Opinion

Enfield, Connecticut: From Jonathan Edwards to Middle Schoolers Learning Explicit Material

|
Posted: Feb 11, 2022 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Enfield, Connecticut: From Jonathan Edwards to Middle Schoolers Learning Explicit Material

Source: AP Photo/Marta Lavandier, File

The headline was absolutely shocking in and of itself: “’My son didn't even know what oral was!’ Parents slam Connecticut school district for asking eighth-graders to share their sexual desires in the form of pizza toppings in bizarre assignment.” But what also got my attention when I read the rest of the story was the location of this school: Enfield, Connecticut.

It was in Enfield on July 8, 1741 that Jonathan Edwards, America’s most famous 18th century philosopher and theologian, preached his most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

This was in the days of the First Great Awakening, and God had been stirring the New England area out of its worldliness, apathy, and unbelief. But the town of Enfield remained untouched. 

Yet that morning, as Edwards read his sermon, word for word, the fear of God fell. The congregants began to see themselves as hopelessly lost, dangling by a thread over the jumping fires of hell. (It was a vivid sermon!)

Soon there was so much screaming, crying out, and fainting that Edwards had to order them to be quiet so that his message could be heard. People began unconsciously to cling to their pews and grasp hold of the pillars of the church so as not to slip into hell. And many were radically converted.

Contrast that with Enfield today, where 8th graders (13-years-old on average) were asked “to share their sexual desires in the form of pizza toppings.”

They were told, “Now that you know this metaphor for sex, let’s explore your preferences!” (This was in a health class.) 

They were told to “Draw and color your favorite type of pizza.” Then they were asked, “What's your favorite style of pizza? Your favorite toppings? What are your pizza no-nos? Now mirror these preferences in relation to sex!”

Specifically, “"Here are some examples: Likes: Cheese = Kissing. Dislikes: Olives = Giving Oral.” 

These were 13-year-olds!

I know that many teens are sexually active, but really now, how many of them are having full intercourse or oral sex? And even if some of them were that active, how on earth could such a “lesson” be imposed on others? Or what is it doing in school at all?

In response to parents who had exposed the lesson,  Enfield Public Schools Superintendent Christopher Drezek said at a school board meeting, “The simple truth was it was a mistake. And I know that there are some who may not believe that. I know there are some who don't necessarily maybe want that answer. In this particular case, I didn't even get a chance to because the person who made the mistake jumped ahead of it before I was even notified that it had happened.”

He agreed that the content in the assignment was “inappropriate,” and insisted that there was no “hidden agenda.”

And he added, “There was no secret cabal to indoctrinate kids on something. They sent the wrong document, And I'm not going to perpetuate this story any longer on their behalf. So that's what happened. And none of us are happy that it happened. No one feels worse that it happened and the person that did it.”

But all of this begs one big question. Even if this was a big mistake and there was nothing intentional about it, let alone the “lesson” being part of a hidden agenda, why on earth did the teacher go ahead with the class? Why not say, “Something is terribly wrong here!” 

What if the lesson called for students to take off their clothes? Or to “experiment” by touching one another? Or to refer to each other using profane and sexually perverse words? Would the teacher go ahead with the class? 

Then why did this teacher go ahead with this morally inexcusable lesson? If this person felt terrible about it, why do it? 

A disturbing answer is that, while the lesson was deemed “inappropriate,” it was not that far removed from other “health” lessons taught in the school. Was that the case?

I can’t answer that from this distance, but I can say that it would not surprise me in the least. And that brings me back to the Superintendent’s comments. 

He claimed that, “There was no secret cabal to indoctrinate kids on something.” That could well be true. 

But the fact is that there has been a very open, out and proud cabal of educators for decades seeking to do this very thing: indoctrinate our kids.

I’m talking about sexual libertarians and LGBT educators and activists. Their agenda has been documented for many years now, with countless examples across our country every year. (See here and here and here for examples from the last 5 years.) And it is only against that backdrop that this “health lesson” made its way into this school in Enfield.

After all, even it was not intended for those school children, it was most certainly intended for other school children.

Jonathan Edwards must be turning over in his grave.