"This Child Deserves a Response"
The video of the June 12th school board meeting hasn't worked for us. It turns out you have to have upgraded to the latest version of Windows Media Player to see the video, and of course I hadn't done that. But having figured that out, we now have some of it transcribed.
There was a great blow-up at the June 12th school board meeting over the fact that Dr. Weast amended the sex-ed curriculum just the day before the board was going to vote on it. The superintendent's office added a condition that if a teacher was asked, "Is homosexuality a sickness?" they would be able to say, "No, it's not, according to the American Psychiatric Association." Yeah, you're right, it's not much, but in this tense environment it was a big deal. Board member Steve Abrams got quite upset and challenged Weast, who defended his decision in grand style.
I'm skipping the main part of the discussion, as various board members spoke about the curriculum -- I hope to have more of that on the blog over the next few days -- but towards the end the dialogue comes back to Abrams and Weast.
This is kind of fascinating. Abrams thinks there's been something funny going on.
In discussion later in the hallway of Carver, and it came out that when Mr. Abrams said "some group or individuals," what he meant was the citizens advisory committee. He felt that the CAC had pressured the superintendent somehow to make the change.
I also find it interesting that someone would vote against a choice because of the process by which it was proposed, even though they say they agree with the content of it. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Oh, and as a member of that committee, I can say, if passing a resolution by majority vote is "pressure," then he is correct. The committee did vote to ask again that the wording be included. I don't think that's especially untoward, myself, and don't really think of it as "political pressure," except in the sense that the vote did reflect the committee's feelings on this subject and was intended to make the Superintendent think twice. Which apparently it did. It was all straight-ahead Robert's Rules.
This was a running joke from earlier in the discussion, when Dr. Weast referred to Betsy Brown as "Doctor Brown," though she does not have a doctorate. A little, y'know, academic humor.
Here was the striking part. Weast turned his chair to face Abrams, and spoke with his finger crooked, pointing over at him. He sat tall in his chair, his voice rose, and everyone in the room sort of stopped breathing. It was a great moment by any account.
Now that we've figured out how to get the video running, we'll be posting more of the transcripts in the next few days. That was a pivotal meeting, some people expressed their points of view very clearly.
There is still some ongoing controversy about the curriculum, I guess we'll see if the Black Knight, er, CRC decides to bite the county's legs off in yet another lawsuit. Whatever, check back, we'll keep you posted.
This little piece of dialogue was a defining moment in the sex-ed controversy, where Steve Abrams and Jerry Weast dug in and clearly expressed their positions on this issue. Weast added some meat-n-potatoes to the curriculum, thinking about what happens when a student asks "am I mentally ill?" Abrams voted against the curriculum because he didn't approve of the process that had generated the addition to the curriculum, though, as he says, he actually agreed with the statement itself.
There was a great blow-up at the June 12th school board meeting over the fact that Dr. Weast amended the sex-ed curriculum just the day before the board was going to vote on it. The superintendent's office added a condition that if a teacher was asked, "Is homosexuality a sickness?" they would be able to say, "No, it's not, according to the American Psychiatric Association." Yeah, you're right, it's not much, but in this tense environment it was a big deal. Board member Steve Abrams got quite upset and challenged Weast, who defended his decision in grand style.
I'm skipping the main part of the discussion, as various board members spoke about the curriculum -- I hope to have more of that on the blog over the next few days -- but towards the end the dialogue comes back to Abrams and Weast.
This is kind of fascinating. Abrams thinks there's been something funny going on.
Abrams: Miss Navarro I appreciate your comments and I certainly respect the decision that others are making. You need to understand what I feel strongly about. And its something that I'm not glossing over, is that I don't mind getting beat on an issue. I don't appreciate games, or the perception of games being played to keep information from me. That's the first thing. I have no understanding from a scientific standpoint of new information that was discovered, what changed from the time that I was briefed on this issue to when the memorandum came out. But I do know that, and I think the terms you used were "upon reflection" and I'm just amazed at that consideration. That consideration hadn't taken place well before the briefing to members of the Board.
There is no new science and no new facts that occurred to change that reflection. The only thing that could have changed, and this is simply my assessment of it, is pressure having been placed on -- by some group or individuals to reignite the issue. I don't believe good decisions are made hastily. I believe that we had set out a process very thoroughly to test it, and I thought we were going to continue that process on the full roll out. That's why I feel strongly about the change. And I will submit to you that what I would tell my own daughters probably is more consistent with the curriculum so it's not the information that I'm objecting to but it just strikes me that if in fact, what we're trying to use this for is a lesson in tolerance, the process that led to it, you know, just strikes me as being somewhat intolerant on the vetting of a good information flow.
In discussion later in the hallway of Carver, and it came out that when Mr. Abrams said "some group or individuals," what he meant was the citizens advisory committee. He felt that the CAC had pressured the superintendent somehow to make the change.
I also find it interesting that someone would vote against a choice because of the process by which it was proposed, even though they say they agree with the content of it. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Oh, and as a member of that committee, I can say, if passing a resolution by majority vote is "pressure," then he is correct. The committee did vote to ask again that the wording be included. I don't think that's especially untoward, myself, and don't really think of it as "political pressure," except in the sense that the vote did reflect the committee's feelings on this subject and was intended to make the Superintendent think twice. Which apparently it did. It was all straight-ahead Robert's Rules.
Navarro: Thank you Mr. Abrams. Dr. Weast?
Weast: Again, I don't want you to pick on almost Dr. Brown. <laughter>
This was a running joke from earlier in the discussion, when Dr. Weast referred to Betsy Brown as "Doctor Brown," though she does not have a doctorate. A little, y'know, academic humor.
Brown: I'll take it.
Weast: No, I don't want you to take it. I take the full responsibility. My staff had quite a bit of debate on this. The call's mine though.
