able to vote for 10+ years.. but they will be sexually active within the next 5.

What is the direction these 2 areas are going?

We can't teach sexuality(the view shared by the news),yet we can teach the Constitution,to 5 YEAR OLDS!:eek:

What influences are we really encouraging?

Not that these are similar,or different, they are simply 2 stories I have picked for discussion.

Let's teach our kids not to have unprotected sex,be safe,be responsible for the acts we have with our partners... BUT... do it in a way that the (now 234 year old) constitution says we should do it?:confused:

For the last 10 years my father has had the Declaration of Independence read publicly at our local historic site,we have videos made of this..

The turn-out has grown considerably in the years since it started.

YET!

If I proposed to those attending that we should discuss sexuality, even the same sex sexuality issues of today, hmm, that would send the entire community packing.(and the ears of the kids covered quickly by the conservative public, taboo for open discussion)

Sexuality has been a 'quiet' issue in the US for as long as I can remember,in school,I believe it was the 7th grade,we were first 'taught' reproduction, that was '78 for me.I was 12:rolleyes:

Yes,even I can see a problem with teaching kids at 5 years old about certain things regarding sexuality.I also see problems with teaching them how the influential adults they are supposed to trust, teaching them politics at age 5.

Are they really different issues?

I have a 5 year old. It's not the time for human sexuality nor politics. Seriously what schools are doing this??

I have a 5 year old. It's not the time for human sexuality nor politics. Seriously what schools are doing this???

I've been teaching in the public education system for awhile and I'd like to know the same thing.

Any schools that would conduct such a program would be very much a minority.
You'd be hard-pressed to find the majority of parents giving permission for this and that is what would be required.

How would the Tea Party being teaching to five year olds in schools? What is presented to most five year olds in social studies would be along the lines of community helpers, being a good citizen (as in how neighbors help each other, taking care of the environment with things such as not wasting water or littering), some info about becoming the President, some basic geography, getting along with others, different cultural celebrations and festivals, etc..

It sounds more like Fox is trying to get things stirred up by picking up on some obscure situation and trying to make it sound as though it is a national campaign. Typical media hype.

If they want to teach them about the constitution doesn't that mean they will learn about their rights which as far as I'm aware they will be using

Isn't it basically teaching them what they can and can't do from an early age which isn't really a bad thing

I am liking all this input so far, The school teaching the sexuality based issues is in California(if I remember correctly),and the teaching of the US constitution was just aired this AM.Not sure where that is happening.

Hello, K:

Here's where I see the two issues intersecting. Kids should learn that they have the RIGHT to say NO to ANYONE who wants to do CERTAIN things to them. That would include taking their clothes off for a relative who wants to see their wares, or for a school administrator who wants to search them...

excon

Hello, K:

Here's where I see the two issues intersecting. Kids should learn that they have the RIGHT to say NO to ANYONE who wants to do CERTAIN things to them. That would include taking their clothes off for a relative who wants to see their wares, or for a school administrator who wants to search them...

excon

That is from a legal and moral standpoint pertaining to sexuality, can't say much for the constitution teaching there though.

What is a 5 year old really going to learn about either issue, like the teachers and new mothers have added, 5 year olds are just simply too young,too suggestible,and probably won't even retain things other than the shock value of one or 2 items offered them.

Let the kids BE kids.

.
It sounds more like Fox is trying to get things stirred up by picking up on some obscure situation and trying to make it sound as though it is a national campaign. Typical media hype.

How better to stir up the public(either the ire or radical interests),than through the media?

They(the Tea Party) have added commercials to children's programs ,at children's mentalities,to insure their views are expressed to the kids, that's quite a stretch,kids being targeted by ANY political faction?

Who is reaching for what here?

Are our kids going to turn on their country?(Children of the corn ring any bells here?)

I could see high schoolers watching O'Reilly for a homework assignment,seen that here,out in the boonies.But to target preteens and juveniles with political adds between the (now very settled,non violent cartoons) with political agendas?Views from a party who,yes,might open the kids eyes to the possible future of the USA's political movement,it seems like early Big Brother to me.

