First...

A few quotes. From paragraph six: “For example, we are now told that concern for sexual abstinence is just another imposition of a Christian morality. Planned Parenthood and the proponents of teenage sexual activity oppose abstinence-based sex education as "inherently religious." That is, the only arguments against teenage sexual promiscuity are based on religious convictions--which are forbidden grounds for public consideration.”
I hate this whole paragraph. I hate it when people use phrases like ‘we are now told.’ Told by whom? Three things are implied here: the source has, or arrogantly assumes it has, the authority to make such statements; it is widely heeded although it lacks moral credibility; thus it places people like the writer in the position of victim. I hate it when people play victim. And ‘proponents of teenage sexual activity?’ I guess if you think that abstinence is the only way to go, you might say that someone suggesting birth control was opposing abstinence (even though the two aren’t mutually exclusive), and if he’s opposing abstinence then he must support promiscuity. This is the same logic that says if I am not fully opposed to abortion rights then I must be in favor of people having abortions. You know what? I hate that.
The rest of the article uses the sex-ed example as well, to argue that any idea that smacks of religion is automatically ruled out. I’m sure there are people out there who would like God and faith to vanish completely from public discourse, and probably some of them are sounding off in the sex-ed debate, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. However the sense of victimization is so pervasive in this article that I can’t help thinking the writer is magnifying the problem and ignoring other possible motives; in this case, that teaching abstinence to young people is a fine idea but may not be completely effective, so let’s have a backup plan (I know, saying ‘abstain, but if you absolutely can’t abstain, put one of these on’ sounds like giving up on plan A straight off, but …).
Since the article is about morality’s dependence on god, not sex education, I won’t belabor that point.

- posted by Dactyl @ 9:36 AM