CRC Lying Continues
The other day someone showed me a copy of the CRC's latest newsletter. Listen, sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Well ... actually, I'm not much for crying about these things.
The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, you will remember, was one of the groups that sued the Montgomery County Public Schools to block improvements to the sex-ed curriculum. The CRC is backed by groups like the Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Republican Party, Family Research Council -- they like to describe themselves as a group of little ol' concerned parents, but they are better understood as a radical cell working to undermine public education in our county.
As you probably know, the county is developing a new curriculum, subsequent to the settlement agreement following the lawsuit. A couple of weeks ago, the school board's citizens advisory committee met to discuss a proposed framework for the curriculum. The word "framework" is bureaucratese for a very-high-level outline, developed by educators as a first step toward filling in a pre-K through Grade 12 curriculum.
Well, the two members of the committee who are there as part of the legal settlement submitted, between them, about 35 changes to the framework. Only one of the other thirteen members of the committee submitted one suggestion.
Some of the changes were, honestly, not very good. There were some themes, let's say, that were not acceptable to everyone present. But there were some themes, for instance suggesting that sexually active students should be taught to get regular testing for STDs, that were fine with everybody. Many items about families and marriage were proposed, and most of those were OK with everyone, except for the ones that supposed that you have to be married to have sex, and ones that tried to argue that only a True Cleaver Family is a "real" family. Oh, and the ones that said that "homosexual behaviors" lead to AIDS were not accepted.
So, after a long, drawn-out meeting with lots of negotiating and lots of points made, eleven of the suggestions were accepted. Many of the votes were close.
One thing that happened was that committee members voted against suggestions, not because they didn't like the suggestion, but because they didn't feel it belonged in this high-level outline. Many of them were clearly inappropriate for this kind of document. In fact, the school district ended up rejecting a lot of the things that the committee did suggest, for this reason.
At least two committee members -- I was one -- stated explicitly in the meeting that they weren't opposed to including the information in the curriculum, but were voting against some items because they didn't think they should be in the framework document.
The citizens committee votes by a "fifty percent plus one" rule, which means that, say, a 7-to-6 vote doesn't pass, you need 8 to 5. One vote was close, and the committee chair asked if anyone would change their vote, and I said, Sure, I'll do that. Because I didn't object to the content of the suggestion, just its inclusion at this early stage of the process.
OK, that's background. Now, somebody showed me this CRC document where they describe the committee's meeting. It's bizarre -- here's what they say:
Now, I'm on that citizens committee, I know those people, I have attended every meeting. And I am a little baffled.
Who in the world thinks that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection?" Certainly it is no one on the citizens advisory committee.
Nothing like this was suggested in any committee meeting, or in any conversations in the parking-lot afterwards, or in any email or discussion -- nobody supports that point of view. There were thoughtful discussions in the meeting about how to discuss marriage and family in schools where many students, for whatever reasons, live in homes that are not Perfectly Cleaveresque. There were thoughtful discussions of the reasons people engage in sex, about the relationship between sexual orientation and AIDS, about how to discuss the topic of "relationships" including friendships as well as romantic relationships with adolescents, and many other interesting and important topics -- but nobody ever suggested that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection."
The reason Dr. Jacobs may have had some trouble having her recommendations passed was that they were inappropriate for this stage of the process. We were simply arranging topic headings over the course of a 12-year educational process, and it was not the time to make specific recommendations for course content. Everyone at that meeting understood this fact as the votes were counted. --And I don't blame her for that, we are not educators, we aren't expected to know how this process works. She's eager to get her stuff included, but this wasn't the time for it.
Oh, they'd love it if there was an evil conspiracy to corrupt our children!
They'd love it so much, they tell their newsletter readers that there is such a conspiracy. They just make it up. There was nothing at all to support these ridiculous statements. Nobody on the committee has remotely implied that "anything goes," but the liars at CRC feel perfectly justified in putting this bull-oney into their newsletter and sending it to people who may not be paying much attention and might not know anything else about what's going on.
The citizens advisory committee meetings are open to the public, if you want to know what really happens, feel free to sit and watch.
Well ... actually, I'm not much for crying about these things.
The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, you will remember, was one of the groups that sued the Montgomery County Public Schools to block improvements to the sex-ed curriculum. The CRC is backed by groups like the Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Republican Party, Family Research Council -- they like to describe themselves as a group of little ol' concerned parents, but they are better understood as a radical cell working to undermine public education in our county.
As you probably know, the county is developing a new curriculum, subsequent to the settlement agreement following the lawsuit. A couple of weeks ago, the school board's citizens advisory committee met to discuss a proposed framework for the curriculum. The word "framework" is bureaucratese for a very-high-level outline, developed by educators as a first step toward filling in a pre-K through Grade 12 curriculum.
Well, the two members of the committee who are there as part of the legal settlement submitted, between them, about 35 changes to the framework. Only one of the other thirteen members of the committee submitted one suggestion.
Some of the changes were, honestly, not very good. There were some themes, let's say, that were not acceptable to everyone present. But there were some themes, for instance suggesting that sexually active students should be taught to get regular testing for STDs, that were fine with everybody. Many items about families and marriage were proposed, and most of those were OK with everyone, except for the ones that supposed that you have to be married to have sex, and ones that tried to argue that only a True Cleaver Family is a "real" family. Oh, and the ones that said that "homosexual behaviors" lead to AIDS were not accepted.
So, after a long, drawn-out meeting with lots of negotiating and lots of points made, eleven of the suggestions were accepted. Many of the votes were close.
One thing that happened was that committee members voted against suggestions, not because they didn't like the suggestion, but because they didn't feel it belonged in this high-level outline. Many of them were clearly inappropriate for this kind of document. In fact, the school district ended up rejecting a lot of the things that the committee did suggest, for this reason.
At least two committee members -- I was one -- stated explicitly in the meeting that they weren't opposed to including the information in the curriculum, but were voting against some items because they didn't think they should be in the framework document.
The citizens committee votes by a "fifty percent plus one" rule, which means that, say, a 7-to-6 vote doesn't pass, you need 8 to 5. One vote was close, and the committee chair asked if anyone would change their vote, and I said, Sure, I'll do that. Because I didn't object to the content of the suggestion, just its inclusion at this early stage of the process.
OK, that's background. Now, somebody showed me this CRC document where they describe the committee's meeting. It's bizarre -- here's what they say:
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum continue in its efforts to ensure that accuracy, balance and fact are what are used in the development of the new Family Life and Human Development curriculum.
Dr. Ruth Jacobs, M.D., has attended each of the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings as the CRC representative. Her background as an infectious disease specialist enables her to research, review and include that information which will most benefit our youth in their decisions regarding sexual activity.
Unfortunately we have found a pervasive effort still exists in wanting to teach our vulnerable and naive youth that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection." Dr. Jacobs has had some difficulty in having her recommendations pass by committee vote, which finds several members abstaining on a regular basis while others, who would have our kids believe "anything goes", block her efforts at every turn.
