host

Welcome to the fundamentalist christian republic of the united states.
Is this how you want your tax dollars to be used? Do you want the "education" in "Health, Education, and Welfare - HEW" to be religious
influenced moralizing? Well......you got it !!!

Coppertop

I'm afraid my tax dollars are already being used for much more sinister purposes in places like Iraq, Cuba and the Nevada desert.

liquidlight

I'm more upset about the fact that even our government is now of a mind to allow parents to pass the buck onto somebody else rather than fulfilling their responsibility and obligations!

They're YOUR children, YOU take care of them, if you leave it to someone else you're not going to like what they learn, I can almost guarantee it.

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

braisler

I wish that it weren't the case, but the fundies are destroying everything good about this country. My wife and I starting to look at each other and wonder where else in the world we could move to and be happy.

As I have said before, "Oh Lord, save me from your followers!"

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

hartler

...well shit guys, give him some suggestions.

Willravel

Why are the most politically active Christians are fundamentalist extreemists? I am a Christian. I want Bush impeached. I believe that homosexuals should be treated as equals in every way. If I tried to enter the religious political arena, I would be laughed out of the building (or whereever I am). The most I can expect is president of the congregation in some random church or mayeb an elder. In order to be taken as an accurate representative iun the church, you have to become a pastor and become indoctronated by other conservative fundamentalists. Then you get noticed by being slightly more fundamentalist than the average pastor. Then you write for a fundamentalist publishing company (maybe CPH or something). Then you say something really extreme, like all gays should be either forced into therepy or killed. Now you can control the president.

Mobo123

As soon as our kids are out of the house, we are moving to Canada. No bullshit.

Stick

"...Leavitt said in a statement unveiling the site last week that it was designed for parents who are embarrassed about talking with their children about sex."

It's sad that there are people like that. They weren't too embarrassed to fuck and make babies. Now they need a website to disseminate bad information to their offspring, who will breed more even more sexually repressed individuals. It spirals out of control.

__________________
ominous adj.
Menacing; threatening. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.

NCB

How is absistence now a Christian fundamentalist belief? Last time I checked, it was the only method guarenteed to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Sure, placing condoms on cucumbers is loads of fun, but it also sends mixed messages to our children. Stressing abstinence is the best method of protecting our children for unwanted pregs. and STDs.

Also, why is the left so defiant about stressing abstinence education. I just don't get it.

__________________

Kadath

Abstinence is indeed the only method that ensures no risk of pregnancy or STDs. However, teaching abstinence and only abstinence is NOT the best method of protecting our children -- it has been shown to be tremendously unsuccessful. Children who are taught abstinence only are much more likely NOT to use any form of protection when do have sex, and I think you know that. The "left" is not defiant about...argh, god, why am I bothering.

__________________
it's quiet in here

bouray

Abstinence is not just a christian fundamentalist belief, unless it is the only method to prevent pregnancy and std's that is discussed. When you stress that abstinence is the only method or only point out the bad points in the other methods, then you are trying to pass on fundamental beliefs.

The fact remains, with or without this abstinence discussion, there have always been and will always be kids out there that are having sex. If you continue to close your eyes to that, you are a sad, sad person.

samcol

This is not a fundamentalist christian idea. I think it's a little off base to call it that. The best way to prevent stds and unwanted pregnancy is abstinence.

The_wall

Yes but it's also the most unrealistic way to prevent it. Kids are going to have sex, and lots of it.

On a funny side note, a study showed that kids who pledged abstinence until marriage were more likely to perform oral and anal sex. We're making our children do anal people.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

hannukah harry

well, you could go through the process and then come out as less extreme but incredibly vocal voice for the christian community. it might just leave you howling at the wind, but it could also mobilize the non-fundamental christian community. you never know...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Willravel

Well, I've considered that. The fact is that there are no real liberal (pro homosexuality, pro other religions, pro women preachers, etc.) voices coming from the church. Either no one is crazy enough to try it, or people have tried and failed. Either way, I'd have to devote my life to this, and to be honest I don't think I can do it. I don't come across as a srtong enough Christian (being that I moved away from Christianity propor a while ago).

