IN RESPONSE TO ANNIMADICT AND CLARIZE' COMMENTS

Thank you animaddict and Clarize for posting your scholarly responses to my article!
I reviewed my article and with the help of my good friends I came up correcting myself and reasserting the past notions I have implied.
I will first discuss Clarize' comments.
First and foremost, I will admit that I used the broad definition of Reproductive Health Education (see House Bill No. 5043 Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, Lagman et al., PHILIPPINES) as a characterization for "SEX EDUCATION" in my article. I cannot argue that they different, however, I considered the current society's perception of the latest development in the House Bill No. 5043 or Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 where there are echoing debates on the proposal of including "sex education" on the High School curricula. Honestly, what I have written here is a reaction to these debates. I have also cited my personal experience in my high school days where I said 'we were taught only of human sexuality with a limited
notion on the biological nature of sex without addressing any aspect on
the morality of the act and sanctity of sex'. This is the current "sex education" in the Philippines which is optional on educational institutions to place in there respective curricula. I would again say that "sex education" in the Philippines is values-neutral insofar as my experience is concerned.
Secondly, I do not contradict myself. I want to reiterate that sex education must not be taught in High School because the way biology and health teachers teach this kind of education is highly values-neutral and the morality of the sexual acts is hidden. Thank you for citing the study of Dr. Corazon M. Raymundo et al. of the UP Diliman (entitled Unsafe Abortion in the Philippines: A Threat to Public Health ). The study revealed that a high degree (20%) of premarital sex occur on high school students in the Philippines. The study however did not reveal the probable reasons behind this alarming statistics. According to what I have said on the article, the reason for this growing number of premarital sex on high school students is the idiosyncrasy in teaching “sex education”. The unhealthy of way rendering sex education in a non-moral approach inculcates the notion that sex is a mere biological act and is therefore tolerable to perform. High school students are not being trained of the morality and sanctity of the sexual act making them susceptible to experiment and attempt to execute this “biological act”. Moreover, “sex education” must be incorporated with the maturity of the subject individuals. We cannot simply introduce sensitive ideas that are not valued to unprepared minds particularly the current “sex education” we have in this country. It makes sense now that my arguments do conform to my conclusions.
I deeply appreciated the intellectual comments you have submitted. I hope that this will be our venue for further discussion on related issues. Thank you very much!
For the comments of annimadict, I would like to commend her/him for such a good point of information.
I used the word “cautious” to delineate and characterize moral maturity and not of age whatsoever. Age is not a determinant of maturity. “Sex education” in the Philippines, as what I have said earlier, is “values-neutral” and must therefore be associated with matured individuals. I suppose that the above argumentation is already essential.
The media is not the issue here. I would support your assumptions that the media has something to do with the morality of the state. The real issue is how the Philippine government and high school teachers execute this “sex education” in high school. The neutrality of this education in terms of morality must be changed.
Lets discuss this issue further.
Thank you very much for comments!

Sex Education in College not in High School

Sex Education in College not in High School
By JC F. ALEJANDRO

Sex education is a vital and important key in educating a nation into a
more productive and dynamic society. Educating the people the
importance of responsibility and discipline allows a more flexible
organization of decision-making which is a consideration in the
wellness of a family. Sex education, however, is a broad issue among
conservative families in this country. A more comprehensive,
step-by-step method of education on sexuality must be adopted and be
implemented not on high school students but on more cautious and
responsible students.
What is sex education by the way? According
to the House Bill No. 5043 known as the Reproductive Health and
Population Development Act of 2008 authored by Lagman and three other
representatives in the Congress, sex education (Reproductive Health
Education) “refers to the process of acquiring complete, accurate and
relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive
system, its function and processes and human sexuality; and forming
attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal
relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes
developing the necessary skills to be able to distinguish between facts
and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate and discuss the
moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive
issues such as contraception and abortion.” This definition is too
broad, complex, and undeniably difficult to anchor with high school
students. During my high school years in a non-sectarian, public
institution, we were taught only of human sexuality with a limited
notion on the biological nature of sex without addressing any aspect on
the morality of the act and sanctity of sex. The approach is therefore
values-neutral because the mechanism of sex is being taught without
ethics or virtues. Only college students can fully appreciate this kind
of education because their sexual orientation is predominantly
established at their age. Although it is not impossible for high school
students to learn this education, they are not suited for this
introduction of concepts pertaining to the sexual act mainly because
they will assume of sexual contact as a simple expression of ones
biological nature. It must be stressed that sex has universal value.
One evidence of this assumption is the growing statistics of high
school students getting pregnant which often lead to abortion. The
current educational system of our country (meager educational subsidy,
lack of well-trained teachers, depressed school facilities, and aged
teaching strategies), renders it also impractical to implement such
policy. Our conservativeness in teaching methodologies also hinders
this approach to educate the youth. We should adopt a step-by-step
method on college students where they could go hand in hand with topics
like parenthood and maturity. In this way, they will systematically
learn the importance of responsibility over sex. Lastly and most
importantly is the never diminishing part of the parents in the
education of their children. Every parent must educate their children
not with myths to scare them, but with factual information that are
essential for their growth and sexual orientation. The responsibility
lies to the parents of the youth. Parents must point out that sex is
not a mere activity for pleasure but an act to procreate life that is
intertwined with great responsibility. We must not be tempted on the
idea that ‘the earlier, the better’. The sex education program should
be appropriate to the maturity of the youth. The way we implement this
policy on young people reflects our society’s moral structure.
Sex
education is a vital factor for the development of ones moral
consciousness. We must therefore implement this not on high school
students but to college students where consciousness and acceptance is
distinguished. The role and responsibility of parents on educating
their children also plays an important part in this issue. Our morality
and values must be stressed and we must continually educate the youth
with the information they need. Identity, values, and morality must be
preserved.