The CAC chair, Dr. Carol Plotsky, has fortunately recognized some validity to issues/concerns raised by Dr. Jacobs and a few others. She has assured the CAC members that these will be revisited when the time arrives for the writing of the curriculum "blueprint". The curriculum framework has just recently been presented and approved by the Board of Education and Dr. Jerry Weast, superintendent.
Join us and many others who share the same desire to keep our children healthy and safe -- let's work together to protect our children!
Sincerely,
Michelle Turner, President, CRC
Now, I'm on that citizens committee, I know those people, I have attended every meeting. And I am a little baffled.
Who in the world thinks that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection?" Certainly it is no one on the citizens advisory committee.
Nothing like this was suggested in any committee meeting, or in any conversations in the parking-lot afterwards, or in any email or discussion -- nobody supports that point of view. There were thoughtful discussions in the meeting about how to discuss marriage and family in schools where many students, for whatever reasons, live in homes that are not Perfectly Cleaveresque. There were thoughtful discussions of the reasons people engage in sex, about the relationship between sexual orientation and AIDS, about how to discuss the topic of "relationships" including friendships as well as romantic relationships with adolescents, and many other interesting and important topics -- but nobody ever suggested that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection."
The reason Dr. Jacobs may have had some trouble having her recommendations passed was that they were inappropriate for this stage of the process. We were simply arranging topic headings over the course of a 12-year educational process, and it was not the time to make specific recommendations for course content. Everyone at that meeting understood this fact as the votes were counted. --And I don't blame her for that, we are not educators, we aren't expected to know how this process works. She's eager to get her stuff included, but this wasn't the time for it.
Oh, they'd love it if there was an evil conspiracy to corrupt our children!
They'd love it so much, they tell their newsletter readers that there is such a conspiracy. They just make it up. There was nothing at all to support these ridiculous statements. Nobody on the committee has remotely implied that "anything goes," but the liars at CRC feel perfectly justified in putting this bull-oney into their newsletter and sending it to people who may not be paying much attention and might not know anything else about what's going on.
The citizens advisory committee meetings are open to the public, if you want to know what really happens, feel free to sit and watch.
posted by JimK at 10:03 AM
41 Comments:
I'd like to see Ruth apologize to the CAC for the actions of the group, CRC, which she represents, and to see her call on Michelle to rescind her statments.
It's a viewpoint more than a "conspiracy"- a word, by the way, used by Jim not Turner. CRC has made reasonable interpretation of the TTF viewpoint and probably many members of the CAC. The Fishback revisions were neutral about the morality of sexual behaviors (thus, saying they're OK) and TTF says, regardless whether an activity is moral or immoral, kids need to be taught how to protect themselves from the consequences of their behaviors.
No one lied and the title of this post is a form of deceit.
anon said, No one lied and the title of this post is a form of deceit.
Yes a CRC'r would think so.
freebird
Anon, the CRC newsletter claims that Dr. Jacobs' proposals found "several members abstaining on a regular basis while others, who would have our kids believe "anything goes", block her efforts at every turn." This explicitly says that some committee members "would have our kids believe 'anything goes'". No committee members believe that, and it was not the grounds for abstaining votes, or for votes against inappropriate items. The two types of votes were discussed by committee members, in public, at an open meeting, while the votes were taking place. Everyone was open about the real issue, which was the appropriateness of low-level details in a high-level "framework."
This statement is a lie, dreamed up to support the conspiracy theory that the CRC needs to battle depraved elements in our society and on the citizens advisory committee. It's ridiculous, it's false, and it's insulting. It's a lie, and a malicious one.
JimK
The item from CRC just regurgitates their lame arguments about old. Remember the letter Retta wrote and supported by Michelle and company when the now CRC'rs did not get their way on old CAC?
Maybe the CRC item should be shared with CAC.
freebird
"Anon, the CRC newsletter claims that Dr. Jacobs' proposals found "several members abstaining on a regular basis while others, who would have our kids believe "anything goes", block her efforts at every turn." This explicitly says that some committee members "would have our kids believe 'anything goes'". No committee members believe that, and it was not the grounds for abstaining votes, or for votes against inappropriate items. The two types of votes were discussed by committee members, in public, at an open meeting, while the votes were taking place. Everyone was open about the real issue, which was the appropriateness of low-level details in a high-level "framework."
This statement is a lie,"
Speculating above motives is not the same as lying and, honestly, you don't know why members voted as they did- you just know what they said the reasons are.
Anon, that's -- woops, I almost used the word "bullshit," which I try to avoid on this blog.
JimK
Ah, go for it. It won't bother me.
Jim,
Perhaps the phrase you are seeking is "horsefeathers"?
Thanks for trying to help, Tish -- I'm just glad I caught myself before I actually said it.
I understanding framing, and re-wording things to put your point of view in a more favorable light. But these guys actually re-write the rules of human nature and physical reality in order to make it sound like Ms Turner's description of the citizens advisory committee contains an ounce of credibility.
The members of that committee are intelligent professionals -- even the CRC and PFOX members -- who represent a wide range of political viewpoints. None want our kids to believe that "anything goes," or that any kind of sexual activity is acceptable and without serious consequence... if they use "protection." The group discussed their voting, and there was no implication that anyone opposed decency. There were no concealed motives, no wink-wink stuff, it was simply that the framework was not the place for these kinds of suggestions.
I'd say I agree with Dana's original comment here, this is a situation that deserves an apology to the committee.
JimK
Well, thanks for your informed perspective, Jim.
It is vile and disgusting that these self-righteous, insolent fools cannot see anything but their own point of view. (Oh yeah, I know how you guys spin that one, but it's true)
And the funniest part is, the CRC is a special interest group (although they complain about them). Perhaps more "special" than others, or so they believe.
I hope natural selection takes it toll on these insolent, ignorant people.
The only way to avoid having "vulnerable and naive youth" is to fill students' heads with as much information about sex as possible. Information is the cure of whatever mass vulnerability there may be.
Andrew
Andrew Bennett writes,
The only way to avoid having "vulnerable and naive youth" is to fill students' heads with as much information about sex as possible. Information is the cure of whatever mass vulnerability there may be.
The critical thing is not information, though that is important. The critical element is wisdom. The belief that information is the be all and end all and cure for all that ails us is a liberal nostrum, an article of faith with no foundation in reality.
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
Sorry, Orin, but it's an old Jewish maxim that wisdom begins with knowledge. Unprocessed facts are just the beginning, but without knowledge there can be no wisdom. That's not "liberal." And I will remind you that the only reason you and I and even Wyatt are here on this blog is because this is a liberal, secular state with a liberal secular Constitution, no matter how desperately King George is trying to shred it and Pastor James Dobson is trying to impose his constipated theology on us all.
Do you think we would be discussing this in China?
