Sex Education Moral Controversy Engulfs America To- Day
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SUMMER 1981 VOL.1 NO.3 $3.00 The Crusade Against Sex Education Moral controversy engulfs America to- day. The so-called moral traditionalists Sex Education are pitted in battle against liberals and libertarians. Many traditionalists Pro: Peter Scales believe that morality is being destroyed by secular humanism, and they have Con:Thomas Szasz launched a crusade to impose on all Americans a moral code grounded in biblical decrees: abortion is murder, homosexuality an abomination, divorce a sin, pornography a crime, and so on. These fundamentalist disciples of vir- tue ignore the fact that millions of their Myths About fellow Christians differ with their literalist interpretation of the Bible — Teenage Pregnancy which has been used in the past to justify various kinds of moral chauvinism, from slavery to the divine right of kings. Religious zealots claim to have a monopoly on virtue. They are working to remove books they consider "Scientific" Creationism noxious from public schools and libraries, to legislate the prohibition of abortion, and to reintroduce prayer in Contradictions of Genesis the public schools. One of the overriding complaints of moral traditionalists is public school sex education. They maintain that a "do your own thing" philosophy is being in- culcated in the schools by a humanist What is Agnosticism? conspiracy — spearheaded by the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SiECUS). Humanists H.J. Blackham are blamed for the high divorce rate, the increase in crime and violence, and the alleged epidemic of teenage pregnan- cies. (Actually, teenage pregnancy has not increased but has been on the decline since 1960. See Dr. Vern The 700 Club's Bullough's article in this issue.) Genuine public debate on moral issues is a sign of a healthy democracy, Anti-Humanist but when it degenerates into name- calling it is counterproductive. Secular "Documentary" humanism is based on ethical prin- ciples. Although humanists are com- mitted to individual moral freedom, they are aware of the need to elevate the (continued on Back Cover) ISSN 0272-0701 SUMMER 1981 VOL. 1 NO.3 EDITORIAL The response to FREE INQUIRY has 1 The Crusade Against Sex Education — Paul Kurtz been overwhelming. We are gratified LETTERS by the many favorable notices in the 3 from Antony Flew, Sidney Hook, Valentin Turchin and others press and by the support from our ARTICLES readers expressed in the hundreds of 6 Sex Education letters we have received. For: Education for Sexuality — Peter Scales We regret that we do not have Against: A Libertarian Critique — Thomas Szasz space to publish all of the excellent 10 Moral Education in a Fundamentalist Climate — Howard Radest articles that have been submitted, 12 Myths About Teenage Pregnancy — Vern Bullough but we continue to welcome con- 14 The New Book Burners — William Ryan tributions from our readers. 18 The Moral Majority: An Immoral Minority — Gerald Larue The Popper/Skinner debate con- 20 Liberalism as the Morality of Freedom — Edward Ericson tinues in this issue, a further demonstration that secular 23 Scientific Creationism: Axioms and Exegesis — Delos McKown humanists have strong and often dis- 28 New Evidence: The Shroud of Turin Is a Forgery — Joe Nickell parate opinions. 31 What is Agnosticism — H.J. Blackham Vern Bullough's article about 34 Reflections on Science and Religion — George Tomashevich teenage pregnancy and Isaac 37 The Struggle for Secular Humanism in Israel — Isaac Hasson Hasson's account of the struggle of TELEVISION secular humanists in Israel we think 38 The 700 Club's Anti-Humanist "Documentary" — Paul Kurtz are very provocative, and as ex- FILM amples of the accelerating controver- 40 Polanski's Tess — Hal Crowther sy over sex education, several BOOKS different points of view are presented. 41 Szasz on Sex Therapists and Educators — Bonnie Bullough We are especially pleased to 42 Alleged "slECus-Humanist Conspiracy" — Lester Kirkendall publish in this issue articles by 43 The Family as Sex Educator — Lee Nisbet Edward Ericson and Howard 45 CLASSIFIED Radest, two leaders of the Ethical Culture movement. The American 46 ON THE BARRICADES Ethical Union, which they represent, has had a longstanding commitment Editor: Paul Kurtz to the ideals of humanist philosophy. Associate Editor: Gordon Stein Contributing Editors: FREE INQUIRY is published quarterly by the Council for Democratic and Secular Lionel Abel, author, critic, SUNY at Buffalo; Paul Beattie, president, Fellowship of Religious Humanism (C0DESH, Inc.), a non-profit Humanists; Jo-Ann Boydston, Director, Dewey Center; Laurence Briskman, lecturer, Edinburgh corporation, 1203 Kensington Ave., Buf- University, Scotland; Hal Crowther, film reviewer; Edd Doerr, managing editor, Church and State; falo, N.Y. 14215. Albert Ellis, director, Institute for Rational Living; Roy P. Fairfield, social scientist, Union Copyright © 1981 by The Council for Graduate School; Joseph Fletcher, theologian, University of Virginia Medical School; Antony Flew, Democratic and Secular