How better to stir up the public(either the ire or radical interests),than through the media?

They(the Tea Party) have added commercials to children's programs ,at children's mentalities,to insure their views are expressed to the kids,,that's quite a stretch,kids being targeted by ANY political faction??

Who is reaching for what here?

Are our kids going to turn on their country?(Children of the corn ring any bells here?)

I could see high schoolers watching O'Reilly for a homework assignment,seen that here,out in the boonies.But to target preteens and juveniles with political adds between the (now very settled,non violent cartoons) with political agendas?Views from a party who,yes,might open the kids eyes to the possible future of the USA's political movement,it seems like early Big Brother to me.

Fox News is a joke, no one should be getting their news from there.

How better to stir up the public(either the ire or radical interests),than through the media?

They(the Tea Party) have added commercials to children's programs ,at children's mentalities,to insure their views are expressed to the kids,,that's quite a stretch,kids being targeted by ANY political faction??



I'll have to wait until I see any of them show up before I can form an opinion. Politics filtering into the arena of children isn't new however and generally tends to have more of a pro-america stance than any sort of fervent partisan view.

Fox News is a joke, no one should be getting their news from there.

Unfortunately, those in the Boyhood hometown of Ronald Reagen have a big interest in the Fox News station.

In order to be a part of the society I am now living in(IE:customer base,even competition for the work I do,much less the neighbors),one needs to know what they see,how to approach a discussion.etc.

I am the devils advocate in some of the discussions,and the quiet one,listening to the rhetoric being spread by the radicals.The Rush Limbaugh listeners(of which my father is),I have to have ammunition to fight back the lies and blinding untruths thrown out by him and his listeners.

I tend to not take much of a political stance.NO side has been acceptable to me,no politician has been without agenda which I find gut wrenching and an extreme turn-off.I have no friends in politics.

Yet I do live in the real world,I do have customers, acquaintances,people I need to connect with, schmooze on occasion.Knowing what THEY are endorsing,what they discuss,what they stand up for,and have my own views... that is necessary for me to have.

The sexuality teachings will turn some of them aside,that is too liberal for them to discuss in the open.BUT the politics of teaching 5 year olds the Tea Party agenda, why,that can make for weeks of discussion which opens doors(and closes others),but mainly opens doors for further conversation,further contact with potential income,, for me and my company.. my own personal agenda.Same as this thread does on AMHD..

On another posting Excon complained that children were being denied a decent civics education. I agree with him.

Sexuality on the other hand is best left at home with the exceptions of the caveats that Excon identified in his reply.

Fox News is a joke, no one should be getting their news from there.

Where should they get their news? Hmm??

I can't really comment on the Fox news stories because all I know about them is your description and NK's blanket condemnation of FNC. I see no link to articles or videos so what are we supposed to be evaluating here?

You say "this is physical science,not sex acts,not porn." I don't know what it is, but I do know that Planned Parenthood is the largest force behind the initiative and the curriculum to both teach "comprehensive sex education" beginning in Kindergarten, and promoting "reproductive freedom" for kids, regardless of the parents wishes. I object strenuously to that, it is as Tom said best left at home with the same caveats he mentioned.

I don't know anything about the Tea Party "reaching out" on the constitution, but I see nothing about any Tea Party school curriculum for 5-year-olds being taught in schools so I don't know why we're even comparing the two.

Naturally,I was not 100% on top of this 'story'.

No,I didn't research any links,no blow by blow reporting, I am simply stating my observations of the news.

What was I looking for?

Input from anyone who understands words.(without links,without guides to ease their lives,etc)

What I have written wasn't up to internet standards,I realize that, sorry for making a post where the crossing of the t's and dotting of I's is now a standard.

For those who can do the ancient art of DISCUSSION,perhaps you all can add what your perspectives are with this information offered in the archaic means I offered.