And check out the Google search results -- the countries with the greatest number of hits on any issue related to search are, you guessed it, the Muslim countries. I wonder why?
Wyatt, I believe Ruth and Retta have been taping the CAC sessions. If you don't trust Jim's report or my report, why don't you have her play the tapes for you. Bring plenty of caffeine, but you might learn something.
Wyatt would find it better to pretend other things you know and would have no interest in actual tapes that disproved his dribble.
Furthermore why didn't CRC say in their "fantasy" newsletter that they have tapes of all the happenings of CAC and could prove Ruth's allegations and theirs?
Well we all know why they didn't.
Dana writes,
Sorry, Orin, but it's an old Jewish maxim that wisdom begins with knowledge.
Now I must have missed that quote, do you have a source for it...do you?
Here is what Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes (in part) about wisdom,
Proverbs is obsessed with the subject of wisdom, what it is and how to acquire it. The author feels that to become wise, one must first acknowledge God: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7)
(Biblical Literacy, p. 343)
One can be smart (knowledgeable) and still not be wise; an immediate example that comes to mind is a one-time Rhodes Scholar by the name of Bill Clinton. I suspect there are few smarter than President Clinton, but can anyone say that he was wise?
Unprocessed facts are just the beginning, but without knowledge there can be no wisdom.
Actually the above statement is incomplete; facts without any sort of a framework are just that, facts. Facts are organized typically around a framework called an ideology (hence why I have in the past referred to this site as Teach the Ideology, since facts without an ideology are in a sense, formless).
Here is a letter to the editor that ran just yesterday that speaks to to the issue of ideology in the area of human sexuality education (and though I told Jim I would not "crash" this blog with such a letter, I think it directly addresses the divide between those that advocate Comprehensive Sex Ed versus Abstinence Sex Ed),
Abstinence and developing healthy character
Denver Post - Letters to the Editor,
May 11, 2006
Re: "Failure rate of teen abstinence programs," May 9 Open Forum.
Abstinence programs are not so much about "reproductive health" - a euphemism for unrestricted sexual practices and their consequences - as they are about development of healthy character. Rather than have our young people come into their sexuality as animals acting on instinct, abstinence programs instill a sense of respect and dignity both for oneself and for others, a refusal to be used or to use others for sexual gratification, and an informed decision to preserve sex for the profound gift of self in life- long committed love to another in marriage that it was meant to be.
The wisdom that would protect young people from impulsive, selfish and/or abusive behavior is denigrated as "archaic" by letter-writer Erik Moore's thinking, resulting in epidemic levels of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abdication of parental (especially fatherly) responsibilities, objectification of women, and abandonment of mothers and children.
Abstinence requires strength of character. Instilling this is the greatest protection we can offer our children. Handing out condoms and promoting abortion only engender the social woes we seek to eliminate. Raising up people of strong character, respectful of oneself and all alike, includes continuing to promote abstinence before marriage.
Becky Jennings, Centennial
Do we want good character formed at this critical stage, or not??? Character is formed by the development of self-control, not a condom.
That's not "liberal."
What is liberalism, but a belief in the infinite changeability of humankind through reason?
And I will remind you that the only reason you and I and even Wyatt are here on this blog is because this is a liberal, secular state with a liberal secular Constitution, no matter how desperately King George is trying to shred it and Pastor James Dobson is trying to impose his constipated theology on us all.
Now, now...now you are getting petulent. I realize that the ACLU, the People for the American Way, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (not to mention all the other fellow travelers) are actively working at convincing the general public that what you have so forcefully asserted is true. Problem is this: in a free and open society, where information is readily available, just about anyone can check such claims to see if they are supported.
Ok, so you doubt me? Ok, simply google Northwest Ordinance, then tab down to Article 3, which reads,
ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
And though I have never had the honor of meeting Dr. James Dobson (For 14 years Dr. Dobson was an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and served for 17 years on the Attending Staff of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics. He has an earned Ph.D. from the University of Southern California (1967) in the field of child development.), I do know one thing about this man, he is far more compasionate and understanding about what children need than any of his critics.
Next time, leave off the name calling...it tends to diminish the credibility that the M.D. after your name seeks to establish.
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
"And I will remind you that the only reason we are here on this blog is because this is a liberal, secular state with a liberal secular Constitution, no matter how desperately King George is trying to shred it and Pastor James Dobson is trying to impose his constipated theology on us all."
Actually, godless rationalism has been tried and the results have been horrific. Liberals have a tendency toward totalitarianism when unchecked. They try to enact laws controlling speech and thought. There are parts of Western Europe where the coversations we have here could get you arrested for hate crimes. A preacher there was arrested last year for a sermon calling homosexuality sinful. We have free speech here because of our constitution, which liberalism constantly tries to steer away from original intent to the current social craze. The free speech we enjoy is rooted philosophically in the biblical principles of individual responsibilty raised by Martin Luther.
"I believe Ruth and Retta have been taping the CAC sessions. If you don't trust Jim's report or my report, why don't you have her play the tapes for you. Bring plenty of caffeine, but you might learn something."
I, anonymous commenter known as Straw Man, do indeed believe Jim's account. I just think he takes things at face value and has a motive to do so. He wants to believe this. People have agendas, almost always. For CRC to try to interpret those of the CAC members is not misleading. Go ahead and disagree with it. Instead of trying to win an argument by just presenting your view, however, you seem to think that you have to assert that the other side had no right to even speak. Every speculation which enlightens is a lie to you. Yet that kind of speculation is a regular TTF feature.
I guess you're right that identifying oneself leads to a more civil discussion. What better example of civility than our regular Mr Suave, Alex?
Oh yeah, there's you. Never mind.
Religion can at times be beautiful, but there is nothing more filthy and deceptive than those with a HATEFUL [and ignorant] agenda hiding behind religion to justify their insolent opinions which have no other basis.
that's what I'm talking about!
thanks, Alex
anonymous said--For CRC to try to interpret those of the CAC members is not misleading. Go ahead and disagree with it.
It most certainly is when the Ruth and her cohorts could ask the CAC members what they were thinking and don't. Then Ruth goes off and cries the big bad CAC would not listen to her and there is a conspiracy in voting. Gee oh wait now CRC'rs said that in first go around too.
Gracie
Wow. A grown father of three hiding in anonymity while picking on a high school student.
That's quite an illustration of bullying.
WTG, hardly Man.
Orin, there was no name calling re: Dobson, unless you call my use of the adjective "constipated" with respect to theology name-calling. I think it was pretty benign.
I'll stand by my interpretation of the man. I would never consider meeting him an honor. Everything I've read from his mouth or pen I consider hateful.
The fact that he was a Professor for seventeen years is meaningless. His credentials get him a hearing, but they don't protect him from criticism regarding the content.
Professor McHugh from Hopkins happens to be highly respected by his colleagues, unlike Dobson, for real, and deservedly so on some issues. But when it comes to sex he's antideluvian, and knows little of what he speaks. And I've had dialogue with him and know that personally. He's rude and crude and completely unprofessional when it comes to sexual issues, in spite of having been chairman of a Department of Psychiatry.