The thing that really gets me mad is that most people are basically good. The problem is the doctrine and dogma that are hammered into everyone's skulls since their baptism (or what have you). My father is a good man. He was a Lutheran pastor for over 10 years. I had every anti-homosexual, no sex before marriage, pray before every meal, Jesus loves me story in me before I could form a rational thought of my own. As luck would have it, I was best friends with an Arab Muslim and a Jewish kid. If the three of us didn't have each other, we'd probably all be religious zombies, hating each other out of ignorance induced fear. We all had the benifit of realizing that we shouldn't hate other religions, we shouldn't assume our religion is the right one, and we shoudlnt' force our beliefs down other peoples throats. I was damned lucky to have these friends. I'm not better than anyone (except Carrot Top), I just happened to get my morality from different places. It's the common themes in different moralities that really shine through in the end.

I believe in God. I believe that God loves man. I belive that in the eyes of God, every man, woman, and child is created equally. I believe that the golden rule is God's greatest gift to mankind. This is getting too philosophical, getting back to the political aspect...

In order for someone like myself, a faithful liberal, to rise to power in a given religion, there needs to be a strong base of also liberal followers upon which to build the political power. There exists no such group that has any sort of influence. I'd be boring to them. Another flower smelling hippy with no connections with reality. I'd be there for them to ridicule and hate. "Those liberals are too cowardly to get anything done. Would that liberal have gone after Osama like Bush did?! Hell no! Those anti-freedom pegans will get theirs our way. The good christian way." Obviously that was an exaggeration, but that seems the general concensus. We need an atheist president, or at least a rpesident who knows that God's house is church, not the Whitehouse.

I'm going to live my life as a good, moral man. I'll go to non-violent, legal protests when I want to show my support for something. I'll only step up to the plate if no one else will.

Ilow

yeah, while this makes me laugh, it's mostly because my mother of all people brought this up to me the other day. Even on the phone...well...it's a little odd.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

jonjon42

just think back to your high school days...abstinence is rather difficult. Instead why don't we give a balenced sex ed? You know...one that says you really shouldn't have sex, but if you do please use some protection! This is what happens when you don't use protection, (show disgusting picture of some poor dude who let w/e STD he got fester). The End.
:-D

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

sprocket

Because premarital sex is a mortal sin in the eyes of the fundamentalist... meaning you stand a very good chance at going to hell to suffer for all eternity if you lost your virginity out of wedlock. Practical solutions and comprimise are of no use to a fundamentalist when souls are on the line. Absolute morality only.

edit: I know not all fundamentalists feel compelled to legislate their morality. My post is referring to those militant few who try to convert the rest of us, not only through the bible.. but through our government.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

NCB

So explain exactly just how you can successfully teach kids about condoms on cucumbers without undermining a program that stresses abstinence

__________________

Kadath

Is "condoms on cucumbers" a phrase that gets you hot? I couldn't at first figure out why you used it twice. Then I googled the phrase. Imagine my complete lack of surprise when it turns out to be used by fundamentalists to attack sex education! You are clearly a person who understands the value of rhetoric. I want to thank you, though. In my googling I found out from The Light Party that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Willravel

Owned!

Paq

Honestly, my sex ed class in highschool was kinda like what was mentioned earlier, abstinence was the BEST, but if something was gonna happen, use protection..two forms if possible (condom and pill at the time if possible, as depo, nuvaring, norplant, etc were not widely used) and STDs were fairly highly stressed, as was the need to use a condom every single time all of hte time, etc as it only took one slipup.

at the time, i thought there was a bit of paranoia, but honestly, it instilled enough of a threat to 1, keep my mind on protection, 2, not sleep around with every lady possible, and 3, have a sex life that was safer than it would have been had i only been taught abstinence bc i know i still would have slept around..

oh, a google on "cucumbers on condoms" is pretty hilarious..

__________________
Live.

Chris

NCB

[QUOTE=Kadath]Is "condoms on cucumbers" QUOTE]


Most of y'all are too young to remember, but when I was in school, that's what we actually did. Since I haven;t been in HS in a number of years, perhaps you, will, or some of the other boys can tall us what they use now.

__________________

analog

I love that, no matter what, you can almost always shift the burden of ultimate loserdom to Carrot Top. He's a great punching bag.