If not,perhaps I can offer this link:::::::: FOXNews.com - Health Watchdog Wants More Sex-Ed for Children (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/06/17/health-watchdog-wants-sex-ed-children/)

Naturally you don't see the 90-180 second interview where the actual 'news' is found, only the words posted.

The Tea party link perhaps later when I return from working.:)

Hello again, K:

I thought you wanted comments on sex education and civics for 5 year olds... Now, you want a comment on FOX. Ok, FOX is the public relations arm of the Republican party. Their designation as a news organization is a fraud, and their license should be suspended.

excon

Now, you want a comment on FOX. Ok, FOX is the public relations arm of the Republican party. Their designation as a news organization is a fraud, and their license should be suspended

As opposed to what, MSNBC? I thought you didn't drink the Koolaid, ex.

As opposed to what, MSNBC? I thought you didn't drink the Koolaid, ex.Hello Steve:

I figured somebody would say that... If you'll read my post carefully, I said that FOX NEWS designation as a NEWS organization, is a FRAUD. MSNBC, on the other hand, doesn't bill itself as a NEWS organization. It's the "Place for Politics"... That isn't a MINOR difference. It's actually kind of BIG.

One is telling the truth. One is lying. The one who's LYING should have their license revoked. Ain't no more difficult than that, Steve.

excon

For those who can do the ancient art of DISCUSSION,perhaps you all can add what your perspectives are with this information offered in the archaic means I offered.

KBC, I can engage in the ancient art of discussion, which is what I did on the sex ed portion. Planned Parenthood has advocated exactly what I said for many years. The terms I used in quotes are their terms and it's been discussed here at length many times, so that's easy to discuss.

On the flip side, any time Fox News and the Tea Party are the topic, knees start jerking. I need context.

Hello Steve:

I figured somebody would say that... If you'll read my post carefully, I said that FOX NEWS designation as a NEWS organization, is a FRAUD. MSNBC, on the other hand, doesn't bill itself as a NEWS organization. It's the "Place for Politics"... That isn't a MINOR difference. It's actually kind of BIG.

One is telling the truth. One is lying. The one who's LYING should have their license revoked. Ain't no more difficult than that, Steve.

Excon

Aren't you glad you have me to keep you on your toes? When I Google MSNBC this is what's returned:


Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports...

Sep 21, 2010... Msnbc.com is a leader in breaking news, video and original journalism. Stay current with daily news updates in health, entertainment,.

Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/) - Cached - Similar

So that's the website, clearly a "leader" in news, according to them. How about the brand as a whole (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32273635)?


The Msnbc Digital Network is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver the most compelling, diverse and visually engaging stories on your platform of choice. The world-class brands featured in the digital network include msnbc.com, TODAY, NBC Nightly News, msnbc TV, NBC Sports, Newsvine, EveryBlock and BreakingNews.com. We provide something for every news consumer with our comprehensive offerings that deliver the best in breaking news, original journalism, lifestyle features, commentary and local updates down to the block level.

"The place for politics" is a slogan, that's all. They are no more or less a "news" organization than Fox, and I'd say MORE biased. Like I said, I thought you didn't drink the Koolaid.

They all have their slant... people tend to gravitate to whichever news organization "speaks" to them; that they feel aligns most with their way of thinking.

Partake in a cross-section of media outlets, both nationally and internationally, and you will see biases abound.

It is left up to the individual to do their own research on various topics to obtain the complete story much of the time.

To add my two cents:

Yesterday (or maybe the day before) my 17-year old complained that I had "ruined" pornography for her because we didn't turn it off when she came into the room as a 3-5 year old. She now finds it boring. I could only think "my work is done."

If teaching little kids civics does the same thing, I agree that's not good. But perusing the texts and syllabi of my daughter's high school curriculum, I don't find any civics at all, so when should she have learned how her country works?

Yesterday (or maybe the day before) my 17-year old complained that I had "ruined" pornography for her because we didn't turn it off when she came into the room as a 3-5 year old. She now finds it boring. I could only think "my work is done."So... show pornography to 3 - 5 year olds is your recommendation for parenting? We certainly have different parenting styles.