You know an ideology is very shallow when its proponents always come back to the same old guys for quotes, as is the case with Dobson and McHugh.
I would follow up on the rest of your material but I spent all day getting my car repaired and now I have to prepare for an environmental debate tomorrow, as well as for a bar mitzvah. Sorry.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Orin,
Here are two of my favorite quotes on wisdon and knowledge:
Avot 3:21
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria: Without Torah there is no social order; without social order there is no Torah. Without wisdom, there is no conscience; without conscience, there is no wisdom. Without knowledge, there is no understanding; without understanding there is no knowledge. Without sustenance, there is no Torah; without Torah there is no sustenance.
Hendrix:
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
Dana writes,
Here are two of my favorite quotes on wisdom and knowledge:
Avot 3:21
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria: Without Torah there is no social order; without social order there is no Torah. Without wisdom, there is no conscience; without conscience, there is no wisdom. Without knowledge, there is no understanding; without understanding there is no knowledge. Without sustenance, there is no Torah; without Torah there is no sustenance.
You do know what Torah means? It means the Law...God's law, i.e. a law higher than our own whim and fancy. Good quote, but I fail to see how it supports the position that you and TTF advocate...and here I would remind you of the letter to the editor from the Denver Post,
Rather than have our young people come into their sexuality as animals acting on instinct, abstinence programs instill a sense of respect and dignity both for oneself and for others, a refusal to be used or to use others for sexual gratification, and an informed decision to preserve sex for the profound gift of self in life
Repeating the first half of the first line of the quote by Rabbi ben Azaria,
Without Torah there is no social order...
Without the Law there is no social order? That in a nutshell is what abstinence education is all about...thanks for making this argument.
Hendrix:
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
Sorry, but I do not take counsel from dead rock stars (and how did he die?...oh, yeah, a drug overdose)...Hendrix was incredibly creative to be sure, but it would be the pinacle of foolishness to put any stock into such an aphorism (if it can be called even that).
Dana writes,
Orin, there was no name calling re: Dobson, unless you call my use of the adjective "constipated" with respect to theology name-calling. I think it was pretty benign.
That is how I would expect a teenager to react, not an adult with an advanced degree.
You wrote,
Pastor James Dobson is trying to impose his constipated theology on us all.
Please Dana, examples of how Dobson's theology is constipated...else it would appear that you seem content to hurl epithets without feeling any need to substantiate what you say. I have given one example in the past on these pages of how Dobson is actually quite progressive (go to,
http://www.family.org,
and type in MASTURBATION (shocking, eh?) in the search window on the index page and it will appear as the first link; click on that, and read it...then explain to me how this is so regressive...please.
I'll stand by my interpretation of the man. I would never consider meeting him an honor. Everything I've read from his mouth or pen I consider hateful.
"Hateful"? Or is it that you simply do not agree with him? How, exactly, is he hateful? It is easy to call anyone you disagree with "hateful" or "homophobic" (or pick your favorite label)...it is a tad more difflicult to articulate why that person qualifies to carry that label, giving specific examples. For example, it is fair...even accurate...to describe the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas as hateful. Why? Well, for beginners he has a website that says "god hates fags" - a theological statement that is as untrue as it is cruel. How do I know this? Because I know scripture teaches that God hates all sin, mine included.
Orin writes:
I have given one example in the past on these pages of how Dobson is actually quite progressive
________
Progressive????
Dobson on spanking your children
http://www.focusonyourchild.com/hottopics/a0001043.cfm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson
and homosexuals
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070004
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2004/10/dobson_gays_wil.html
freebird
I'm sorry, Orin, but Torah is not just Law. Halakha (Jewish Law)is part of Torah, but there is much more to it. And that law has evolved over the past 2500 years. As a matter of act, today I personally read for my congreagation the story of how a "blasphemer" was stoned by the community, as well as the classic "eye for an eye" quote. Is that the Law you suggest we follow?
Should our children follow more than just their whim and fancy? Yes, that's why we support comprehensive sex education. I don't want my children getting sick, nor entering into damaging emotional or sexual relationships. Yet they do need to learn, and one learns by having relationships. We need to help them through that, not be moral hypocrites by calling on them to abstain until marriage.
I've pointed this out many times before. In a society where pubescent girls were married off to older men, there was no need for abstinence education. Today we recognize that as child sexual abuse. Most humans wait until they're in their mid-twenties to get married, for those who are legally entitled to get married. They should not have to wait until 25 or 27 to have sex. Sex is not dirty. It is not evil. It can be beautiful, and we should try to understand its positive aspects instead of simply regarding it as sinful. We might want to learn something from those dreaded, effete Europeans on this. The maybe we'd have fewer abortions, less pornography, fewer sex clubs, and fewer divorces as well. And for some unknown reason those social ills always seem to be most problematic in red states. Hmmmm.
I'll let others give you examples of Dobson's hate. I don't care to look back through that. I'm sorry you consider the word "constipated" as adolescent. As a physician I think it's quite appropriate, and really quite benign.
And I must say I am pretty taken back by the turn in your words lately. You're sounding much more like Wyatt, and I find that quite surprising.
freebird writes,
Progressive????
Question: Did you check out the link?
Dobson on spanking your children
http://www.focusonyourchild.com/hottopics/a0001043.cfm
Sigh, this is a difflicult issue due to the ease with which physical discipline can cross the line into physical (not to mention emotional) abuse. My wife is against any physical discipline; I think physical discipline can work with some children, but that it's effectiveness decreases as it is used more frequently (hence, it must be used sparingly).
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Dobson
If I were a teacher and found a student using Wikipedia as a source for school work I would fail that student. There is no peer review process for information posted.
homosexuals
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070004
You should know that David Brock, the President of Media Matters is a liar...a liar by his own admission. He wrote the book on Anita Hill, depicting her as a pawn of extremist left-wing partisans and as a liar, and then after he disavowed his conservative journalistic begginings and "came out", he stated that he wrote the book on Hill as a pawn himself of that "vast vight ving conspiracy". Reminds me of that expression...fool me once, shame on you; fool me again, shame on me.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2004/10/dobson
From that site,
"Analytic philosophy and liberal politics"
Did not find alot of the former, but did find quite a bit of the later. I found this link she provided to be especially revealing,
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/121369.htm
and esp. this quote by Dobson,
"Homosexuals are not monogamous."
Now I know that what I am about to write will cause many of you to go apoplectic, but it is a fact (and isn't that what this site is committed to?).
The above statement by Dobson is factually correct.
Now, I am not trying to be the "bad boy" of this blog, but truth demands that the statement be affirmed. Rather than let loose a barage of vituperation I merely request that you post facts that refute Dobson's statement (and no, calling Dobson's theology "constipated" does not count). I know the truth of Dobson's statement by what I have read and what I have directly observed.
freebird
Thank you for the links.
