Actually, I'm beginning to give thanks to the ACLU for its rigorous, uncompromising honesty. Much better than these so-called even-handed scientific types who say they are all in favour of teaching ID provided it is taught in religion classes, of which there are none.

Can't fight for the right of teenagers to get abortions without parental notification if you don't fight the efforts to keep them from having sex. So the ACLU at least has some logical consistancy in their argument, even if it's barren of morality.

Get used to it: Human beings start becoming sexually active around the age of 12 to 14. No amount of government intervention is going to interfere with this phenomenon.

Money spent on the "ringy-thingy" would be better spent on preventing the transmission of STDs.

Go ahead. Try to tell me abstinence prevents STDs. Just try it.

How do you get an STD if you abstain?

OJ: logic has no place in his world.

Toilet seat?

Even *if* we assume the earth is merely 6000 years old, and even *if* we assume that each human generation is on average 30 years long, that *still* means that every human now living is the result of 200 generations of people having sex.

How is a little silver ring going to stop something that has been going on so successfully for so long?

While, if you consider the fact that life has a far longer history on this planet than that, and that evolution works, and that the length of a human generation is rather shorter than 30 years... Well, abstinence is dead in the water. Humans have sex. Humans *love* sex. And there isn't anything anyone can do about it, unless they really feel that the species should die out.

The failure rate of abstinence if you don't actually do it is exactly the same as the failure rate of condoms if you forget to put them on.

And remembering to put a condom on is a lot easier than trying to make your body forget billions of years of nature telling you "HAVE SEX! MAKE BABIES! ITS FUN!"

-Magnus

Nobody has ever caught an STD from their hand.

HAVE SEX! MAKE BABIES! IT'S FUN!

Yes, there is a creed that points the way to human happiness and fulfillment. Good for the kiddies, too.

Now, if I could just pull my thumb out and listen to those calls from nature urging me to waste that guy who is bugging me...

Magnus:

If you assume you have wings you still can't fly.

Isn't the point that abstinence needs to be taught and encouraged because it is unnatural?

I wonder how many social (never mind religious) inhibitions we would need to remove before we descended into complete anarchy. I bet not very many.

This isn't an abstinence-for-life programme, so it won't lead to human extinction, and the kids are expected to procreate at some point - just not soon.

These types of programmes aren't typically any more effective than regular sex-ed, but it can't hurt to try.

The problem here is that they are handing out rings with BIBLE versus on them...such as "God wants you to be holy,so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honor." Kids in public scholls shouldn't be getting rings that tell them what "God wants"

The problem here is that they are handing out rings with BIBLE versus on them...such as "God wants you to be holy,so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honor." Kids in public scholls shouldn't be getting rings that tell them what "God wants"

More dishonest debate from the crazy wing nuts. The Ring Thing is nakedly and unapologeticly proselyizing for evagelical Christianity. This case is a slam dunk for the ACLU because the money is going to directly fund religious services and the promotion of a single religion.

Get used to losing these debates. You aren't any good at them.

-

More dishonest debate from the f******* crazy wing nuts. The Ring Thing is nakedly and unapologetically proselytizing for evangelical Christianity. This case is a slam dunk for the ACLU because the money is going to directly fund religious services and the promotion of a single religion.

Get used to losing these debates. You aren't any good at them.

-

aaronpac:

Why not?

JRI:

Do you have any idea how much of your money is being handed to religious groups by the government now? We won the debate.

Randall:

In fact, it's human nature.

What astounds me is that people wish upon society what they would never wish upon their 16 year old daughter.

JRI:

Yes, that first draft did lack a little punch, didn't it? Putting that adjective in really drove your point home. We'll never recover.

I realize science and reason are not thriving concerns here, but, all the abstinence programs are miserable failures in regards to results. Why do you right wingers blindly push them? Jeolous that kids are having more fun than you?

madmatt -- you mean that people who abstain from sex before marriage get pregnant and AIDS all the same?

Sheesh. Who's linked to you OJ? The brain-dead society for the destruction of America?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when the arguer simply ignores the actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Which is what we see here. The issue isn't abstinence. It's government funding of religious proselytizing.

But you built yourselves a real nice scarecrow there, boys.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when the arguer simply ignores the actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Which is what we see here. The issue isn't abstinence. It's government funding of religious proselytizing.

But you built yourselves a real nice scarecrow there, boys.

And yet, Jimbo, the complaint comes from the ACLU reproductive freedom project.

Now this topic really brought them out, didn't it?

