Middle School offering girls birth control

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So let me guess this straight. Talking about religion or spirituality, in schools, is WRONG and has absolutely no place in schools but anything to do with sex is a okay.

Why not provide rooms for teenagers to ###### in schools. Because hey the do it anyway right. Create a new ###### 101 class so they can learn new positions.

Probably because this is one school (even in the article they admit that this is extremely uncommon), while the Creationist folks have tried to import their b/s in science curriculums state/nationwide. In perspective this isn't anything to get carried away over.

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up. I don't need a school teaching kids about sex ed. That is a parent's responsibility. Instead of teaching these kids who to interact like normal human beings in society we are busy teaching them how to ######.

Again that one school is doing this - and it isn't exactly "teaching it" like you said, isn't IMO any reason to get carried away. Nor is the fact that one school is doing this - reason enough to make blanket generalisations that don't apply to the rest of the country.

[Heracles 417]

So let me guess this straight. Talking about religion or spirituality, in schools, is WRONG and has absolutely no place in schools but anything to do with sex is a okay.

Why not provide rooms for teenagers to ###### in schools. Because hey the do it anyway right. Create a new ###### 101 class so they can learn new positions.

Probably because this is one school (even in the article they admit that this is extremely uncommon), while the Creationist folks have tried to import their b/s in science curriculums state/nationwide. In perspective this isn't anything to get carried away over.

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up. I don't need a school teaching kids about sex ed. That is a parent's responsibility. Instead of teaching these kids who to interact like normal human beings in society we are busy teaching them how to ######.

Again that one school is doing this - and it isn't exactly "teaching it" like you said, isn't IMO any reason to get carried away. Nor is the fact that one school is doing this - reason enough to make blanket generalisations that don't apply to the rest of the country.

How am I generalizing by talking about this one school???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So let me guess this straight. Talking about religion or spirituality, in schools, is WRONG and has absolutely no place in schools but anything to do with sex is a okay.

Why not provide rooms for teenagers to ###### in schools. Because hey the do it anyway right. Create a new ###### 101 class so they can learn new positions.

Probably because this is one school (even in the article they admit that this is extremely uncommon), while the Creationist folks have tried to import their b/s in science curriculums state/nationwide. In perspective this isn't anything to get carried away over.

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up. I don't need a school teaching kids about sex ed. That is a parent's responsibility. Instead of teaching these kids who to interact like normal human beings in society we are busy teaching them how to ######.

Again that one school is doing this - and it isn't exactly "teaching it" like you said, isn't IMO any reason to get carried away. Nor is the fact that one school is doing this - reason enough to make blanket generalisations that don't apply to the rest of the country.

How am I generalizing by talking about this one school???

See bolded.

[Heracles 417]

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up.

wow...stereotype much?

It is what it is. As I said earlier on. Atheism or religion are both beliefs. The only difference is that the first belief is being prioritized over others in America.

[Heracles 417]

So let me guess this straight. Talking about religion or spirituality, in schools, is WRONG and has absolutely no place in schools but anything to do with sex is a okay.

Why not provide rooms for teenagers to ###### in schools. Because hey the do it anyway right. Create a new ###### 101 class so they can learn new positions.

Probably because this is one school (even in the article they admit that this is extremely uncommon), while the Creationist folks have tried to import their b/s in science curriculums state/nationwide. In perspective this isn't anything to get carried away over.

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up. I don't need a school teaching kids about sex ed. That is a parent's responsibility. Instead of teaching these kids who to interact like normal human beings in society we are busy teaching them how to ######.

Again that one school is doing this - and it isn't exactly "teaching it" like you said, isn't IMO any reason to get carried away. Nor is the fact that one school is doing this - reason enough to make blanket generalisations that don't apply to the rest of the country.

How am I generalizing by talking about this one school???

See bolded.

How is that statement a "blanket generalization" about all schools in America?? That statement was referring to changes in America as a whole which 9/10 times tend to suit a person of atheist beliefs. I am also willing to bet money on it that most atheists are liberals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up.

wow...stereotype much?