So... show pornography to 3 - 5 year olds is your recommendation for parenting? We certainly have different parenting styles.

Beats Freddy Kruger movies, like so many parents allow toddlers to watch.

Beats Freddy Kruger movies, like so many parents allow toddlers to watch.Oddly enough I do neither.

Oddly enough I do neither.

Aren't we a pair of odd ducks, then.

See the amazing amount of diversity between even the few of us?

Where are the tea Party people who believe in this 5 year old teaching of politics?

See the amazing amount of diversity between even the few of us?

Where are the tea Party people who believe in this 5 year old teaching of politics?

I don't think you will find many, at least not in the fashion the media may have made it sound was happening. Children are indoctrinated on a regular basis, but in regard to civics, a five year old is only going to understand what pertains to them... getting along with others, accepting differences, being a good helper in their family and community, etc..
Again, I think it was more media hype to try and get things stirred up... much ado about nothing.

You changed the terms of the discussion. In the OP you mentioned teaching the US Constitution,making sure these same children will be knowledgeable in the ways of government.
But now you talk about teaching them politcs. It is not the same thing.
There was a time when we were given basic civics education as early as 5 years old. Little things like the Pledge of Allegiance ,singing traditional Patriotic songs were all part of our training .
I honestly don't see why there would be an objection to that ;whereas I see that there would be plenty objection to some of the sex-ed that get's proposed for elementary school age students.

Sorry,but in my world,there is NO difference to politics(Tea Party agendas,Republican agendas, Democrats agendas, and THEIR interpretation of the Constitution),, it's ALL politics... no spin.

None of this ,"What is the definition of is"No word games,no change of venues.

The Newspapers can print anything under the ?First amendment, Freedom of Speech?The NRA can have the Freedom to bare arms under ?The second? Or third? (I care little for who claims what to serve their purposes, it's all politics.)

Now take these agendas to the 5 year old.What is ANY party teaching 5 year old children,other than THEIR agenda?Not a unification process,not something to bring your neighbor closer to you, if your parents are democrats and the neighborhood is republicans,plus now throw in a 'middle of the road' Tea partier who doesn't have ties between ANY party,then a few green party, Independence party,liberals,conservatives, outspoken Rush Limbaugh fans,Charles Groden listeners, Hollywood actors guild sympathizers...

I think you are to begin to understand my views,, on politics.

Now add sex education to ALL those 'parties' above.

How about Gun control.

Marijuana legalization.

Immigration reform.

Election reform.

Military spending.

Etc,etc,etc... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

No,there is no difference in the constitution of the USA and politics,there can not be one without the other.

No spin... there is a fundamental difference between politics and civics . You can look it up.

How close are the 'grey lines' between those 2?

How many shades of grey are there also?

Black and white..

I don't see where teaching children rights ,duties ,what it means to be a citizen ,or appreciation of the country is a political act. Teaching them the basics on how the government functions (in theory ) is non-political .

I assure you that it is the lack of civics education that leads to many of the political battles today. The ONLY thing that binds us together as a nation is a common understanding of what it means to be an American. When we lose that ,the nation moves dangerous towards fracture.

We believe the people are sovereign ,and that makes it imperitive that the people become engaged in the body politic and knowlegable of what it means to be sovereign . That is why civic lessons are essential . The earlier the better.

Why not teach civics to 5-yr-olds, some are already labeling 3-yr-olds as bigots so why not?

Three-year-olds being labelled bigots by teachers as 250,000 children accused of racism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314438/3-year-olds-labelled-bigots-teachers-250k-children-accused-racism.html?ITO=1490#ixzz10OOS8ToF)

Hi everyone.

Admittedly I'm not very versed in politics, also, I'm in Canada, so I'm even less versed in US politics, or US news stations.

