h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Let me explore this a little - purely in the spirit of playing devil's advovate

So...it's OK to teach abstinence to prevent pregnancy or STIs, but not to promote a religion.

And it's OK to feed the hungry or tend the sick...so long as you're not wearing a dog collar?

Edward, no, it's not inherently wrong to teach it.

Here's the problem with the programs the current admin is supporting...they aren't truthful. Several of the programs contain materials that support the idea that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that people who have sex with gays get it. Oh, and that you can get it from kissing someone with AIDS (I kid you not). That pregnancy damages a woman's body irreparably (evidence shows that women who have children have lower incidences of breast and uterine cancer, etc).

Well, that and while I respect the idea, the fact is, kids are going to have sex whether they know what the dangers are or not. And going without knowledge into sexual areas is a little like going into a warzone without a gun, armor, etc.

Hi Eddie

It is inherently wrong to teach abstinence if, as in this case and that of the Catholic Church, you teach it to the exclusion of other methods of birth control.

It is also wrong to teach it where you demand that the only sexual experience that a person is allowed is in a state of marriage, and then only for procreation.

These are answers to universal human problems (unplanned births and the spread of STD's - including HiV) that have their basis in the rigid and narrow doctrine of Christianity.

They are also of dubious practical worth and as they are being offered as the only solution they condemn millions to suffering caused by overpopulation and slow deaths.

Nuff said?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

<>

*Turns the stick around and presents Edward with the right end.*

That's fine. Just as long as you're not feeding/tending on the condition that they person being helped starts attending your church.

To clarify: I'm against the promotion of abstinence if it is being used as a front for people saying "you'll be a better person if you don't have sex but you'll still go to Hell unless you come to church."

Surely something is either inherently wrong or it isn't?

As soon as you can say that it is OK if you do this . . . & wrong if you do this . . . . , then it isn't the thing, in this case "teaching abstinence" which is wrong, it is the way or the reasons for teaching it.

Welll....I did say I was playing 's advocate. . Even if I did mis-spell 'advocate'.

I was just jerking the US Constitution chain. The ACLU's case seems to be based on the 1st amendent thing: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' etc.

Which seems a long way round to go at it. Isn't the real argument 'It won't work'?

Agreed - I was talking about Matholwch's reply. As I understand it, if the question is, is something inherently wrong, the answer is yes or no.

If the question is "Is it wrong for this to be taught for these reasons . . . .?" then there is room for conditions etc.

And agreed again - I don't think it'll work

It is a difficult one.

What I would say though is that anything that does help even some children not have to go through the life wrecking problems of un-wanted teenage pregnancy is only a good thing.

If we have say an issue between limited funding going for either one programme or another, one religiously based and less effective or one secular based with better reults and only one can have funding it is a totally different question.

Then it is qualatative as well as a moral question.

But if the question is: 'Are the people behind The Silver Ring Thing a bunch of duplicitous a******s?'.....

Yes, they are. At least IMHO.

>>Which seems a long way round to go at it. Isn't the real argument 'It won't work'?<<

Remember, you're talking about a country in which a supreme court judge actually said that evidence of actual innocence is not enough to get a murder conviction overturned...there has to be a "legal" reason for a new trial.

Gods forbid that the legal system work on common sense...what would all the lawyers do?

You can read some of the total fabrications being imparted to our children via abstinence-only programs here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

And the consequences of these programs are that children pledge virginity, then break that pledge (88% of the time), and when they do, they are unprepared to do so safely. Safe sex requires a bit of advance planning, after all. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml

And now Bush is prepared to spend American taxpayer money to export this ridiculous nonsense to Africa. If only they would take him instead.

Montana: More relevantly, this is a country who has an experienced medical doctor sitting as the ranking member of the House who has said on camera that HIV can spread through sweat or tears, and that condoms have a 15% failure rate: http://www.planetwire.org/details/5153

Oh dear! Pardon me for misunderestimating the stupidity of your fine nation.

