Most Sexually Active Teens Don't Use Condoms
This sounds like a little bit of bad news, but it's not surprising:
Sorry, but ... don't you wonder about that? Does this mean that most of the boys had sex with a small number of girls, or what? You often see these asymmetries in the data, sometimes there's a dark humor to them, like when you read that men have sex more frequently than women, but sometimes you just wonder what in the world is going on.
OK, I can see they move to the pill or something as they settle into a steady relationship, that makes some sense. And I suppose that takes some of the sting out of the initial revelation, that most of teens don't use condoms. At least they use something.
OK, that's kind of what I was thinking.
More interesting stuff.
Hate to say it, but it's just a matter of education at this point. Get the word out there. Teach teens how to use these things, make them available. Encourage them to be careful. Teen pregnancies affect all of us.
Most sexually active teenagers don't regularly use condoms, which puts them at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a report suggests.
Almost half (47%) of teen boys who had intercourse in the year before being surveyed said they always use a condom, but only 28% of girls said a condom was used.
Sorry, but ... don't you wonder about that? Does this mean that most of the boys had sex with a small number of girls, or what? You often see these asymmetries in the data, sometimes there's a dark humor to them, like when you read that men have sex more frequently than women, but sometimes you just wonder what in the world is going on.
The report on teens and contraception is to be released Monday by Child Trends, a non-profit research center in Washington, D.C. It analyzed federal data on unmarried teens ages 15 through 19, collected in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study focuses only on sexually active teens — the 46% in that age group who have ever had sexual intercourse.
"Condom use declines a little with age, and more serious relationships are less likely to use condoms," report co-author Jennifer Manlove says. "At first sexual intercourse, folks are more likely to use condoms for pregnancy and disease prevention, but as they are more sexually experienced, they are more likely to switch to other methods of birth control." Report: Teenagers often shun condoms
OK, I can see they move to the pill or something as they settle into a steady relationship, that makes some sense. And I suppose that takes some of the sting out of the initial revelation, that most of teens don't use condoms. At least they use something.
Amber Madison, 22, author of Hooking Up: A Girl's All-Out Guide to Sex & Sexuality, to be published next month, speculates that the gender differences in condom use are related to sex within a relationship rather than casual sex.
"My guess is you have teenage guys having more one-night stands, and guys are very likely to use a condom during a one-night stand, where with their girlfriends it's not as likely," she says. "If young women are having sex more with their boyfriends, that's probably why they use condoms less, whereas young men are having sex with women they may not know as well."
OK, that's kind of what I was thinking.
More interesting stuff.
The report suggests variations in contraception use by race and ethnicity; Hispanic girls are the least likely to use birth control. For both first-time sex and their most recent sex, 36% used contraception, compared with 57% of blacks and 72% of whites.
Efforts to promote contraceptive use may be having an effect. The teen birth rate has been declining: in 2004 it was 41.2 births per 1,000 girls ages 15-19, down from a peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991, says Child Trends' Kerry Franzetta, lead author of the report.
About 80% or more of teen pregnancies are unintended, says Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
She says the clear message to sexually active teens is that two methods are best: condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease and a hormonal method, such as birth control pills, implants or a contraceptive patch to prevent pregnancy.
"Most methods aren't 100% effective," she adds. "If you double up, you're dramatically increasing the effectiveness."
Hate to say it, but it's just a matter of education at this point. Get the word out there. Teach teens how to use these things, make them available. Encourage them to be careful. Teen pregnancies affect all of us.
34 Comments:
wow you are starting to understand what CRC has been talking bout
CRC wants nothing about condoms mentioned and for that matter nothing about sex ed.
Gracie
Factually incorrect.
CRC does want birth control taught.
CRC also wants the terminology to refer to "husband" and "wife" and "marriage" - not "partner" and "serious relationship".
There is a difference.
We definitely objected to statements in the previous curriculum crossing WAY over the line on such as "same sex play among adolescents is normal"; "gender identity is one's inner sense of self" and handing out quizzes on whether "homosexuality is a sin or not".