Reminds me of the Bloom County cartoon where Steve goes out with an old hunter to look for the last of the vanishing liberal herd. "They once roamed the plains by the millions, but now they're almost extinct. Give the call, boy (to Milo). NO NUKES, NO NUKES!"

Now what would Andrew say if schools (or even church groups) started handing out magenta bracelets (to promote gay abstinence)?

And yet, Dave, the issue is government funding of religious proselytizing. Which is, in fact, unconstitutional.

These pretensions of upset over this purported "attack" on abtinence, while amusing, are really just a smokescreen. If you want to give taxpayer money to promote Christianity, I suggest that you change the Constitution first, rather than pretend the real argument is something that it's not. It's just less disingenuous that way.

Jimbo:

Why is it unconstitutional? Funding religious groups generally removes any danger of Establishment.

The problem is not the teaching of abstinence. The problem is using federal funds for the explicit promotion of a specific religion. The group is quite clear that this program is intended and designed to pull new members to their church. It's proselytization (sp?).

All the misrepresentations of the case above don't change the facts.

The Silver Ring Thing program is undeniably dopey. But our schools do not lack for well-funded dopey things.

The specific objection to its 'Christian' content is wrong-headed. It may chill them over at the ACLU but Christianity is integral to the culture and attempts to ferret it out are doomed to failure and, worse, engender resentment in people for whom such expressions are normal and comforting(i.e. the vast majority of Americans).

I think abstinence programs are nonsense, because you can't argue against biology. In the old days, people got married around the time they got their secondary sex characteristics. Until fairly recently, the marriage age in New Hampshire was 12, 14 without parental consent. Today, people delay marriage, primarily for economic reasons, but the biology remains unchanged. If anything, some of the crap in our food has actually hastened maturation in children.

Proselytization? Guess what? The other day some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door to proselytize. I did not hide in my closet, cowering in fear of the Black Hundreds, when they came by. I just answered the door, took the literature and wished them well. Christian proselytization just happens to be an aspect of the culture. Kids should get used to it. But I guess the ACLU won't be happy until all religious artwork in museums that get public funds is whitewashed. It's for the children.

On the constitutional issue, this does seem close to the line on current Supreme Court precedents. However, all I've read is the ACLU complaint, so I'll withhold judgment for now. Even ACLU concedes that there is a non-religious track for the public school presentations.

But leaving the Supreme Court to one side (hmmmm), how does this "establish" religion?

tubino:

Yes, the Constitution only forbids an Establishment.

Jimbo/tubino

At some point that issue does arise, although you will have a tough time around here convincing anyone the mere mention of the deity is proslytizing or anything close to the establishment of (a) religion. But c'mon, are you really saying the ACLU would be equally agitated if the bracelets said: "God wants you to tell the truth."? Or that they would be relaxed about "Abstinence improves the common gene pool?"

madmatt:

I realize science and reason are not thriving concerns here...

Whoa there, cowboy.
So far, all of the ad hominem attacks on this thread have come from those opposed to abstinence programmes.
While you may not agree with the pro- arguments, they are rational.

Why do you right wingers blindly push [abstinence programmes] ? Jeolous [sic] that kids are having more fun than you?

Favoring regular sex-ed over abstinence programmes is one thing, but do you really want to go on record as a booster of teenage promiscuity ?!?

Further, why would you assume that the kids are having more fun than middle aged religious people ?
Religious people often have large families, that usually means a lot of sex. Also, teenagers don't know what they're doing; an eighteen year old would pass out if subjected to the skill that comes from thirty years of practice.

Favoring regular sex-ed over abstinence programmes is one thing, but do you really want to go on record as a booster of teenage promiscuity ?!?

The ACLU sure does. In their eyes, if Biff isn't boffing Buffy at the prom, using the condoms he got at the door, then the terrorists have won.

oj...."Why"..you ask. Because who gets to decide which religious group comes in with there verses...Who gets to say.."Well the Muslims can come in and promote ideas from the Koran." You see..the very idea that a public scholl can talk about what "god wants" is ludicrous. It's not up to schools to tell children what God wants. Because what God wants is completely subjective. The message in public schools should have nothing to do with what 1 religion thinks that "God wants" this or that.

aaronpacy:

You prove the opposite point. The very openness to a range of religious messages mitigates against Establishment and satisfies the Constitution. The only reason to have public schools is to make virtuous citizens.

oj.."Virtuos citizens"???...virtue is about morality..let churches and families teach that...scholls are for learning math and science...oh I forgot...right-wingers don't like science either. "Openness to a range of religious messages"?? ..What if a Pagan came to talk to the kids about how "God wants us to enjoy our bodies to the fullest"...which message do you think kids might like more? Don't do it..or go ahead and do it..it feels great!?