A little anecdote in return...The Thatcher cabinet went into an emergency session to discuss what they should do about AIDS. They agreed that every household in the country should receive a pamphlet explaining the risks. When it came to discussing the detailed content, one prominent minister didn't understand the concept of oral sex and had to have it carefully explained to him. And even then, he had difficulty accepting that something so dreadful could possibly be a mainstream practice! .

I can't quite remember who it was rumoured to be. I've an idea it was John Nott, Secretary for Defence.

It's not the intelligence of the nation that's the issue, but of the kind of people who can end up running it.

well he wants to get rid of poverty ,Lets face it there are to much greed in the world, just look how much our sport stars are earning .

Blatherskite, thanks for finding those links. I'm just to whacked out studying for my orals to remember where I read them.

The medical doctor you are talking about is Senator Bill Frist, of Florida. Against all medical knowledge, he believes that AIDS can be transmitted thru tears, sweat, and kissing. Not to mention that he has admitted to adopting kittens from the humane society and then using them as surgical tools while in medical school.

Yes, you read it correctly. He would adopt kittens and then do surgery on them, and then kill them. Which I do believe is one of the signs of sociopathy, so there you have it.

Might I suggest, if anyone has time, a couple of books by Molly Ivins, a Texas journalist. Her first book, Shrub, was written before our current president was elected in 2000. Her second, Bushwhacked, is about his first term.

It's frightening, really. No, really. I'm thinking of moving. Oxford just announced some permanent history positions...or was it Cambridge? Anywho.

As Blatherskite pointed out (with links!) abstinence only doesn't work. I don't mind abstinence being taught as part of a course...after all, unprotected sex with the wrong person can literally kill you. But to deny the human sex drive completely, and to go into Africa, which has the highest AIDS rate in the world, and not talk about condoms!

Pure idiocy.

I believe that tying religion into themes like these is problematic, particularly if they are then funded by govenment.

Any individual with faith might be questioned about why they preach a particular point of view to others, and I might admire their committment to do good, having faith ect...

But

When it is an organisation taking a corporate position, then the value base of the organisation has to be questioned, whether it is microsoft, Intel or, the evangelical church of St midwest myopia.

Religion seems to based on one basic idea, "My book is right yours isn't" and as a result is responsible for more and bloodier wars than anything else.

Government intervention has to be based on something more inclusive than this, particularly in a pluralistic society, or else the govenment ceases to represent 'the people' and becomes something like a police state, representing only some of the people.

Some of the nicest people I know are very religious, but I see a different side to them when they argue with someone with a different religious point of view

Do you think they talk church 24/7 ,never.

Sophie,
I think one of the problems is that whatever the general spread of spiritual viewpoints, it is often the more caring people (with a *personal* spirituality) who actually help other people and stay out of the limelight, whereas the people with larger egos get drawn more to an externalised [politicised] spirituality, and try and project their own particular world-view on people in general.

Personally, I'd class religion (as I have experienced it) as politicised spirituality.
Even in us atheists, there is still a spiritual drive, but it doesn't attach to organisations or dogma (in my case, it manifests as a deep appreciation of nature, deep time and wise women).

I'm sure there are many people who honestly feel they have found the correct path in their particular religion, and want other people to feel the same benefits.
However, I'm very suspicious when that extends beyond the simple personal level (one person helping others, *and* maybe hoping to help others see things the way they do) to individuals (or groups of individuals) in organisations trying to push their [claimed] views onto other groups of people.

Even leaving aside the lack of personal contact when groups become involved, I'm deeply suspicious of whether people who can see a route to power though claiming to believe this or that are always honest when they make their claims. My first impression would be that in some scenarios the most persuasive may be the likeliest to rise, and the most persuasive aren't always the most genuine.
I very much doubt that politicians or businessmen all believe what they claim to believe, and *some* forms of religion seem indistinguishable from politics or business.

An argument like 'action X is dangerous for reasons Y and Z' can make fairly universal sense. Saying 'X is wrong because God told me so' seems to me to be likelier to fail, apart from maybe in the most hardcore believers.