PLEASE.
stop distorting the FACTS, TTF.
Poor Theresa still in distortion heaven with the post from above. Glad to know you belong to CRC. Explains it all.
Gracie
Theresa,
I have nothing against mentioning marriage, husband and wife, nor does the CAC, for that matter -- just not exclusively, because that's neither how life should be nor how it is. To my recollection Peter Sprigg agreed to this as well. I believe you were there.
As for "same sex play" being normal, well, sad to say, Theresa, it is, and it means nothing. It's normal, common throughout the population, and no more leads to homosexual desire later in life than does having an absent father or clinging mother.
As for gender identity being one's inner sense of self, well, sorry to tell you, that is its definition, and I daresay you, too, have a gender identity from which you can't run and hide. My guess is that it's female.
And I don't recall the curriculum quizzing students on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. We all know for some religions it is, and for others it isn't. So what.
Here's the CRC's publicly stated view of the 12+ year old MCPS sex education curriculum from a direct quote made by their spokesperson, Steve Fisher on May 4, 2005:
"STEVE FISHER, CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSIBLE CURRICULUM: Thank you, Bill. Glad to be here.
The thing that we were most concerned about was that we were totally caught off guard that they were changing a sex education program that we take a great deal of pride in. We think that the current curriculum is absolutely part of one of the best in the country." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155631,00.html
The CRC thinks over a decade old, medically inaccurate information about contraceptives that are not even on the market any more is "the best in the country" and is what MCPS should teach our teens. What a crock.
You stop distorting the facts Theresa.
Theresa said, "We definitely objected to...handing out quizzes on whether "homosexuality is a sin or not"."
If you want your children brought up with only one religious view of homosexuality, that is your right. You may either opt your MCPS students out of sex ed classes and teach them yourself or enroll them in an appropriate religious school. However, America is not some middle eastern country and our schools are not madrassas. American public schools are for everyone, not just those of one religious view.
Let's not forget, CRC settled with MCPS and in their "victorious" settlement agreement agreed that:
"This would not preclude a general acknowledgement that there may be differing religious views on some of the topics discussed in the Revisions"
?????
Poor Theresa still in distortion heaven with the post from above. Glad to know you belong to CRC. Explains it all.
As for "same sex play" being normal, well, sad to say, Theresa, it is, and it means nothing. It's normal, common throughout the population, and no more leads to homosexual desire later in life than does having an absent father or clinging mother.
As for gender identity being one's inner sense of self, well, sorry to tell you, that is its definition, and I daresay you, too, have a gender identity from which you can't run and hide. ??????
If you are born a girl than you are a girl if you are born a boy than you are a boy.
Your presidio science does not change that.
TTF’s baseless opinions got any facts to support your religious beliefs?
Montgomery County public schools shoud not be puting out its own interpetation of the bible.
Yeah and when did MCPS do the bible thing with interpretation?
Gracie
anon said...TTF’s baseless opinions got any facts to support your religious beliefs?
Religion does not enter into this in case you missed that one anon.
Gracie
If you are born a girl than you are a girl if you are born a boy than you are a boy.
Your presidio science does not change that.
TTF’s baseless opinions got any facts to support your religious beliefs?
Things appear to be very black and white for you. Firstly, there's a difference between sex and gender, and you'd do well to find that difference out. Secondly, babies are not always born with a distinct sex.
Opinions? Religious beliefs? Irrelevant.
Dana writes,
And I don't recall the curriculum quizzing students on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. We all know for some religions it is, and for others it isn't. So what.
Greetings Dana...when do you know when your candidate wins...the primary (assuming it is a safe seat) or the general?
For "some" religions it is? (giggle) Oh really, what might some of those religions be?
The reason I ask is because I submit that an overwhelming majority of what constitutes Western religion, that is Judaism, Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.
Now, I suspect Unitarian Universalist don't consider homosexuality a sin, but UU is only "christian" in the most extreme attenuated sense of the word, with only their roots being Christian. My understanding now is that they will accept any new member no matter what they want to believe...so long as you "buy into" their socially progressive set of beliefs.