Resources:
*Med experts slam birth-control bill, Alena Pias P. Bantolo & Danielle Clara P. Dandan, 2008
*Reproductive Health and the Catholic Faith, Eric Genilo, SJ, Loyola School of Theology, 2008.
*House Bill No. 5043 Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008, Lagman et al.

THE IDEA OF A SUPREME BEING AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2009 OF JC F. ALEJANDRO UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILLIPINES VISAYAS MIAGAO ILOILO

The Idea of a Supreme Being as a Social Construct

By JC F. ALEJANDRO

The physical universe holds many phenomena which are hard to explain if not impossible. Many people around the globe want to answer all the questions in their lives that they could not comprehend well. Some of the most fascinating question for the human mind are, ‘What is god*?’, ‘Is there a god?’, ‘How many god/gods there is/are?’ ‘Is god is real?’ These questions are not mere philosophical ideas that just spring out on every individual everyday. Culture plays a vital role in these questions and it is fair to answer them in a multi-cultural perspective so that it would not be unfair and discriminating to other people who might and do not agree with different social facts.

In many societies, a god is a supreme deity or a supernatural being that possesses control of external forces of human beings, its destiny and future. In Arab and European societies, the concept of god is a singular, supreme being that created humanity and the universe and has communicated with humans through divine literatures or inspired people. Christianity, with 2,015,000,000(falling) followers, is the most dominant organized religion that has the idea that there is only one god, the Creator, which manifests in three forms or persons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is co-equal in divinity or godship with each other. Islam or Mohammadism with 1,215,000,000 followers (growing) is the next organized religion with numerous followers. Muslims also believe in a monotheistic god that created humanity in the name of Allah. Judaism, with constant followers of 17,500,000 also holds in the notion that there is only one god that created the universe and has the power to manipulate the external environment of man. In these monotheistic religions, god is pure spirit without a body and is usually described in terms of its omnipotence. Asian notions of god are quite different. Asians are mostly polytheistic or believe in many gods. Hinduism, with 786,000,000 believers (constant), particularly reveres numerous gods. Shintoism is a religion that reveres nature spirits or kami, which its followers believe to influence their lives\ situation. Buddhism, on the other hand, lies on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha and has 362,000,000 believers (constant). African societies have also different views. Nigerian myths say that god created the first man and woman and that reality is being shaped by their gods. Remote societies in the Americas, like the Aztecs and Mayans, are highly organized that their day to day living circles with their gods. They believe that human sacrifices are needed in order to please these gods. Pre–colonial Philippines is animistic and believe on multiple gods that are materially created to satisfy the need for an entity that can constantly be with. Human societies evolved with the idea that there is/are a supreme and divine being/s that created the physical universe. No matter how complex these societies are, supreme deity/deities existed in their living.

COPYRIGHT JANUARY 2009 OF JC F. ALEJANDRO UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILLIPINES VISAYAS MIAGAO ILOILO

The real reason for the creation of the notion of god cannot be identified since different societies evolved differently. The need for love and the fear of death according Sigmund Freud pushed these societies to develop the concept of god. Sigmund Freud attempted to explain the global societies’ notion of god. The need for love and the fear of death is one of human nature’s constant characteristic, he said, so humans created god. Each human being wants to secure a permanent love and care from a creator that they know will never leave them.

Most cultures believe that there is a god. However, they do not agree with each others definitions and limitations of god. The idea is all human beings embrace the idea that there is god. The conflict arises when we take our own cultural perspective as lens of determining the truth. At this point, we can assert that the notion of god is relative and vary from culture to culture. Interestingly, we may find that global religions compete to pacify the universe to their beliefs.

On the other side of the argument, there are a number of people which firmly argues that there is no supreme being or a god whatsoever. This is what our society call atheism or agnosticism. If societies in our world have the affirmative notion on the existence of god, these societies also developed in it the people who contradict the idea of the existence of god. A sound argument for the nonexistence of a god is possible, if the concept of "god" in question is factually meaningful. This notion is one which even many theists (believers of a god) should be willing to accept. After all, the mere possibility of a sound argument for the nonexistence of a god is logically compatible with theism; what theism requires is that there actually are no sound arguments for the nonexistence of God. The line of arguments of atheists is that god, which theists say that is an article of faith, can be disproven. It is also possible to refute god, but the societies they are enclosed cannot agree with them because the existence of god is a universal truth.

Religion has become an institution in almost all societies, if not all, which plays an important role in the indoctrination of the existence of god or theism. Mass media also plays an important part in creating human being’s notion of god. Mass media is biased (?) in favor of theism, says Jeffery Jay Lowder in his article.