"if kids aren't having sex then none of us are free"

The left has been trying to destroy "Bourgeois" society for more than two hundred years. The drive to abolish private property and end capitalism stalled after the collapse of the Soviet Union,but it has not ended their quest.

Destroying the institution of marriage is just as much a part of their quest as is the campaign against capitalism. To that end unlinking sex and marriage, glorifying homosexuality (which is inherently promiscuous) promoting homosexual marriage, which is a parody of heterosexual marriage are central parts of their campaign.

Robert..lol..homosexuality is "inherently promiscuos"...So that's why we should discourage them from entering into long-term monogamous relationships?...your logic is supremely flawed.

No, that's why we should encourage them to stop.

Wow... people here are in a real competition with each other for stupidest post. First, the original post completely ignores the ACLU's case, and pretends that the ACLU is against abstinence education when it is perfectly obvious that this is about seperation between church and state (and yes, using public funds to give kinds rings with a verse from 1 Thessalonians is government sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional). Then Robert Schwartz adds in his own paranoid scizophrenia into the mix. Could this dialogue be any lower?

satya:

Got a copy of the Constitution handy?

Look, the government has a point of view. It is that teen abstinence is the best way to deal with teen pregnancy and teen stds. Now, you can disagree with that -- though you're wrong, as experience teaches us that that condom based sex education is a failure -- but that's the policy that congress and the president have agreed upon. There's nothing unconstitutional about it. It is, after all, there job to decide on national policy.

Now, how should the government promote its policy. One way it has decided upon (what follows accepts the allegations of the complaint as true) is to give a small amount of money to a private group that also promotes teen abstinence, and seems to do so relatively effectively. That group, it is true, has another agenda: it wants to use its abstinence program to gain access to unchurched teens and bring them to Jesus, which is something that the government can't do. So, the question is, can the government achieve a constitutional policy goal by allying itself, in part, with a group that, while sharing the government's goal, also has another goal, one that would not be allowed to the government?

I see nothing in the First Amendment that prevents it from doing so, as it is not establishing a church.

satya/aaronpacy

Read here and then come back and tell us this is all about religion.

What the heck is a chastity ring, anyway? Makes it sound like something the cops need to round up the bosses of.

The belts are too cumbersome.

We had abstinence sex education at Cardinal Gibbons High School.

I cannot say it worked very well, from the school's point of view.

You learned right from wrong.

I suppose comments to a blog are by definition opinions, but there are a lot of opinions being pawned off as fact in this thread.

Of course, if one abstains from sex one will not contract an STD that is spread only from such activity.

There are two questions being ignored here:

A. Is the strategy of promoting abstinence effective (not to be confused with the effectiveness of abstinence)? So far I have only seen statistics showing that such efforts have been successful. In fact, many of the studies only show that the "abstaining" individuals abstain from vaginal intercourse, but employ every other conceivable type of sexual activity and without proper education concerning these acts are actually engaging in more dangerous practices than if "regular" sex were being employed.

B. But the real question to be asked is whether a particular "private" organization should be allowed to use tax payer money for religious indoctrination which is delivered simultaneously with such abstinence preaching. All the blather about teaching right and wrong, etc. is merely a smoke-screen for what is really at stake: the separation of church and state. I wish that fundamentalists and conservatives would at least be honest (isn't lying a sin) and admit that they simply disagree with the first amendment (by touting the "fact" that this is a "Christian" (or at best Judeo-Christian) nation. And if they do disagree with the first amendment then (a) be up front and admit it and (b) use constitutionally sacntioned nethods to change the law.

aaronpacy:

The Republic has rather little need of a citizenry that knows science, but depends on one that understands morality. Obviously the public schools should serve that very public end.

If the kids are properly educated they'll find little appeal in paganism.

Of course it's a Christian nation. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

Right.

Abstinence training is all about helping kids and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Please ... this makes about as much sense as "intelligent" design, "there's no global warming", the rapture and other right wing myths.