Hi, Orin,
I'll let you know the primary results when they're in five weeks from now. Thank you for your support:-).
As for religion and homosexuality, we've been over this before. Yes, western monotheism in its archaic and fundamentalist versions views homosexuality as a sin, along with cursing, blasphemy, any kind of sex outside of marriage, most kinds of sex inside marriage, etc.
Many mainstream denominations within these traditions today no longer subscribe to those views, and with good reason. I will speak only of Judaism, within which Reconstructionist, Reform and increasingly the Conservative movement no longer hold to those beliefs.
Judaism evolves with the times (oh, that nasty concept, evolution), particularly with respect to scientific advances as well as progress in human rights. Fortunately, there is no such thing as Biblical literalism in Jewish traditon, so we aren't stuck with the nonsensical interpretations of many Christian literalists who read the 350th iteration of a translation and accept it as gospel.
My Christian church accepts people regardless of sexual orientation and does not consider homosexuality a sin. I attend United Church of Christ.
As for "same sex play" being normal, well, sad to say, Theresa, it is
define sex play and normal give studeis that prove this is normal. and stop assuming that your child hood is normal.
Faithful writes,
My Christian church accepts people regardless of sexual orientation and does not consider homosexuality a sin. I attend United Church of Christ.
Yes, yes...I know, I know...I've seen the commercial (albeit online since every major network rejected the ad). Just one problem: the UCC is dwindling in numbers, with fewer and fewer showing up for church on Sunday (or any other day for that matter) or contributing. And why should anyone bother? From a practical standpoint if I was passionate about "reproductive right", as well as the whole left-wing/liberal agenda, I sure would not be wasting my time with UCC (as I suspect a good many others have).
Besides, those ads, while entertaining, were false on a level that nearly rises to defamatory...it simply is not true. Most churches understand that they must stand for something, and that will necessarily mean that some will be offended or not agree with what is being taught (I have a sib that experienced that, and her and her husband decided they did not need any religion - probably the best choice for them).
Dana writes,
I'll let you know the primary results when they're in five weeks from now. Thank you for your support:-).
Support? Errr....hummmm...ok! lol
As for religion and homosexuality, we've been over this before.
Well then, take a number and get in line...that is what Mrs. Ryssman says to me too! lol Ever seen the movie "Groundhog Day"? It is one of my favorites.
Yes, western monotheism in its archaic and fundamentalist versions views homosexuality as a sin, along with cursing, blasphemy, any kind of sex outside of marriage, most kinds of sex inside marriage, etc.
"Archaic"??? You have got to be kidding?! Nowadays it is downright progressive, seeing as the Sexual "Revolution" has flattened most persons sensibilities about sex. I said it once and I will say it again, the pop singer Madonna did for sex what I never thought possible - she made it boring. Imagine that - and talk about someone who has lost her edge!
Many mainstream denominations within these traditions today no longer subscribe to those views, and with good reason. I will speak only of Judaism, within which Reconstructionist, Reform and increasingly the Conservative movement no longer hold to those beliefs.
Reconstructionist and Reform I can see, but Conservative? Isn't that a stretch? Maybe I have been snoozing too long.
Judaism evolves with the times (oh, that nasty concept, evolution),
One exception to that evolution rule: idolatory.
particularly with respect to scientific advances as well as progress in human rights.
Ahhh, the March of Science...
Fortunately, there is no such thing as Biblical literalism in Jewish traditon, so we aren't stuck with the nonsensical interpretations of many Christian literalists who read the 350th iteration of a translation and accept it as gospel.
Well, all those on the liberal/left better get out there and recruit because the chuches that are growing, vibrant and alive are those oh-so-not progressive troglodyte types.
Religion, like property, has a truism: possession is 9/10ths of the law. The old line denominations have lost ground...alot of ground...and they will need to do more than to engage in namecalling.
Off to take the 13 year old to the library...