Humanism. philosopher, Reading University, England; Sidney Hook, professor emeritus of philosophy, NYU; Subscription rates: $12.00 for one year, Marvin Kohl, philosopher, State University College at Fredonia; Ernest Nagel, professor emeritus of $20.00 for two years, $27.00 for three philosophy, Columbia University; Cable Neuhaus, correspondent; Lee Nisbet, philosopher, Medaille years, $3.00 for single copies. Address sub- College; Howard Radest, director, Ethical Culture Schools; Robert Rimmer, author; William Ryan, scription orders, change of addresses, and free lance reporter, novelist; Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse; V.M. advertising to: FREE INQUIRY, Box 5, Tarkunde, Supreme Court Judge, India; Sherwin Wine, rabbi, founder, Society for Humanistic Judaism Central Park Station, Buffalo, N.Y. 14215. Manuscripts, letters, and editorial inquiries Editorial Associates: should be addressed to: The Editor, FREE H. James Birx; Marvin Bloom; Vern Bullough; James Martin; Steven L. Mitchell; George INQUIRY, Box 5, Central Park Station, Buffalo, N.Y. 14215. All manuscripts Tomashevich; Marvin Zimmerman should be accompanied by three additional Editorial Staff copies. Opinions expressed do not Jean Millholland, necessarily reflect the views of the editors executive secretary; Richard Seymour, manuscript editor; Jane or publisher. Dellinger; Doris Doyle; Victor Culotta; J. Quentin Koren; Patricia Kurtz; Lynette Nisbet; POSTMASTER: Permission to mail at se- Margaret Wells cond class postage rates is pending at Buf- falo, N.Y. Send change of address to: Free Art & Layout: Inquiry, Box 5, Central Park Station, Buf- Gregory Lyde Vigrass, director; Joellen Hamer falo, N.Y. 14215. 2 i er Cultural Freedom, which John Dewey, Nor- man Thomas, and I had organized, as "Fascists and allies of Fascists." In my LETTERS TO THE EDITOR view, the principles of ethical humanism were violated by the many "left-wing" causes Lamont passionately supported over the years. Lamont insisted that he was a fer- Popper/Skinner Debate vent believer in liberalism, democracy, and Sir Karl Popper (FI, Spring 1981) explains to a declaration is generally understood in tolerance, but he continued to support the two reasons why, though he "largely en- the first case as connoting an approval of the Soviet Stalinism. Lately he has been given to dorses the contents of the Secular Humanist meaning or content; and in the second case, occasional references to his "mistakes" Declaration," he nevertheless "cannot sign an approval of the specific formulation as about the Soviet Union, but he has made no it." I fully agree with what Sir Karl says un- well. Of course stubborn differences over the major disavowal. der both of these heads. However, after formulation reveal that differences in mean- In my view Lamont, even more so than some hesitation, I reached the conclusion ing or content are involved. It is clear that, Skinner, lives very comfortably with that I should sign the Declaration — and in objecting to the "tone" of the Declara- violations of the law of contradiction. But did. tion, Sir Karl is also objecting to something the responsibility for the contradictions and Sir Karl's first reason was that you had overstated or understated. The only question confusions is his. I have never resigned from both invited and received the signature of is whether differences over these matters are a worthy cause or a committee merely on someone who Sir Karl and I are both agreed sufficiently substantial to' override agree- the ground that his presence compromised had no business to sign a liberal and ment over other matters he largely endorses. the cause. Both Lamont and I endorsed democratic manifesto. I myself have similar Since the statement as published clearly Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. scruples about the adhesion of my indicates that those who approved it were Professor Skinner has never supported sometimes Calgary colleague Professor Kai endorsing it without agreeing with "all its any totalitarian tyranny. I suspect that, if he Nielsen. As a Chomskyan radical — sup- specific provisions," I am puzzled by the were convinced that such support were en- porting Castro in Cuba, the Muscovite fact that Sir Karl withheld his public en- tailed by his psychological and/or social Communists in Vietnam, and every similar dorsement. I know that some who endorsed principles, he would abandon these prin- cause — Nielsen must, when he signed, have the statement had even stronger differences ciples. I am not a student of Skinner's been construing the word democratic in that than he had with some of its formulations. I, writings, but on the basis of discussion with factitious sense in which the Soviet Occupa- for one, would have been satisfied with the him at the Humanist-Catholic Dialogue I tion Zone describes itself as the German insertion of his rendering of Voltaire's dic- think he suffers more from philosophical Democratic Republic. tum into the text of the Declaration even naivete than from sophisticated deviltry or But, surely, it is no more reasonable to though I am unhappy with the implication inhumanity.