On to Dana's reply...
Dana Beyer, M.D. writes,
I'm sorry, Orin, but Torah is not just Law. Halakha (Jewish Law)is part of Torah, but there is much more to it. And that law has evolved over the past 2500 years. As a matter of act, today I personally read for my congreagation the story of how a "blasphemer" was stoned by the community, as well as the classic "eye for an eye" quote. Is that the Law you suggest we follow?
With the exception of the prohibition against polytheism and idol worship, jewish teachings are evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
Since you brought up the "eye for an eye" quote, do you understand the historical background to this ethical teaching? Simply put, before this teaching, introduced by the Jews, most cultures in the Middle East practiced collective punishment; that is, when an individual did something wrong, all too often they and their family were punished. What an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" established as an ethical principle is that a punishment must fit the crime. For example, if one person hits another in the mouth and that person loses a tooth as a result, the punishment to imposed upon the offender cannot be to lose an arm.
Bottomline? The punishment MUST match the crime...that is, be proportional.
I really wish people that denounce this innovation in criminal justice would first understand what they are talking about (here I am thinking of the "Rev." Jesse Jackson, perhaps the most egregious violator of the correct understanding of this quote).
Dana writes,
Should our children follow more than just their whim and fancy? Yes, that's why we support comprehensive sex education.
But doesn't comprehensive sex education endorse the view that sex before a committed, long term relationship is ok, so long as "protection" is used?
I don't want my children getting sick, nor entering into damaging emotional or sexual relationships. Yet they do need to learn, and one learns by having relationships.
I don't want my two daughters getting sick, or entering into damaging emotional or sexual relationships either. And yes, one can learn quite abit about relationships sans the sex...though it does appear that you equate learning with relationship with sex.
We need to help them through that, not be moral hypocrites by calling on them to abstain until marriage.
"Hypocrite, see hypocrisy...hypocrisy (noun): the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess, i.e. falseness" I gather then Dana that you do not think that a parent who has ever had sex prior to marriage cannot teach the same to their children, correct? I guess then (if you answered in the affirmative) that if a parent ever used drugs they could not (or would not have standing) teach their children not to engage in recreational drug use. I have a friend that I get together with frequently...we bicycle, hike and enjoy micro beers together. On one outing this friend disclosed to me recreational drug use in college. I know for a fact that this parent (has two children, like me) teaches his children not to use drugs...is this person a "hypocrite"? I don't think of this friend as a hypocrite; in fact, this person is as secular as I am religious, yet I think this person is more ethical and moral than most people (religious ones included!).
Is there any possibility that a parent could have experienced sex prior to marriage, and concluded as a parent that this is not the normative standard they want to teach to their children?
I've pointed this out many times before. In a society where pubescent girls were married off to older men, there was no need for abstinence education. Today we recognize that as child sexual abuse.
And regretably this still exists...even in the United States,
URL,
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-sect12may12,1,5850158.story
Most humans wait until they're in their mid-twenties to get married, for those who are legally entitled to get married. They should not have to wait until 25 or 27 to have sex.
Says who??? You? Is there a "natural right" to sex? Is this really what we want to teach our children? This reminds me of the conclusion of a preface from a book by a Professor at the University of Virginia, James Davison Hunter,
"We say we want a renewal of character in our day but we don't really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal
order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels.
This price is too high for us to pay.
We want character but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue but without
particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it;
we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom.
In short, we want what we cannot have on the terms that we want it."
(The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil)
Sex is not dirty. It is not evil. It can be beautiful, and we should try to understand its positive aspects instead of simply regarding it as sinful.
Have I ever even implied sex is dirty? About the only ones I hear talking about "sex being dirty" are those accusing abstinence advocates like myself of espousing such an idea.
Nope...sex is not "dirty" and it is not "evil", but sex does have a purpose, and that purpose defines limits. What might those limits be? Well, the first is obvious (though it would appear to be lost upon those oh-so-enlightened-europeans, see,
http://commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12105031_1
for an erudite analysis of the demographic corner Western Europeans have painted themselves into), that is (gasp!) procreation. The second purpose is to bond a man and a woman on the most intimate level possible. What happens to the personality of individuals that have sex with many partners? Author William Kilpatrick has a suggestion,
"But there is an even greater unreality lying at the bottom of the safe-sex approach, and that is the assumption that pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the only problems. Another possibility - that one can do harm to one's own personality as well as to one's health through casual sex - is largely ignored. The link between sex and character is a missing link in sex education.
Sexual activity affects the kind of person we are in deep and lasting ways. The idea that one can have sex with one person after another without becoming a different person is naive, to say the least. The traditional reference to sexual intercourse as the "act of love" recognizes that is an action that creates a bond and implies a promise. To have sex without any such intent makes one a bit of a liar. To do it over and over with numerous partners makes one a liar several times over."
(Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for Character Education_, pp. 62-63)
Yup...one can use a condom and birth control pills, but casual sex makes a human person a liar.
We might want to learn something from those dreaded, effete Europeans on this. Then maybe we'd have fewer abortions, less pornography, fewer sex clubs, and fewer divorces as well. And for some unknown reason those social ills always seem to be most problematic in red states. Hmmmm.
Willingly go along with de-populating the United States like Western Europe has? (and on a scale not seen since the Black Plague?) Thanks, but I'll pass...strikes me as along the same line as accepting advice from dead rock stars.
I'll let others give you examples of Dobson's hate. I don't care to look back through that. I'm sorry you consider the word "constipated" as adolescent. As a physician I think it's quite appropriate, and really quite benign.
So, what you are saying then appears to be that you will hurl a name and then walk away when asked to substantiate that name? Not a viable long-term strategy for maintaining one's credibility, IMO.
And I must say I am pretty taken back by the turn in your words lately. You're sounding much more like Wyatt, and I find that quite surprising.
Well, boo hoo...I guess you assume that I care what others think...I don't. If I am the Last Person (Hegel anyone?), I will continue to advocate abstinence as a directed curriculum to our children.
I am more convinced than ever from my exchanges here on TTF that what we have are two diametrically opposed worldviews that have less to do with FACTS and more to do with IDEOLOGY. Hence I would propose in the spirit of truth in advertising that this site be renamed,
Teach the Ideology
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO.
Orin, I am wondering if we have two people using this name... it is weird.
If I were a teacher and found a student using Wikipedia as a source for school work I would fail that student. There is no peer review process for information posted.
This is perfectly wrong. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know of that does have peer review.
JimK
Orin said, But doesn't comprehensive sex education endorse the view that sex before a committed, long term relationship is ok, so long as "protection" is used?
No, the MCPS comprehensive sex education curriculum that we are discussing on this website does not "endorse the view that sex before a committed, long term relationship is OK so long as 'protection' is used." Haven't you bothered to read the MCPS proposed abstinence based comprehensive sex education curriculum yet? It's a mere click away near the top of this page on the right hand side.