"Yes, yes...I know, I know...I've seen the commercial"
You judge my religion by viewing an ad and without ever placing your foot inside one of our churches? I don't think that's fair.
"UCC is dwindling in numbers, with fewer and fewer showing up for church on Sunday"
You speak as if faith is some sort of a popularity contest. I don't think that's right. I know that at my church the congregation is growing and becoming more active in the community.
Billy Graham thinks that sincere Christians can disagree about the details of scripture and theology. I just came across an interesting article about him and share it with you. I hope he's not too "old line" for you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483
"Yes, yes...I know, I know...I've seen the commercial"
Faithful writes,
You judge my religion by viewing an ad and without ever placing your foot inside one of our churches? I don't think that's fair.
First off, the ads really are defamatory and I suspect that a big part of the reason that the network choose NOT to run the ads was as a result of coming that judgement. To the best of my knowledge no major church practices anything closely approaching active rejection as represented by the "ejector" ad.
I don't have the time, and I have even less an inclination to step a foot inside a UCC. We have one here in the City of Fort Collins, and everytime a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece or anything else makes it into the public space that self-identifies as UCC, it is always echoing the liberal/left-wing agenda...whether it is abortions rites, same-sex marriage or even global warming.
I have seen the UCC website here,
http://www.ucc.org/index.php
and here,
http://www.stillspeaking.com
(Yes, yes...God is still speaking, but are we listening to God, or our own social and political prejudices? Sorry, but I am deeply suspicious of any church/religion that seems to be following the popular trends of the day. Until the Hebrews came along, some of the local cultures engaged in human sacrifices...and just imagine if the Jews decided to simply go with the cultural flow, insteading of fighting it???)
"UCC is dwindling in numbers, with fewer and fewer showing up for church on Sunday"
You speak as if faith is some sort of a popularity contest. I don't think that's right.
No, I did not...in fact, that reminded me of a letter to the editor that I wrote and that was published in the Denver Post in late 2000 (I submitted it in late Oct., I think it may have been printed in Nov. - the letter was in response to an ad that a "Catholic" group (Catholics for a Free Choice) took out, voicing opposition to the CC's teaching on abortion),
Since I am not Catholic I have little vested interest in the controversies within Catholicism. However, as a believer in revealed religion I find it odd that a few members of the Catholic Church would advertise their opposition to church teachings, specifically with regards to abortion ("Catholics advertise opposition to church policies," 10/23/00). And while it is self-evidently true that not "all Catholics march to the same drummer," neither is it particularly relevant.
What is relevant? The comments of Greg Kail, a spokesman for the Denver Archdiocese, that the religious truths that Catholicism stands for are not up for a popular vote and are not found in advertisements advocating change. Does this make Catholics who believe differently bad. No, it only means that their personal beliefs are not in harmony with orthodox Catholic teachings.
This begs an essential question about a larger issue with regards to those claiming a commitment to the Catholic church, or, for that matter, any church. Do members of a church, like Mary Agnes Madden of Boulder, want a church to stand for something? Or, do members, as well as groups like Catholics Speak Out, want a church that shifts about with each change in social and political attitudes? While the former calls forth increased committment, it makes an institution, such as the Catholic Church, a vital and living body. Any religious institution that twists, turns, and bends with every change of opinion soon finds itself lacking the core of devoted believers needed to carry its message forward.
Postscript: about three years after I wrote this letter to the editor I did become Catholic.
If the old line protestant denominations want to arrest, much less reverse their decline in membership, they might want to reconsider the direction they are heading.
I know that at my church the congregation is growing and becoming more active in the community.
But the UCC as a denomination is clearly in decline and quickly becoming irrelevant in national religious discourse (and why the tv ads directed at more conservative churches?...just a hint: you won't find many conservative churches directing ads at liberal churches...want to know why? because they simply do not register on their "radar", i.e. they are not considered relevant).
Billy Graham thinks that sincere Christians can disagree about the details of scripture and theology. I just came across an interesting article about him and share it with you. I hope he's not too "old line" for you.
