On Fanaticism, Penises and Vaginas
A moralistic organisation (notably Christian, sorry i just had to bring it up), tried to evangelise a cohort of students on the virtues of chastity and the evils of contraceptive sex. Religion in Singapore has reached a new low of conniving effectiveness. Now it is state-endorsed. How soon will it be state-mandated, I ask.
Luckily, Anderson Junior College's students nowadays have as much voice as they have critical minds, and they can see religious jingoism for what it is. What is disturbing is the paucity of administrative sensibilities on the part of the school's (my alma mater, btw) management.
But for those who do not comprehend the students' nor my outrage, the issue of contention is simple: Propagating a message denouncing contraceptive sex is incredibly irresponsible. And if they are to suggest that such a statement can be made without references to religion, they are being very dishonest as well. There is no secular reason to denounce contraception. On the contrary, humanistic sensibilities dictate that we protect ourselves and each other as much as possible in any way we can. And this obviously includes protecting ourselves during sexual contact.
How sexual contact, however fleeting or wedlocked, can be secularly connoted as immoral is another moralistic puzzle that I cannot understand. Why is sex inherently bad? Because a book of dubious origins says so? Because your god told you, personally? Because you don't like it? Not to say that I encourage nubile young pre-university students to go forth and frolic, but what I am calling to question is our curious presumptions of morality on the basis of religion when we brazenly declare ourselves to be a secular society. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "SEX IS INHERENTLY GOOD", what I am asking is "WHY IS IT BAD?". From what basis of rational belief can we come to a conclusion that sex is inherently bad, even if it does not involve procreation?
But the more pressing issue at hand is the students of AJC. I shudder to think that some impressionable couples of sweethearts may actually take their message to heart and decide to themselves that their love is true and thus protection is optional. Well to be fair, pregnancy is not inherently bad either, but I am sure most of us can put forth a very good argument of how the teenage variety is not such a good idea.
Students cry foul over sexuality workshop that pushed these messages
The Straits Times
By Jeremy Au Yong
Jan 29, 2006
A SEXUALITY workshop at Anderson Junior College a week ago sparked an uproar after some participants complained about it online and to the school.
The four-hour workshop run by church-based group Family Life Society irked some of its participants when it put down contraceptive sex and rejected abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. The entire second year cohort of the college attended the talk.
A handful of students posted complaints on their blogs, another started a thread in an online forum and one even wrote directly to the organisation. The forum attracted some 120 comments in six days while a posting on blog bulletin Tomorrow.sg was read by nearly 700 people.
One student griped that the workbook they were given seemed to promote the organisation's beliefs rather than present facts.
The student, who declined to be named and goes simply by his online moniker Cygig, started the active thread on the online forum at www.spug.net
He said in one posting: 'It seemed like I was being brainwashed.'
His schoolmate, Tay Wei Kiat, said: 'They did not clearly state the source of their opinions and instead attempted to spread their beliefs to everyone attending the workshop by asking everyone, regardless of their individual beliefs or religion, to write down things like 'I must condemn masturbation and in-vitro fertilisation'.'
They admitted that large parts of the programme - which focused on goal-setting and abstinence - were fine. Their beef was with isolated statements.
For example, the programme workbook had this to say about contraception: 'The sterilised sexual act is not much different in its meaning from an act of mutual masturbation whereby the couple seeks to use each other (their bodies) to derive sexual pleasure.'
Another section listed 'adult instead of embryonic stem-cell research' alongside 'absolute respect for life' and 'life is a gift' as things to 'promote, protect and cherish'.
According to Mrs Woo Soo Min, vice-principal of Anderson Junior College, the school had also received feedback that mirrored the views expressed online.
She explained that the Family Life Society was chosen because 'it focused on abstinence and approached the topic using one's values and beliefs as the basis', but conceded that the tone might not have been suitable.
However, she stressed: 'The content raised merely represents a certain viewpoint and we see our role as educating and exposing students to a range of viewpoints.' She would not say if the school would get the group to conduct further talks.
Under Ministry of Education guidelines, schools are expected to provide eight hours of sexuality education to upper secondary students and four hours to tertiary students. However, many schools are going above and beyond the time requirements - often engaging external vendors to do so.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, Family Life Society defended its programme, saying that it never imposed any ideas on the students and had kept its content entirely secular.
'I don't see how it would work otherwise,' said Mr Andrew Kong, a senior executive in the society. 'Even I would be put off if someone tried to tell me these things while quoting from a religion.' He added that while some parts may have been 'moralistic', they were never 'religious'.
He also said that every talk kicks off with a disclaimer.
'We tell them every time that whatever views they don't agree with, they don't have to accept. In one ear and out the other.'
Indeed, not everyone who attended the talk took issue with it.
Jane Wu, 18, said: 'I did not agree with everything that was said, but I don't necessarily mind sitting there listening to it.'
Four other schools which had engaged Family Life Society to speak to their students - Hai Seng Catholic School, Orchid Park Secondary, Westwood Secondary and Bukit Batok Secondary - received no complaints.
Other groups conducting similar classes - Focus on the Family, A Life and Synergy Coaching - said they do not go so far as to bring up morality.
Mr Jay Abdul Rahman, 35, chief coach at Synergy Coaching, said: 'From the start I make it clear that I am approaching it from just a secular point of view. I may be Muslim but if a student asks me about masturbation, I will tell him it's natural.'
He added: 'I think the best way is not to try to shove the message down their throats. We should just equip them with enough information for them to make the choice for themselves.'
posted by Danielboy @ 6:45 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home