Our teens were to learn about developing relationships:
XIII. Giving and Receiving Equally in Relationships
A. Personal qualities
1. dependability
2. honesty (to one’s self, and when presenting one’s self to others)
3. trustworthiness
B. How to develop relationships and share equally
1. avoid criticism, complaints, put downs
2. honest and rewarding feedback
3. learn about others’ strengths and special talents
4. talk openly and honestly about feelings and needs
5. accept individual differences (e.g. ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, etc.)
6. respect personal values, rights, and needs
7. treat others as you would like them to treat you
Our teens were to learn that their family, culture, and religion can affect relationships and marriage.
IV. CULTURAL AND FAMILY BELIEFS CAN AFFECT RELATIONSHIPS AND
MARRIAGE
A. Possible Effects of Cultural Factors (The following are examples of how cultural and/or
family beliefs may affect relationships.)
1. arranged marriages
2. chaperoned dates
3. gender roles in household
B. Possible Affects of Religious Beliefs
1. cannot marry outside the religion
2. children must be raised in the same religion
3. different religions take different stands on sexual behaviors and there are even different views among people of the same religion
C. Other Factors That May Affect Relationships
1. education and economic status
2. family acceptance of partner/friend
3. sexual orientation of partner/friend
4. ethnicity of partner/ friend
D. Examples of Problems Created by Contrasting Values/Beliefs (The following are examples
of what may happen.)
1. rejection
2. harassment
3. internal conflict and devaluation of the self
E. Ways to Manage Problems Created By Contrasting Values
1. Talk to someone you trust in your:
• family
• school community
• neighborhood community
• religious community
2. Seek out information to help clarify your beliefs and feelings
Our teens were to be taught to weigh many factors about sexual behavior:
VIII. Peer Pressure and Other Factors That Can Influence Decisions Regarding Sexual
Behavior
A. Peer pressure
1. define, describe and give examples
2. "all your friends are doing it" - perception that is not accurate
3. manipulation to convince you to do something you don't want to do or to be something you don’t want to be
B. Other factors
1. family expectations and values
2. myths and misconceptions you may have regarding sexual behavior
3. cultural beliefs
4. religious beliefs
5. media messages
C. Sifting through all the influences
1. only you can decide what is best for you
2. a decision that should be based on more than passion
3. deciding what is right for you is a tough decision, but an important one
Our teens were to be warned about the possible consequences of sexual activity:
IX. Analyze Consequence of Sexual Activity
A. Negative feelings about self
1. poor self concept
2. low self-esteem
3. disappointment
4. depression
5. suicide
B. Feelings others may hold
1. loss of reputation
2. change of friends
C. Pregnancy
1. change in lifestyle
D. Sexually transmitted diseases
1. infection that may cause death or damage to sexual organs
E. Long-term loving relationship
1. rare among teens
2. promises before sexual activity are many times forgotten afterward
F. Positive consequences
1. there are positive consequences of sexual activity for adults, but for most
teens the negative results far outweigh the positive
MCPS teens were to be taught the possible consequences of becoming a parent while still a teenager:
X. Review the Social, Emotional and Economic Impact of Teenage Parenting
A. Social
1. loss of friendships
2. loss of social activities
3. marrying for the wrong reasons
B. Economic
1. inability to complete educational goals
2. lack of employment skills
3. low paying employment
4. use of the welfare system
C. Emotional
1. low self-esteem/concept
2. depression
3. forced to act like an adult (job, bills, parenting)
4. inability to cope with child rearing
a. child abuse
b. neglect
c. adoption
d. other
5. lost adolescence
Far from being told that "sex before a committed, long term relationship is ok, so long as "protection" is used", MCPS teens were to be provided with a wealth of information about relationships and sexuality so they would be able to make fully informed decisions for themselves.
Christine
Jim writes,
Orin, I am wondering if we have two people using this name... it is weird.
Nope, I don't think so...and no, I don't have multiple personalities, unless you ask my 16 year old...
I wrote previously,
If I were a teacher and found a student using Wikipedia as a source for school work I would fail that student. There is no peer review process for information posted.
Jim writes,
This is perfectly wrong. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know of that does have peer review.
Huh?
What about World Book Encyclopedia?
http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Login?ed=wb
or Encyclopedia Britanica?
http://www.britannica.com/
to name just the two most widely known.
Then what am I to make of this at the main page,
"Welcome to Wikipedia
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
What am I to conclude from such an admission? This is a problem on the internet...information getting posted on the internet that is made to appear that it has passed a review process, when in fact ANYONE can post "information"...even ME! Then again, I only speak for myself, something my spouse reminds me of every day.
On second thought...I think I was being harsh. I would have the student come in during office hours and I would explain the HOW'S and WHY'S and seek to persuade the student that not all information is equal.
Orin, maybe the smart thing would be, rather than punishing students, to understand how Wikipedia works. There have been a couple of well-publicized abuses of it, but generally what happens is that people who know something about a topic correct errors in discussions of that topic. I have edited the swarm intelligence sections, for instance. The Encyclopedia Britannica has never asked me about swarm intelligence, even though I am an internationally recognized expert on the topic. If they have a section on it (another advantage of Wikipedia, it can add information about events as soon as they happen, it will be ten years at least before Britannica adds this topic), they will appoint somebody to write it, he won't ask me or the others in the field, and it will be ... if not wrong, at least incomplete.
"Some people" would expect the result of this process to be anarchy, with chapters becoming pure grafitti. Interestingly, that doesn't happen. There are a number of checks built into the system, but basically, it is an excellent first source of information on almost any topic.
JimK
So sorry, I have been away on business and now at business. So here is my take for anon(not really anon but who cares)- I say CRC is lying because I don't see a prevasive attempt to teach kids that sex is okay as long as you use protection. That is the CRC statement and I say they are lying. So just like they can publish what I consider lies- I can say they are lies. I don't know any parent or teacher who thinks or teaches that sex is okay as long as you are "protected". Certainly not anyone I have met involved here in Montgomery County. I firmly believe CRC prints this - not because they believe it but just because they can. I put their newsletter at the same level of belief as the World Weekly News- but not as interesting.
You should know that David Brock, the President of Media Matters is a liar...a liar by his own admission. He wrote the book on Anita Hill, depicting her as a pawn of extremist left-wing partisans and as a liar, and then after he disavowed his conservative journalistic begginings and "came out", he stated that he wrote the book on Hill as a pawn himself of that "vast vight ving conspiracy". Reminds me of that expression...fool me once, shame on you; fool me again, shame on me.
>Right – so you automatically ignore everything anyone writes or says after they’ve recognized the error of their ways? Bush lies repeatedly, and we should respect him for stubbornly lying, and not hope that he may face the truth and come clean? Not very Christian, if you ask me.<
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2004/10/dobson
From that site,
"Analytic philosophy and liberal politics"
Did not find alot of the former, but did find quite a bit of the later. I found this link she provided to be especially revealing,
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/121369.htm
and esp. this quote by Dobson,
"Homosexuals are not monogamous."