For my $0.02- I don't now, nor have I ever been able to comprehend where people get off thinking that telling someone simply, "don't do it" is a viable deterrant to ANYTHING. It worked for Nancy Reagan and drugs [sarcasm] and it's REALLY working for reducing sexual activity in young people [also sarcasm].

You don't have to give the kids lessons in positions and fingering technique, but how about simply telling them, 1. the reasons why sex is dangerous, 2. how to best protect themselves.

I've always equated the "abstinence only" approach to trying to reduce car accidents by suggesting everyone just stay off the road, just because it's "the only way to be sure". Bullshit. Teach them the harsh reality of young pregnancy, STD's, and arm them with humankind's best weapon of all time: knowledge.

astrahl

Problem is, abstinence is only really expected of the female. The church turns a blind eye to men getting their rocks off before marriage. Abstinence is BS anyways, we are sexual creatures and sex should be a pleasurable part of everybody's life. Problem is, they (fundies) have made it into this demon-act of lust and sin which makes everybody overly curious and secretive of it.
As a female, I blame this abstinence-christian thing for my fear of sex in my youth. Not fear really, but more of "oh, I could NEVER." I regret not giving myself that opportunity to explore my sexuality before marriage.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

host

More signs of an emerging, U.S. Christian Republic:
Public schools that allow "equal time" to a "reparative therapy" message from "ex-gay" speakers, would seem to be risking exposure to lawsuits for providing a forum, on school premises, for advocates of a practice that has been determined by a U.S. medical professional association as unsound and detrimental to mental health:
(Is a medical association of 36,000 member physicians, wrong??)
The fact that any public schools in the U.S. even consider it appropriate to allow an "ex-gay" equal time, "reparative" therapy message to be delivered on school property, is a sign that, in some areas, a fundamentalist Christian influence is given at least "equal time". To expose students to this anti-scientific, mental health threatening therapy as an "alternative" or a "relief", seems to me to be an abusive practice on the part of some public school educators. Given the position of the dominate U.S. association of mental health physicians, which evolved carefully and thoughtfully over a 27 year period, what.....other than inappropriate influence of religion on the judgment of school administrators, would cause them to expose students to a mental and emotional health threatening message?

docbungle

I just can't seem to bring myself all up-in-arms about this. They want to stress abstinence and a lot of you don't. Well, so what? Is the government going to teach your kids how to act, or are you?

__________________
Bad Luck City

host

No...they are exposing public school students in some areas of the country, and they want to increase the number of areas.....to an option of "reparative therapy", that the medical community of menatl health physicians has stated prominently....is not "reparative" and is not "therapy"....and that is a specifically "unhealthy" to perform on people.....especially on emotionally vulnerable students.

Can you think of another instance where public school administrators would permit this to happen? It seems like religious influenced child abuse, to me. It seems to me that by allowing this message on school property, educators expose themselves to potential criminal violations and exposure to successful and costly civil litigation. What would motivate them to take these risks....to expose students to alternative therapies declared to be unhealthy by a majority of medical experts in their field ?

Isn't this irresponisbility and abuse, by definition, religious influenced fanaticsim? There is no controversy in the medical community, as far as policy. Why, then is it permitted in public schools, if not for a trend towards inappropriate religious fundamentalist influence in public administration?

dksuddeth

how is stressing abstinence a form of child abuse?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

host

This is the description of the "form of child abuse" in the May 28, 2006 LA Times article. The fundamentalist religious interference in schools that I find abusive is:
Some teens commit suicide because of self esteem issues. Why would schools cave in to groups who want to target students who have sexual orientations that have been determined medically, not to be "abnormal" or a "disorder". The medical practitioners believe that "reparative therapy" erodes self esteem. There is no medical or emotional disorder that justifies "reparative therapy".

No one suggests sending a message to students who are attracted to the opposite sex that they should consider "reparative therapy" to reorient themselves to a same sex attraction.....so why, if medically, it has been determined that it is not helpful, but actually harmful to perform "reparative therapy", is it offered...in schools....for students to consider, as an "option" to "cure" a disease that medicine says does not exist.

All students, from a standpoint of social responsibility and control of STD's should be given instruction in safe sex practices and even in abstinence, if it is communicated without moralizing and religious based justification. One group who develops an sexual attraction to members of their own sex should not be mistreated by being told...by outsiders who are permitted to come into their schools to speak to them, that they should consider "reparative therapy".