Jackson:

No, the pregnancies are fine.

jackson,

Nobody denies 'global warming' itself. What is at issue is whether industrial pollutants have anything to do with it. The Earth gets warmer and it gets cooler and it has since the dawn of time. The Earth was significantly warmer in the Late Middle Ages than it is today. Was that due to the massive levels of industrialization that characterized the 13th century CE? A massive cold wave, a small Ice Age, contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Whatever you or I might think of the efficacy of abstinence training, and given a choice of betting on theology or biology, I'll double down on biology, it serves no purpose to question the bona fides of the many decent people who endorse it, who, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, believe it can work. These folks generally believe that kids can abstain from sex until they get married.

OJ is the exception. He is woefully ignorant of economics and especially the cost of child-rearing, househusband(translation:layabout) of a physician that he is. I would not rely on his views as evidence of mainstream religious conservatism in America.

The rapture and intelligent design are nutbuggery of the first order and are far from majority opinions in the GOP.

oj..it's not about one or the other(morality or science). It's about where each is taught. Morality is best taught by parents and churches and places of worship. Science is best taught..well..by scientists and those with knowledge of the scientific method. And children aren't going to get a full understanding of science from home..simply due to the lack of knowledge by their parents.

aaronpacy:

it is, of course, about one or the other. Darwinism is just an alternative, antimoral religion.

But, more importantly, schools exist to foster citizenship, which is dependent on morality, not scientists.

I don't know what you mean by 'Darwinism'. Evolution is science, not religion. Religion isn't science, and science isn't religion. They are very separate things.

Religion has all the answers, and it wants you to believe. Not question. Faith. Believe. Or else.

Science has many ideas. The job of every scientist is to prove those ideas wrong. By making better ideas. In most cases, this means taking the old idea and changing it around a bit. Sometimes, someone, like Einstein, comes around and puts the ideas together into something entirely new.

Religion wants their ideas to have an equal footing with science's ideas. They have. The problem is that religion's ideas are two thousand years old and more. If we ever get together a 'history of scientifical ideas'-course, *then* religion's ideas have a place. In a course on modern scientific ideas, which is what any school today gives, religion has no place.

-Magnus

Magnus:

The newness of your faith doesn't make it more likely to be true. Darwinism is just a philosophical view in religious trappings.

Orrin, I wish you would take one position and stick to it.

Putting a capital E on Establishment does not create a meaningful distinction. You are the one who claims all Christian relgions are one.

Therefore, the Ring Thing is in fact using public money to proselytize for a particular, now established religion.

If it were true that we are a Christian nation, the question would hardly arise, would it?

But then we have to look at Ring Thing, which is evangelical.

Whatever religion Americans practice, it cannot possibly be evangelicalism, as the evangelicals themselves spend most of their time pointing out how few are saved.

Accoding to George Will, of all people, the second largest 'denomination' in the US is 'no religion,' 39 million.

Subtract 65 million Catholics (not Christians in the view of the Ring guys) and assorted Jews, Moslems, Hindus etc. and not far short of half the country is excluded from this religion being established.

As a practical matter, people might think twice about that.

Subtract the Catholics? Heck, Harry, according to some around here you could then subtract the Protestants too and you guys would be a clear majority.

It's called religion and the new math.

Harry:

The capital E is the only issue. The Founders didn't care which monotheism you were so long as you were a montheist. The Republic depends on it.

Accoding to George Will, of all people, the second largest 'denomination' in the US is 'no religion,' 39 million.

All those people are Christian, too. Basically, all Americans are Christian unless they affirmatively practice some other religion, and even some of those are Christian. If you've got a Christmas tree, you're culturally Christian.

Take it up with Will.

I'm not a heresy hunter, I'm just following what I hear from Christians. Every day, almost, I listen to 'Living on the Edge,' which is an evangelical program that claims to speak for (and to) milions and tens of millions.

When I was a Catholic, I thought I was Christian. I have now been better instructed by people who live by the Bible and it's clear that I was not.

Article VI is what the Founders thought, and it does not give any privilege to monotheism. It excludes religion from government entirely.

Harry:

That it explicitly excludes only religious Tests and then only for actual officers of the government demonstrates the exact opposite. Indeed, the language suggests a religious Test for voting would be Constitutional.

There's no doubt that, at the founding, a religious test for the suffrage was constitutional. There were a number of states that had such tests. There were also states that, while preserving religious freedom and banning religious tests, barred athiests or deists from office.

The ban on religious tests for federal officers, on which Harry puts such reliance, can also be understood as being, like the First Amendment establishment clause, a way to keep the federal government out of religion entirely while reserving to the states the power to establish a church and restrict the suffrage and the ability to serve in government to its members.