Now I know that what I am about to write will cause many of you to go apoplectic, but it is a fact (and isn't that what this site is committed to?).
>Really? This is a fact? According to you? And that’s from your personal experience? And it counts for just how much? Oh, and I suppose heterosexuals are monogamous?<
The above statement by Dobson is factually correct.
Now, I am not trying to be the "bad boy" of this blog, but truth demands that the statement be affirmed. Rather than let loose a barage of vituperation I merely request that you post facts that refute Dobson's statement (and no, calling Dobson's theology "constipated" does not count). I know the truth of Dobson's statement by what I have read and what I have directly observed.
>You’re pretty hung up on the GI tract, Orin. Give it a break. And a “barrage” of vituperation?<
freebird
Thank you for the links.
On to Dana's reply...
Dana Beyer, M.D. writes,
I'm sorry, Orin, but Torah is not just Law. Halakha (Jewish Law)is part of Torah, but there is much more to it. And that law has evolved over the past 2500 years. As a matter of act, today I personally read for my congregation the story of how a "blasphemer" was stoned by the community, as well as the classic "eye for an eye" quote. Is that the Law you suggest we follow?
With the exception of the prohibition against polytheism and idol worship, Jewish teachings are evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
Since you brought up the "eye for an eye" quote, do you understand the historical background to this ethical teaching? Simply put, before this teaching, introduced by the Jews, most cultures in the Middle East practiced collective punishment; that is, when an individual did something wrong, all too often they and their family were punished. What an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" established as an ethical principle is that a punishment must fit the crime. For example, if one person hits another in the mouth and that person loses a tooth as a result, the punishment to imposed upon the offender cannot be to lose an arm.
Bottomline? The punishment MUST match the crime...that is, be proportional.
I really wish people that denounce this innovation in criminal justice would first understand what they are talking about (here I am thinking of the "Rev." Jesse Jackson, perhaps the most egregious violator of the correct understanding of this quote).
>I understand full well the context of this material. I learned it forty years ago. I’m not sure my ancestors were the ones who actually deserve the credit for it, but I’ll gladly accept it for them. And I have no idea what Jesse Jackson has to do with this. And why the quotes around “Rev.”? I have no idea where he was ordained, but I doubt it was from a source any less reputable than where most Protestant ministers get their ordination.<
Dana writes,
Should our children follow more than just their whim and fancy? Yes, that's why we support comprehensive sex education.
But doesn't comprehensive sex education endorse the view that sex before a committed, long term relationship is ok, so long as "protection" is used?
>I actually think sex is a beautiful act, a fundamental human act, and I don’t think adolescents should be shamed for their feelings. And if an 18 year old is old enough to go to war, and kill or be killed, he’s old enough to have sex. I would prefer that sex be associated with love and commitment, and I’ve taught my kids that, but many adults don’t hold to that standard either.<
I don't want my children getting sick, nor entering into damaging emotional or sexual relationships. Yet they do need to learn, and one learns by having relationships.
I don't want my two daughters getting sick, or entering into damaging emotional or sexual relationships either. And yes, one can learn quite a bit about relationships sans the sex...though it does appear that you equate learning with relationship with sex.
>That’s a gratuitous attack. Relationships are multi-factorial, and the emotional and spiritual aspects are far more difficult to navigate than the sexual ones. But we don’t teach them about the sex, and they often get frustrated and hung up. You old guys can deal with your hang-ups with Viagra now; how about teaching the kids the positive value of sex?<
We need to help them through that, not be moral hypocrites by calling on them to abstain until marriage.
"Hypocrite, see hypocrisy...hypocrisy (noun): the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess, i.e. falseness" I gather then Dana that you do not think that a parent who has ever had sex prior to marriage cannot teach the same to their children, correct? I guess then (if you answered in the affirmative) that if a parent ever used drugs they could not (or would not have standing) teach their children not to engage in recreational drug use. I have a friend that I get together with frequently...we bicycle, hike and enjoy micro beers together. On one outing this friend disclosed to me recreational drug use in college. I know for a fact that this parent (has two children, like me) teaches his children not to use drugs...is this person a "hypocrite"? I don't think of this friend as a hypocrite; in fact, this person is as secular as I am religious, yet I think this person is more ethical and moral than most people (religious ones included!).
Is there any possibility that a parent could have experienced sex prior to marriage, and concluded as a parent that this is not the normative standard they want to teach to their children?
>What does “normative” mean? You might think your beliefs are normative, but they are not. Still, you can teach your children as you like, regardless of your past acts. The value of being a species capable of learning is that we can make what we consider to be mistakes and pass that knowledge on to the next generation. But to ask a human being to deny sexual pleasure for, on average, 13 years after puberty is foolish. It won’t work. And the only alternative is to marry kids off at 13. Good luck with that.<
I've pointed this out many times before. In a society where pubescent girls were married off to older men, there was no need for abstinence education. Today we recognize that as child sexual abuse.
And regrettably this still exists...even in the United States,
URL,
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-sect12may12,1,5850158.story
Most humans wait until they're in their mid-twenties to get married, for those who are legally entitled to get married. They should not have to wait until 25 or 27 to have sex.
Says who??? You? Is there a "natural right" to sex? Is this really what we want to teach our children? This reminds me of the conclusion of a preface from a book by a Professor at the University of Virginia, James Davison Hunter,
"We say we want a renewal of character in our day but we don't really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal
order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels.
This price is too high for us to pay.
We want character but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue but without
particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it;
we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom.
In short, we want what we cannot have on the terms that we want it."
(The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or
Evil)
>What are you talking about? A natural right to sex? Is there a natural right to breathe? Or you suggesting that you have a right to deny sex to anyone?
Sex is not dirty. It is not evil. It can be beautiful, and we should try to understand its positive aspects instead of simply regarding it as sinful.<
Have I ever even implied sex is dirty? About the only ones I hear talking about "sex being dirty" are those accusing abstinence advocates like myself of espousing such an idea.
Nope...sex is not "dirty" and it is not "evil", but sex does have a purpose, and that purpose defines limits. What might those limits be? Well, the first is obvious (though it would appear to be lost upon those oh-so-enlightened-europeans, see,
http://commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12105031_1
for an erudite analysis of the demographic corner Western Europeans have painted themselves into), that is (gasp!) procreation. The second purpose is to bond a man and a woman on the most intimate level possible. What happens to the personality of individuals that have sex with many partners? Author William Kilpatrick has a suggestion,
"But there is an even greater unreality lying at the bottom of the safe-sex approach, and that is the assumption that pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the only problems. Another possibility - that one can do harm to one's own personality as well as to one's health through casual sex - is largely ignored. The link between sex and character is a missing link in sex education.