Such a message is condescending and sends students a message that they should consider repairing a "disorder", or implies that they are "abnormal". The mental health experts have determined that the opposite is true...that they are normal, that they have no disease, simply because they are sexually attracted to members of their own sexual gender.

Are you saying that it is appropriate to send a school sanctioned, abstinence message specifically to these students, because of their sexual orientation?

dksuddeth

I see what you were saying now, but that issue isn't going to get fixed until science can show with 485% verifiable scientific proof that homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, and every other gender identity-ism is not a 'choice' but a bonafide genetic trait.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

hannukah harry

i hope this isn't off topic... but really, what difference does it make if it's a choice or not?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

host

I agree, as far as societal attitudes.....but...when it comes to what public school administrators choose to expose students to....they seem to have an obligation not to put some students in entirely avoidalbe situations where they receive a message that is contradictory to medical practice, or threatens self esteem. When schools start down a religiously driven "road" that exposes students to "therapy" choices that are not medically approved, for "disorders" that are specifically ruled out medically as pathological or treatable, or even as "abnormal", where does it stop?

Intelligent design and creationism are controversial, but they are not health or self esteem issues. Sexual preference and orientation are considered to be non-negotiable choices and a normal part of development, by those licensed medical practioners who treat abnormalities. Public schools need to be "in synch" with public health policy and medical science. Will schools next offer speakers a forum who promote "reparation therapy" to "cure" "self abuse", delivered by ex-masturbators? Will ex-birth control pill ingestees take the stage at schools to relay a message that it is abnormal to take the pill to regulate hormone imbalances.

Will schools next permit speakers who discredit medically approved treatments for medically recognized disorders......maybe surgery or blood transfusions, or even antibiotics, on religious or prevelant socially prejudicial grounds.
"Race mixing" can lead to challenges in life, as difficult in some locales as those that same sex couples are often confronted with. Should "ex-race mixers" be given a forum to guide students into avoidance of a lifetime of being stared and pointed at, in public, or for bearing mix raced children who suffer from the effects of prejudice?

Once the door is open to allow a message to students from allegedly "rehabbed" "ex" practitioners of a given practice....the inference, by the very presence and message of these speakers....at a school....is that students are doing something that is abnormal or unapproved....and that their conduct or orientation must be "repaired" or changed to a "more normal" or more "positive" level.

dksuddeth

As long as the 'religious' anything considers those 'alternative lifestyles' choices, then they will continue to support reparitive therapy and/or legislation of prohibition against those lifestyles. Choices can be punished or outlawed whereas genetic 'anomolies' (forgive my choice of wording, I didn't know what else to call it at this point) cannot be repaired with therapy or outlawed.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

samcol

Of course you have no evidence to prove that homosexuality is non-negotiable, just your opinion that is backed up by the opinion of other people with letters behind their name.

How is this opinion "The ex-gay movement considers same-sex attraction to be a gender-identity disorder, brought on by inadequate parenting, unmet emotional needs and, often, childhood sexual abuse" any less valid that the opinion that someone is born a homosexual. Both are nothing more than opinions. Neither are fact.

dksuddeth

The only 'logical' stop would be to stop teaching religion, or non-religion, in the public school system. It is because we've allowed, or in some cases even demanded, that the school system take over the parents responsibility. If parents would take their responsibility back, we wouldn't be facing these issues on a public school basis.

Public schools shouldn't even be 'synching' these issues. They have nothing to do with preparation for adult life in the social and economic world. These issues should be assumed by the parents.

which is why the school system should not be made to handle these issues. This is part of the 'it takes a village' crap that causes problems, doesn't work, and only divides us. These are all issues that should be discussed between parents, children, and their doctors/priests/anyone else in a capacity to deal with this that isn't in the school environment.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

stevo

bingo.