It is what it is. As I said earlier on. Atheism or religion are both beliefs. The only difference is that the first belief is being prioritized over others in America.

You do realise that atheism and secularism aren't the same thing....?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So let me guess this straight. Talking about religion or spirituality, in schools, is WRONG and has absolutely no place in schools but anything to do with sex is a okay.

Why not provide rooms for teenagers to ###### in schools. Because hey the do it anyway right. Create a new ###### 101 class so they can learn new positions.

Probably because this is one school (even in the article they admit that this is extremely uncommon), while the Creationist folks have tried to import their b/s in science curriculums state/nationwide. In perspective this isn't anything to get carried away over.

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up. I don't need a school teaching kids about sex ed. That is a parent's responsibility. Instead of teaching these kids who to interact like normal human beings in society we are busy teaching them how to ######.

Again that one school is doing this - and it isn't exactly "teaching it" like you said, isn't IMO any reason to get carried away. Nor is the fact that one school is doing this - reason enough to make blanket generalisations that don't apply to the rest of the country.

How am I generalizing by talking about this one school???

See bolded.

How is that statement a "blanket generalization" about all schools in America?? That statement was referring to changes in America as a whole which 9/10 times tend to suit a person of atheist beliefs. I am also willing to bet money on it that most atheists are liberals.

I'm sure you are.

And yes - you're clearly suggesting that "liberal atheists" do what they like and everyone else has to lump it. Again - what we're really talking about here is secularism, which is not about no belief in God at all, but rather that religion shouldn't be state sponsored.

[Heracles 417]

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up.

wow...stereotype much?

It is what it is. As I said earlier on. Atheism or religion are both beliefs. The only difference is that the first belief is being prioritized over others in America.

You do realise that atheism and secularism aren't the same thing....?

Separated by a very very fine line.

Then again why should society be secular?? I know back in Aus the government is more than happy to encourage and fund people's diversity and different beliefs. Hence the living standards there; which speaks for itself. I am sure the UK is the same where it is all about tolerance and inclusion, rather than secularism. Wheres certain people in American are trying to create an us vs them divide; especially on the grounds of religion.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone who is a liberal atheist pretty much does as they please and sees fit with public facilities while everyone else is simply forced to put up or shut up.

wow...stereotype much?

It is what it is. As I said earlier on. Atheism or religion are both beliefs. The only difference is that the first belief is being prioritized over others in America.

You do realise that atheism and secularism aren't the same thing....?

Separated by a very very fine line.

Then again why should society be secular?? I know back in Aus the government is more than happy to encourage and fund people's diversity and different beliefs. Hence the living standards there; which speaks for itself. I am sure the UK is the same where it is all about tolerance and inclusion, rather than secularism. Wheres certain people in American are trying to create an us vs them divide; especially on the grounds of religion.

Well you kind of answered your own question there. The idea behind a secular state is not to drive out religion, but simply that the state doesn't endorse any particular belief system over the rest.

[featherB 1]

Wow! I was first offended that Texas was trying to make it mandatory for 8-10 year old girls to have an experimental vaccine for cervical cancer. .

If I had a daughter she would be first in line. Certain strains of cervical cancer are preventable and this vaccine means that one form of cancer can be eradicated and, imo, there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.

The average women will have sex in her life and this form of cervical cancer is caused by HPV which is sexually transmitted. By authorising this vaccine you are not giving girls a free reign to have sex; you are protecting them from a disease that could kill them later on in life.

Absolutely agree with you... I think the cervical cancer vaccine is a wonderful thing, and can't see why it would be offensive that girls can now be protected against something that might very well kill them if they were to develop it when they're older. Giving them that vaccine has absolutely nothing to do with 'encouraging' them to have sex!

[Heracles 417]

Separated by a very very fine line.

Then again why should society be secular?? I know back in Aus the government is more than happy to encourage and fund people's diversity and different beliefs. Hence the living standards there; which speaks for itself. I am sure the UK is the same where it is all about tolerance and inclusion, rather than secularism. Wheres certain people in American are trying to create an us vs them divide; especially on the grounds of religion.

