I just got this information from Sean Hannity’s radio show, but I dug up some of his documentation so you can read it for yourself.
First of all, take a look at what an Obama spokesperson said about sex education for kindergarteners (see here):
“Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: ‘You can teach a kid about what’s appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there.’ In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.”
But the SIECUS guidelines want kindergarteners to learn more than the difference between a good and a bad touch. For Level 1 (ages 5-8), it recommends that they learn about the names of their body parts, that the parts can feel good when touched, and the “m” word. (Keep in mind that James’ Thoughts and Musings is G-rated). Obama says he doesn’t want the sex ed for kindergarteners to be explicit? This manual says teachers should practically spell out the birds and the bees for their Level 1 students. And it clearly presents homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. This isn’t right-wing exaggeration! Take a look at the report yourself:
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/i…guidelines.pdf
To his credit, the bill Obama supported allows parents to exempt their children from such instruction. But the liberal hypocrisy is evident. When the issue is prayer in school, most liberals aren’t satisfied with simply exempting the atheist or Buddhist kid from a prayer session. They want to take prayer completely out of the public school so that no one is offended. But their policy is quite different when it comes to sex education.
Another note: I think that children should be warned about predators. I was taught about them in my elementary school. But I don’t remember the warning being all that graphic!
James' Ramblings 
What a fuss. From the spokesman’s statement I don’t see the problem. If you want to keep your children safe you have to educate them. In baby language? I don’t think so. Your other link denies access. I don’t believe it presents homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. I’m sure that’s a twisted interpretation of education on sexuality. It is not a choice, it just is, and to be aware of it is slightly more sensible than not. But then I suppose it is the typical right wing reaction.
LikeLike
Here is a favourable assessment of Obama’s education plan from a young Republican NT scholar on the 1st September. He also has a post written on it after this ridiculous fuss over kindergartens, on about 11th September.
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2008/09/monday-editorial-education-in-america.html
LikeLike
But I don’t see where the guy in your link promotes raunchy sex education. He says we should promote character, and I agree. I also think there are good aspects of the SIECUS curriculum that focus on this. But it’s too explicit for kindergarteners.
LikeLike
Raunchy sex education? Do all Republicans over dramatise and exaggerate? Did you read his more recent comment on this current palava?
LikeLike
oh no – not all Republicans are hysterical. Ken Schenk is fairly level headed and conservative.
LikeLike