The problem isn't the ex-gays wanting equal time. The problem is discussing homosexuality in school to begin with. Keep all that crap out of school. Teach kids how to read, write, do math. Prepare kids to think for themselves and to solve problems. Period.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

host

Public schools should not make a forum available to people who communicate an advocacy for therapies that are specifically disapproved in policy statements of major and well recognized medical practitioner associations, or describe a sexual orientation that mental health care practitioners, at every level...M.D., PhD, and MSW have determined as not being pathological, or a "disorder", or even abnormal, or as something that should be "treated" via medical care or therapy,........that are intended to alter sexual orientation.

The medical community couldn't be less ambiguous: don't "eff" with it.....attempting to influence anyone to become an "ex" hetero or "ex" homo
sexual, implies that their current orientation is "negative" or not normal, or flawed. This increases the risk to the already fragile self esteem of teen aged,
or younger students, in an area that is part of their core identity....during a key stage in their final development into adulthood.

An "ex"-gay message, sanctioned by schools is a mental and emotional health
issue. Where does a public school stand, legally, after it permits such a message and the communication of a reparative therapy option....for a "condition" or "disorder", that the medical community has declared does not exist, and that there is no medically approved "treatment", nor is there a need for one?

Isn't letting this "ex"-gay message be delivered to students in public schools, an extra legal, and medically unsound, decision by school administrators?
If it isn't then....what is it? Is there any other justification to allow this, that is not rooted in religious fundamentalist beleif, or ignorant or misinformed bigotry against the sexual orientation of others? Are school administrators qualified to determine the validity of healthcare policy or of scientific medical determinations accepted in the medical community? I thought that was under the authority of state medical review and licensing boards, or the FDA.

The medical community says homosexuality is not pathological and that there is no "disorder" to "treat" or to provide "therapy" for. Why then....the posts that focus on whether homosexuality is a "choice". Why is that relevant?
Shouldn't the focus be on why public schools would permit delivery to students, the message of advocacy for a "reparative therapy" that the medical community has determined to be non-effective, and actually risks harm to self esteem, to "repair" a "disorder" that does not exist?

Schools do have an obligation to provide self esteem building methods and outlets for students, especially where is it recognized that attacks on self esteem via misinformation or intentional bigotry are a threat to students' self esteem.

stevo

woah woah woah.

Schools should NOT be in the business of "building self-seteem" That touchey-feely new age crap doesn't do one thing towards preparing children for the real world and is one of the predominent reasons for such poor student achievement.

Some schools don't even use grades anymore because "it should all be about the effort" Giving johnny a C and mary an A makes johnny feel bad and promotes competition. <- thats the thought of the education system today. Several of my wife's friends & sisters are teachers/education majors/education grad students and I'm always interested to hear what they have to say about education. And thats the stuff they say. Grades promote competition and competition hurts self-esteem.

Our schools are ruining our kids and its because of crap like that. losing and getting you feelings hurst used to be a good thing. It used to be called "building character" and it used to make you want to try harder to get better and achieve. now its bad and detremental to development.

But it all starts at home. If parents never would have given up the responsibility of raising their kids to the school system, our education system wouldn't be polluted with this nonsense and we could be focusing on teaching science and math and how to read and write. We should be creating the world's next engineers and scientists, instead we're creating the worlds next wefare generation with no regard for responsibility.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

samcol

How is your faith in these opinions any different than the faith involved in accepting a religion that supports the opposite view? You are taking blind faith in the views of a group of people. I don't understand this trend that somehow studying something extensively and providing opinions from experts somehow makes it 'law'. They can call it whatever they want, and you can quote as if it's true as the law of gravity, but it doesn't change what the facts are. There are no real scientific developments or anything based on facts in the 'mental health' community that proves anything about sexual orientation. Therefore the debate should remain open just as with creationism or big bang theory or whatever.

If you really want be to 'scientific' why not use a real science, like biology, that is based on tangible facts rather than a foundation of nothing more than opinions of so called experts. Just teach kids the FACTS. Boys have male 'parts' and girls have female 'parts' and both are needed to come together to produce life. It's pretty hard to argue with the facts of a real science when you break it down.

However, if a campus has gay rights groups there's no reason why someone shouldn't have the ability to voluntarily seek out a group that tries to change their orientation. How can you argue with that? Basic freedom of speech/religion if you ask me.

Teaching sexual orientation in middle and high schools though is just wrong. However, in this insane world we live in if you're going to have a pro homosexuality view, then we have to allow for the opposite view.