Sexual activity affects the kind of person we are in deep and lasting ways. The idea that one can have sex with one person after another without becoming a different person is naive, to say the least. The traditional reference to sexual intercourse as the "act of love" recognizes that is an action that creates a bond and implies a promise. To have sex without any such intent makes one a bit of a liar. To do it over and over with numerous partners makes one a liar several times over."
(Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the Case for Character Education_, pp. 62-63)
Yup...one can use a condom and birth control pills, but casual sex makes a human person a liar.
>I bet everyone disagrees with you on this one. The Europeans will take care of their own birth rate. But here you go again with the sexist attitude – sex is for procreation. Well, sorry, that’s no longer true. You can procreate without sex, and you can have sex without procreation. Those little facts deprive men of a great deal of their power, which is why, I believe, you’re getting so exorcised by this discussion. Women now can have sex without fear of pregnancy, and that makes them autonomous, independent human beings for the first time in history. Too bad, Orin.<
We might want to learn something from those dreaded, effete Europeans on this. Then maybe we'd have fewer abortions, less pornography, fewer sex clubs, and fewer divorces as well. And for some unknown reason those social ills always seem to be most problematic in red states. Hmmmm.
Willingly go along with de-populating the United States like Western Europe has? (and on a scale not seen since the Black Plague?) Thanks, but I'll pass...strikes me as along the same line as accepting advice from dead rock stars.
>Seems to me that there are plenty of people in Europe, just not the kinds of people you care for?<
I'll let others give you examples of Dobson's hate. I don't care to look back through that. I'm sorry you consider the word "constipated" as adolescent. As a physician I think it's quite appropriate, and really quite benign.
So, what you are saying then appears to be that you will hurl a name and then walk away when asked to substantiate that name? Not a viable long-term strategy for maintaining one's credibility, IMO.
>This has been documented ad nauseum, and I don’t have the time. Sorry. I have not heard him say anything I didn’t take to be vile and hateful over the past six years.<
And I must say I am pretty taken back by the turn in your words lately. You're sounding much more like Wyatt, and I find that quite surprising.
Well, boo hoo...I guess you assume that I care what others think...I don't. If I am the Last Person (Hegel anyone?), I will continue to advocate abstinence as a directed curriculum to our children.
I am more convinced than ever from my exchanges here on TTF that what we have are two diametrically opposed worldviews that have less to do with FACTS and more to do with IDEOLOGY. Hence I would propose in the spirit of truth in advertising that this site be renamed,
Teach the Ideology
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO.
May 16, 2006 6:44 AM
Orin said, Hence I would propose in the spirit of truth in advertising that this site be renamed,
Teach the Ideology
_____
Maybe Orin you should worry about kids in Co. and maybe your own and not kids in Maryland and those not your own. If you do not like being challenged in your notions about Dobson, sex ed only about abstinence, and more then take this site off your daily reply list.
Gracie
Gracie writes,
Maybe Orin you should worry about kids in Co. and maybe your own and not kids in Maryland and those not your own.
Thanks for the advice, unsolicited as it were, but I am involved here in the State of Colorado in just these same issues. I do worry about my own children...I am reminded of one day when I asked my older daughter what she learned in 9th grade that day...my daughter replied that she learned about human birth control in her biology class (thanks to our local county health department). So, what did you learn, I asked her. She then listed every method of birth control and ended it with this zinger, "Gee dad, they really don't want us to get pregnant." (And no, did not sign a permission slip because one was never sent home).
If you do not like being challenged in your notions about Dobson, sex ed only about abstinence, and more then take this site off your daily reply list.
You are correct, I don't like being challenged in my notions...I love it! I understand now better than ever the ideology of those like yourself, wanting to use a captive audience for their message. Sorry to disappoint, but I am not going away any time soon.
Gracie
Dana writes,
But to ask a human being to deny sexual pleasure for, on average, 13 years after puberty is foolish. It won’t work. And the only alternative is to marry kids off at 13. Good luck with that.
That's right...it is just unreasonable to expect anyone to wait 13 years in order to copulate...I guess that would be under the emotional need in the Maslow Hierarch of Needs. Facts do not speak for themselves (this is a POL SCI 101), rather they speak within an established framework, and another name for that framework is ideology. Your statement is not factual; it is ideological.
And to keep you entertained, here is a link for you all to check out, from the New Yorker magazine,
http://www.newyorker.com
and then search for this,
HIGHER RISK
Crystal meth, the Internet, and dangerous choices about AIDS.
by MICHAEL SPECTER
Issue of 2005-05-23
Posted 2005-05-16
Quite revealing..."dangerous choices about AIDS"?...well, that is putting it mildly.
Orin Ryssman
Orin, what you propose is a kind of hard line to follow. An epidemic targets a subpopulation -- how does that link to the idea of teaching about that subpopulation in a health class?
You might think it is right, say, to teach that blacks are second-rate or evil in some way, and point to their disproportionate population in prisons. You could take nearly any population, point to their particular risks, and somehow declare them undesirable or second-rate.
Women -- great example. They get that ugly menstruation every month, how gross. I mean, have you seen that bloody mess? We really shouldn't teach about women in health classes, if we are to follow your line of reasoning. I just know that some impressionable girl is going to hear about it, and want to grow up and be one.
I don't think civilized people want to go down that road. There are all kinds of people in this world, and we don't exterminate them or marginalize them, we figure out how to integrate them into our society to make it stronger.
The facts that are going to be taught in the schools have to do with the mere fact that homosexuality exists. There is no judgment one way or the other -- there are risks, and I think everyone wants the risks to be brought out, but the risks are specific. It's not "being gay" that's risky, it is particular behaviors.
And as far as premarital sex goes, I'm sorry, Orin, but it's out there. Our culture has shifted in undeniable ways. Women have careers now, and aren't dependent on a man to provide for them. People now marry in their late twenties. Sex is a lovely thing, and there is little besides tradition to tell someone not to engage in it, if they treat it respectfully and carefully. And they do. So let's teach them about the risks, the preventions, how it works, so they can make wise choices about it.
Finally, you seem to think this "teach the ideology" thing is pretty cute. So I'm wondering, what ideology is that? The ideology of respect for individuals who face difficult decisions, and make them in the face of bigotry and discrimination? OK, I'll admit to that. Please, is there a name for this ideology that TTF promotes?
JimK
Orin writes:
And to keep you entertained, here is a link for you all to check out, from the New Yorker magazine,
___________
Yes you are entertaining in that you are now showing "true colors.." and will certainly be challenged here in Maryland.
Gracie
Orin,
Are you complaining that your daughter's take-away lesson from her sex-ed class was that they didn't want her to get pregnant? Sounds fine to me. Getting pregnant during adolescence can lead to some devastating decisions and irrevocably change a girl's life (not the guy's in most cases, but I don't supppose that's high on your list). Having sex does not, in most cases.
Post a Comment
<< Home