I would however like to voice my opinion, but sadly I cannot really comment on the political portion of this thread. I've never studied the US constitution in detail, because it really doesn't affect me.

In Canada sex ed starts in grade 6. They get the standard "this is what your body is going through, this is what will start happening, here's some deodorant, a pamphlet, go home and talk to mom and dad about it", class.

The pamphlet discussed growth, puberty, changes, but not sex.

In grade 7 the sex talk starts. It's the basics, egg meets sperm, baby in 9 months talk. More of a biology lesson than a sex talk, but more involved. This lesson continues through to around grade 9 (unless they've changed it), at which time kids (with parents permission) are taught the use of a condom, that waiting is best but... if you're going to do it, protect yourself. This was what my education entailed, and I went to a Catholic school. Just fyi. :)

By the time they're in high school they know that having sex won't make your leg muscles change and make you walk funny (a question asked by a 23 year old on AMHD), nor will boys die if they don't have sex every day. They're prepared as well enough that I feel confident that they could get by, and any further questions are directed to the parents, if the parents are up to it.

I'm not one of those parents that have left sex ed up to the schools. Although my children will be taught the basics, I am very much a part of it. I've left sex ed up to my kids in a lot of ways. When they ask, that's when I tell. My son (12) is starting to ask more in depth questions, unlike the "where do babies come from" questions he asked when he was 8.

What am I trying to say? At age 5 they shouldn't be taught sex ed, nor should they have to worry about politics. Learning how their government works is important, but at the age of 5 they really should be learning how school works, that you shouldn't pee in the hamster cage at school, that biting fellow students isn't nice, and to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. They're too young to have to worry about things that they don't yet need to know.

At age 5 they shouldn't be taught sex ed, nor should they have to worry about politics. Learning how their government works is important, but at the age of 5 they really should be learning how school works, that you shouldn't pee in the hamster cage at school, that biting fellow students isn't nice, and to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. They're too young to have to worry about things that they don't yet need to know.

True enough. How old were they when they first tried to sing "Oh Canada" or "God Save the Queen?" That's the level of civics education we're discussing.

As far as Sex Ed goes, quips about porn aside, we have always made it a point to answer our kids' questions as fully and completely as we could. We never put off the answer with "when you're older" nor did we ever lie. The only time they were smacked was for lying. Twice each in their lives.

True enough. How old were they when they first tried to sing "Oh Canada" or "God Save the Queen?" That's the level of civics education we're discussing.

As far as Sex Ed goes, quips about porn aside, we have always made it a point to answer our kids' questions as fully and completely as we could. We never put off the answer with "when you're older" nor did we ever lie. The only time they were smacked was for lying. Twice each in their lives.

Oh Canada was taught in kindergarten, but not sung every day. God save the Queen, I don't think I've heard it. I know they haven't learned it. What I find amusing is that they say the Lords prayer every day, but it's a public school. :rolleyes:

I have toned down my sex talks with the kids depending on how old they are. When 6 year old Syd asked how babies are made, I gave her the PG version.

At age 8 she now knows all the ins and outs (no pun intended) of how babies are made, because she asked. What I find really funny is that she recently told the 13 year old boy in our neighborhood that he was wrong, not all birth control is effective. She told him that no sex is best because any sex can lead to a baby. Not in those exact words, but she got her point across, and I'm proud that she knows this. Would she know it if she hadn't asked, eventually, but probably not at age 8. She's an inquisitive little girl. I refuse to lie to her.

Heck, I refuse to lie so much that sadly, when she asked me last year whether Santa is real, I told all. :( It sucks! :(

Heck, I refuse to lie so much that sadly, when she asked me last year whether Santa is real, I told all. :( It sucks! :(

Santa is real. He's got a (mostly) white beard and goes by the nickname "Dad."

Santa is real. He's got a (mostly) white beard and goes by the nickname "Dad."

Or mom, depending on the work schedule of dad. ;)

Thank Dog we have 4 rabbits and the kids think they take turns being the Easter bunny. :cool:

"Thank Dog?" :)