I agree...as to an understanding of scripture and theology it is important to affirm that disagreement is good. Rabbi Harold Kushner (author of of _When Bad Things Happen to Good People_) once said in an interview I saw, "the four most religious words in the english language are this: I MAY BE WRONG. I was struck then, as now, by such an expression of religious humility.
Still, churches need to consider whether their religious principles inform their political opinions, *OR* whether their political opinions form their religious principles.
Now, I could be wrong on abortion, same-sex marriage, and on all the other progressive stances of our day by not reading the Good Book carefully enough, or maybe too literally, but (again) I am suspicious of any religion that seeks to affirm, rather than challenge the political trendiness of our day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483
Thank you for the link, I have saved it and will read it carefully this evening. Billy Graham is a good man now in the twilight of his life...bless him.
You haven't been asleep, Orin, but Conservative Judaism is about to accept the ordination of gay rabbis and legitimize gay couples. It will probably happen in December. Anyway, it is currently under very intense discussion. The movement did accept the concept of transsexualism last year as well, so now all Jewish denominations understand the variations in gender identity and are supportive except for a few very far right orthodox sects.
As for the fundamentalists growing in number, that's true, and a reason to fear the future, as witness the genocidal actions by Hezbollah. And given that Christianists have driven this country into a ditch as well, we have our own to look out for.
Dana writes,
As for the fundamentalists growing in number, that's true, and a reason to fear the future, as witness the genocidal actions by Hezbollah.
To compare Christians in this country with a Shia sect of Islam is not accurate or fair. Simply because orthodox Christians refuse to re-align their theological orientation with the publication of every new book by John Shelby Spong (or Jim Wallis, for that matter) does not make them fanatics or terrorists.
And given that Christianists have driven this country into a ditch as well, we have our own to look out for.
Well, that is certainly one way to look at it...
Another way to look at this social development is to see it as a reaction to the rabid and fanatical secularists attempting to turn the United States into something more closely resembling Western Europe. Every time I hear or read that the First Amendment mandates a "separation of Church and State" I ask myself where that passage is to be located. My best understanding is that this political myth originated with a letter by Thomas Jefferson, expressing his personal opinion on the religion components of the First Amendment. While I respect Mr. Jefferson's intellect, wisdom and vast knowledge, his letter to the Baptist Association invoking the "wall of separation" has no legal standing since it is not in the Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution.
Yes, yes...I know, it was cited in a Supreme Court decision...but that does not give it standing.
The First Amendment has two things to say about the role of religion in American public life. First, it makes it clear that unlike in Europe, there will be "no establishment of religion". Second, that Americans are free to exercise any religion they so choose...or, no religion at all. Though, to be fair, there is no shortage of understandings or interpretations with regards to the "no establishment" clause, or the "free exercise" clause. And to make this point clear...there is no "wall of separation" clause. If you find it, please send me the citation.
To compare Christians in this country with a Shia sect of Islam is not accurate or fair.
Ha. It is a pefect comparison. Relilgious extremists substitute faith for reason, judge others in light of their own absurd beliefs, think they can know without proving. It's exactly the same, just differs in who's picture you put in the stained glass.
PB
Orin said, "Yes, yes...I know, it was cited in a Supreme Court decision...but that does not give it standing."
The above statement is a perfect example of why people aren't supposed to practice law until they have acquired sufficient knowledge to pass the bar exam.
No, Orin, the separation of church and state was not cited in a Supreme Court decision. It has been cited in numerous decisions of various courts throughout the land up to and including the US Supreme Court.
Just last year in the Katzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case, Judge John E. Jones found
"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
Even our own local Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., stated
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...” U.S. Const., Amend. I.. As such, the Establishment Clause “was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State.” Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947) (internal citations omitted)."
Here are a few other cases that have involved the separation of church and state mandated in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution (text cut and pasted from Wikipedia):
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case which invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas which ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge, William Overton, handed down his decision on January 5, 1982.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion...On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 03-1693 (2005), is a case which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue is whether government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Holding: Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.(Thus, the displays were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.)