Well you kind of answered your own question there. The idea behind a secular state is not to drive out religion, but simply that the state doesn't endorse any particular belief system over the rest.

We are clearly missing each others point here..

As I said earlier, back in Aus the states do endorse and fund various religions and their community projects. One of many reasons why it makes it such a great, tolerant and friendly place to live in. A country, after all, is about supporting its people and their beliefs.

When this country was founded the whole separation of church and state was in reference to differentiating from the UK where the Church of England had a huge influence in government affairs. It does not take a genius to realize that, at the time, they meant that there should not be one prevailing religion who influences the government. This does not mean that anything to do with religion should be pushed aside; as is the status quo here..

Edited October 19, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Separated by a very very fine line.

Then again why should society be secular?? I know back in Aus the government is more than happy to encourage and fund people's diversity and different beliefs. Hence the living standards there; which speaks for itself. I am sure the UK is the same where it is all about tolerance and inclusion, rather than secularism. Wheres certain people in American are trying to create an us vs them divide; especially on the grounds of religion.

Well you kind of answered your own question there. The idea behind a secular state is not to drive out religion, but simply that the state doesn't endorse any particular belief system over the rest.

We are clearly missing each others point here..

As I said earlier, back in Aus the states do endorse and fund various religions and their community projects. One of many reasons why it makes it such a great, tolerant and friendly place to live in. A country, after all, is about supporting its people and their beliefs.

On the other hand however, when people toot the horn about people not assimilating - its usually because they insist on retaining the cultural / religious traditions of their homeland. Weren't you saying something similar on the basis of a business ower opting to display a Mexican flag at his place of business?

When this country was founded the whole separation of church and state was in reference to differentiating from the UK where the Church of England had a huge influence in government affairs. It does not take a genius to realize that, at the time, they meant that there should not be one prevailing religion who influences the government. This does not mean that anything to do with religion should be pushed aside; as is the status quo here..

The C of E most certainly was the state religion of England a few hundred years ago. The whole reformation thing arose first out of reducing the influence of the Pope in English politics. Today - the UK, like most of the rest of europe is a predominantly secular country. We don't have "wars on christmas" or handwringing about what symbology should be displayed on official stationary. You get the odd exception of course - like the head-dress thing in France, but put simply, organised religion, at least in the UK, isn't as politically powerful as it used to be - and certainly not as powerful as it continues to be in the US. I suspect that's where the trouble stems from.

[britty 1]

They need protecting from themselves.

But at what price? Freedom? You can't keep a child away from life just because we don't think they can be trusted. Parents can help educate their children, keep them informed and offer guidance or maybe a slapped hand but we have to let them have some freedom. Keeping a child a prisoner because we are scared they'll have sex is OTT, imo.

We have to let them take responsibility for their actions at some point, it's how they learn things the hard way.

I clearly would be a very strict parent and any kids would hate me. Probably the reason I don't have any human children! I am horrified though that schools see fit to hand out contraception to minors. It just seems like children having sex is accepted or tolerated and I truly believe we should be doing everything possible to prevent it. Yes I can see that it would be impossible to keep tabs on a child 24 hours a day (in the real world) but if I were a parent I certainly would be removing my child from the school concerned and trying to keep him or her safe from this madness.

[Caladan 19]

The idea that '12-year-olds shouldn't be having sex so we shouldn't be teaching them about sex' and similar arguments only makes sense if you think that it's the existence of the available condom, or the sex education, that makes kids have sex. I am pretty sure studies have shown that there isn't a correlation.

Even if there was a correlation, that doesn't mean a whole lot. As many of my professors (especially those who taught Statistics) were fond of saying, "correlation does not imply causation." In other words, just because there's a correlation, it doesn't mean the subject necessarily caused it to happen. There may have been other variables unaccounted for at the time.

Absolutely true, but if there ain't no correlation, there sure as hell ain't no causation.