The devil is in the details. Yet another letter on the PCC Sex Ed issue manages to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the issue.
In “Lies about sex, public school, and the PCC,” (Gazette, Aug. 1) Ms Taylor says that in “Say no to religious zealots in schools” I presuppose that all Christians must be “religious zealots” – and goes on to suggest that my accusations border on – religious discrimination.
Take a breath. Firstly, I have NEVER said such a thing (please show me a single quote of mine where I have). The heading and term “religious zealots” was added by the Gazette and were not my words – so please don't attribute them to me or attack me for them.
But this isn't the only misrepresentation or twisting of the situation that Ms Taylor engages in. Claiming that the religious beliefs of teachers are an issue is a patently untrue and absurd argument. And Ms Turner's (and others) attempt to frame any perspective that is not the PCC’s “Let's Wait” view as somehow promoting casual sex and promiscuity is not only inaccurate, but also flat out dishonest. Nobody is suggesting such a thing and it is ridiculous to suggest that anybody is.
There are three key, straightforward issues.
Firstly, when you focus too heavily on “abstinence” you ultimately create negative results (the ones you were actually trying to prevent). And this IS an abstinence oriented organization and program.
Secondly, the PCC is an “evangelical” organization. ANY organization with an evangelical agenda (especially a theologically driven one) should not be in a public school in a teaching capacity – including if it is an evangelical atheist organization!
Thirdly, the PCC has, or is officially aligned with other organizations with perspectives and agendas completely unacceptable in a public education environment – these include anti-choice, anti-contraception, anti-abortion / anti-RU-486, “morning after” etc., anti-gay, anti-gay marriage. Any organization with these views, or officially aligned with such organizations should not be involved in the teaching of classes in the public education system.
To be clear, this isn't an “anti-religion” issue and any attempt to misframe it as such is a failure to comprehend nuance. Further, it is factually incorrect to conflate secular concepts with, or as “anti-religion” – a point the Supreme Court of Canada was recently very specific about.
This is simply about ensuring that our children get the most accurate information delivered from a perspective that produces the most desirable outcomes – and that this classroom education is delivered through organizations whose goals and beliefs are aligned with the general public, our laws and our expectations.
Lastly, every single word and every single letter I have written is accurate and verifiably factually correct. I would be happy to provide sources for any statement either in print or in person at church or school board meetings.
Luke Fevin, St. Albert