Locals might be interested to know that Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel represented McCreary County.
Orin Ryssman writes,
Orin said, "Yes, yes...I know, it was cited in a Supreme Court decision...but that does not give it standing."
And Anonymous replies,
The above statement is a perfect example of why people aren't supposed to practice law until they have acquired sufficient knowledge to pass the bar exam.
Cute sound bite...however it does not address the fact that the Constitution is actually a readily available and readable document. That is, anyone that can read a newspaper (USA Today being a possible exception) can also read the Constitution, as well as the Amendments. Bottomline? One need not have a law degree, much less having taken and passed the bar exam, to read and understand the US Constitution.
No, Orin, the separation of church and state was not cited in a Supreme Court decision. It has been cited in numerous decisions of various courts throughout the land up to and including the US Supreme Court.
You can cite 1,001 decisions if you would like...it is not relevant to the First Amendment. Please, re-read the First Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Forty-five words in all...and nowhere do I read anything about a "wall of separation" with regards to Church and State. Please, if you can find them amongst those 45 words then show me (hummm, sounds like a State motto).
Sorry, but I do not feel obliged to support a judicial decision that has no foundation in reality (since that seems to be a favorite motif of late here)...no foundation in fact except for having been the private opinion of a prominent American at the time (who, as irony would have it, had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution, much less the Bill of Rights - want a more relevant personal opinion?...try James Madison, since he was one of the chief architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).
Does this mean I support prayer in the public schools? No, I do not, and I would oppose its re-introduction as unnecessarily devisive and controversial. Vouchers for religious schools? No, again.
The bottomline is this: additional attempts by secular extremists to further the secularize this country will be met with more resistance, and will be fought with increased vigor. It is unfortunate that some in this country will be deceived into believing that this somehow signals the onset of an American Theocratic Regime (as opposed to a legitimate exercise in self-government where elections do matter...and yes, they are about who WINS and who LOSES), but this is no more true than a belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
well said
Sorry, but I do not feel obliged to support a judicial decision
- judicial decisions do not depend on your support
that has no foundation in reality (since that seems to be a favorite motif of late here)...
- the fact that there has been a wall of separation between church and state recognized and respected by the American legal system for years may not penetrate your conservative streak (and therefore have "no foundation in reality" to you) but many people are well aware of this fact particularly lawyers and judges
no foundation in fact except for having been the private opinion of a prominent American at the time
- his name was thomas jefferson and he wrote a little paper at the time called the declaration of independence
(who, as irony would have it, had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution, much less the Bill of Rights - want a more relevant personal opinion?...try James Madison, since he was one of the chief architects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).
- you may find madison's view of this principle to be more relevant and you are certainly entitled your own personal opinions as we all are however the view that has been reaffirmed many times in our system of jurisprudence is jefferson's
The bottomline is this: additional attempts by secular extremists to further the secularize this country will be met with more resistance, and will be fought with increased vigor.
- whoa - sounds like you're fomenting revolution - what caliber vigor are you gonna fight with
It is unfortunate that some in this country will be deceived into believing that this somehow signals the onset of an American Theocratic Regime (as opposed to a legitimate exercise in self-government where elections do matter...and yes, they are about who WINS and who LOSES), but this is no more true than a belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
- i agree with part of this part of this statement
elections do matter...and yes, they are about who WINS and who LOSES
-i'm looking forward to november - it's time to throw the theocratic bums out
lets look at another wall of seperation. That was a plank of the Democratic party.
Segregation in the South
Jim Crow laws were laws that imposed racial segregation. They existed mainly in the South and originated from the Black Codes that were enforced from 1865 to 1866 and from prewar segregation on railroad cars in northern cities. The laws sprouted up in the late nineteenth century after Reconstruction and lasted until the 1960s.
Prior to the enactment of Jim Crow laws, African Americans enjoyed some of the rights granted during Reconstruction. Gains included the addition of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. However, rights dwindled after Reconstruction ended in 1877. By 1890, whites in the North and South became less supportive of civil rights and racial tensions began to flare. Additionally, several Supreme Court decisions overturned Reconstruction legislation by promoting racial segregation.
The Supreme Court set the stage for Jim Crow laws by several of its decisions. The Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit individuals and private organizations from discriminating on the basis of race. However, it was the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that led the way to racial segregation. In 1890, Louisiana passed a law that required blacks to ride in separate railroad cars.
Blacks protested and challenged the law. Homer Plessy, a carpenter in Louisiana who was seven-eighths Caucasian, was chosen to test the constitutionality of the law. On June 7, 1892, Plessy boarded a train and sat in a car reserved for whites. He refused to move and was arrested. A local judge ruled against Plessy and in 1896 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling. It held that "separate but equal" accommodations did not violate Plessy's rights and that the law did not stamp the "colored race with a badge of inferiority."[1] The Court provided further support for separate accommodations when it ruled in Cumming v. County Board of Education] (1899) that separate schools were valid even if comparable schools for blacks were not available.
With the Supreme Court's approval, the Plessy decision paved the way for racial segregation. Southern states passed laws that restricted African Americans access to schools, restaurants, hospitals, and public places. Signs that said "Whites Only" or "Colored" were posted at entrances and exits, water fountains, waiting rooms, and restrooms. Laws were enacted that restricted all aspects of life and varied from state to state. Georgia in 1905, passed a law requiring separate public parks, in 1909 Mobile, Alabama created a 10 p.m. curfew for blacks, and in 1915, South Carolina blacks and whites were restricted from working together in the same rooms of textile factories.
Segregation in the South
Jim Crow laws were laws that imposed racial segregation. They existed mainly in the South and originated from the Black Codes that were enforced from 1865 to 1866 and from prewar segregation on railroad cars in northern cities. The laws sprouted up in the late nineteenth century after Reconstruction and lasted until the 1960s.
Prior to the enactment of Jim Crow laws, African Americans enjoyed some of the rights granted during Reconstruction. Gains included the addition of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. However, rights dwindled after Reconstruction ended in 1877. By 1890, whites in the North and South became less supportive of civil rights and racial tensions began to flare. Additionally, several Supreme Court decisions overturned Reconstruction legislation by promoting racial segregation.
The Supreme Court set the stage for Jim Crow laws by several of its decisions.
Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Is there some reason you are pasting all of this into the Teach the Facts comments?
JimK
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
You haven't been asleep, Orin, but Conservative Judaism is about to accept the ordination of gay rabbis and legitimize gay couples.
Am I supose to take your word for this?
Jim read along you might learn something.
14th Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sorry, but I do not feel obliged to support a judicial decision
- judicial decisions do not depend on your support
You are correct...myself alone will not make a whit of difference. However should many others be persuaded to my POV then the judicial branch would find itself in trouble.
that has no foundation in reality (since that seems to be a favorite motif of late here)...
- the fact that there has been a wall of separation between church and state recognized and respected by the American legal system for years may not penetrate your conservative streak (and therefore have "no foundation in reality" to you) but many people are well aware of this fact particularly lawyers and judges
For many years? The same comment could be attributed to someone espousing support for continuing to discriminate on the basis of race. Length of time does not establish the rightness or wrongness of a decision.
no foundation in fact except for having been the private opinion of a prominent American at the time
- his name was thomas jefferson and he wrote a little paper at the time called the declaration of independence
Yes, yes, yes...I know that, I have even visited Monticello. The Declaration is a wonderful document, a statement of the political purpose of the Revolution. However it is not a legal document, like the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
My point in the way I worded my reference to Jefferson was to highlight the fact that the personal opinion of a private citizen has been allowed to be incorporated into a public document. There is a formal process for this and it is called the Amendment Process (something most modern liberals loathe since it usually means frustrating their attempts to make end runs around the process of elections...you know, those contests where there are winners and losers).
Post a Comment
<< Home