Abrams: Well Jerry, you and I had quite a bit of a debate on it, in fact we were together during this period. I got no impression from you that you were changing your view on that so I'm glad you decided to join in this because you and I had this conversation as late as last Thursday at DAR.
Here was the striking part. Weast turned his chair to face Abrams, and spoke with his finger crooked, pointing over at him. He sat tall in his chair, his voice rose, and everyone in the room sort of stopped breathing. It was a great moment by any account.
Weast: Absolutely and I told you exactly when I decided it. Now whether you like where I decided it or how I decided it is your own personal opinion. But I can tell you it didn't come from pressure, it didn't come from any of these Board members, it didn't come from any groups. It came from long thought on my part. I'm a teacher. I've been a teacher for 38 years Mr. Abrams. And when a kid, a student, a valuable member of a community asks me a simple question, "Am I mentally ill? Am I sick?" I felt the need. When my staff asked me that question, this child deserves a response if there is a response. And what we found was a response that I felt fit the extension and was appropriate, and has been thoroughly thought through by a national organization.
Abrams: Dr. Weast I appreciate that and I appreciate you calling me Mr. Abrams so I'll call you Dr. Weast.
Weast: Thank you.
Abrams: And Dr. Weast I'm glad to hear you state that as passionately and forcefully. I wish you had done that a long time ago on this issue, I can't believe that catharsis came to you between last Thursday and last Friday.
Weast: Believe it Steve.
Abrams: I don't believe it, Dr. Weast.
Weast: All right.
Navarro: This is going to -- I just want to mention, of course Mr. Abrams as you know, you will be able to cast a vote and that's how you will express whether you support Dr. Weast's cathartic moment and you can...
Weast: It wasn't a cathartic moment. I have debated this for many many months.
Now that we've figured out how to get the video running, we'll be posting more of the transcripts in the next few days. That was a pivotal meeting, some people expressed their points of view very clearly.
There is still some ongoing controversy about the curriculum, I guess we'll see if the Black Knight, er, CRC decides to bite the county's legs off in yet another lawsuit. Whatever, check back, we'll keep you posted.
This little piece of dialogue was a defining moment in the sex-ed controversy, where Steve Abrams and Jerry Weast dug in and clearly expressed their positions on this issue. Weast added some meat-n-potatoes to the curriculum, thinking about what happens when a student asks "am I mentally ill?" Abrams voted against the curriculum because he didn't approve of the process that had generated the addition to the curriculum, though, as he says, he actually agreed with the statement itself.
posted by JimK at 7:55 AM
69 Comments:
Around 1991, church groups and youth organizations in America began to offer abstinence programs in response to the explosion of teen pregnancy that resulted from the implementation of valueless sex ed programs across the nation. These programs continued to spread in popularity and in the early 21st century received the backing of the U.S. government.
Skip to now. In a report compiled from statistics and studies at 22 federal agencies, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that since 1991, teen promiscuity and teen preganacy has fallen dramatically.:
"WASHINGTON - Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low.
More young people are finishing high school, too, and more little kids are being read to, according to the latest government snapshot on the well-being of the nation’s children. It’s good news all around, experts said of the report being released Friday.
“The implications for the population are quite positive in terms of their health and their well-being,” said Edward Sondik, director of the National Center for Health Statistics. “The lower figure on teens having sex means the risk of sexually transmitted diseases is lower.”
In 2005, 47 percent of high school students — 4.6 million — reported having had sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991.
The teen birth rate, the report said, was 21 per 1,000 young women ages 15-17 in 2005 — an all-time low. It was down from 39 births per 1,000 teens in 1991.
“This is very good news,” said Sondik. “Young teen mothers and their babies are at a greater risk of both immediate and long-term difficulties.”
The report was compiled from statistics and studies at 22 federal agencies, and covered 38 key indicators, including infant mortality, academic achievement rates and the number of children living in poverty."
"And when a kid, a student, a valuable member of a community asks me a simple question, "Am I mentally ill? Am I sick?" I felt the need."
Teachers are not doctors. If any kid asks this, the teacher response should be "I'm not qualified to diagnose people. You should see a doctor and ask him."
Hopefully, the failure of the MCPS to provide for public review of the curriculum will sink it in court. There's no excuse for it.
Abrams is right. Weast was playing a game. He obviously intended to do this all along. JK of TTF said he heard rumors of it when the pilot curriculum was approved.
Anybody know how much summer enrollment in the health curriculum has increased as parents try to avoid the implementation of this in the fall?
The only one playing a game was Abrams who said he agreed with the content and "what I would tell my own daughters probably is more consistent with the curriculum" and then voted against it.
Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms.
The abstinence-only education programs that are pushed by this administration had nothing to do with the increase in condom use by teens. The requirements for federal funding are:
A-H Definition of Abstinence Education for Title V, Section 510 Programs
A Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity
B Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children
C Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
D Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
E Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
F Teach that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
G Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
H Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity
In addition, the government requires all grant applicants to Assure that the programs seeking federal funding Do not promote contraception and/or condom use.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2007-ACF-ACYF-AEGP-0143.html
Orin recently pointed out the 2007 Abstinence-only study by Mathematica (http://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf) which found:
youth in the program group were no more likely to abstain from sex than their control group counterparts
None of the individual programs had statistically significant impacts on the rate of
sexual abstinence, whether measured as either always remaining abstinent or being abstinent during the last 12 months.
So if abstinence-only lessons don't get teens to abstain at a higher rate, what could be causing the decrease in teen sexual behavior along with the increase in condom use? My money's on comprehensive sex education programs that teach both abstinence AND condom use, like MCPS.
Whether or not it is a disease is a questions of values, concerning what one feels is normal functioning of the human body. Abrams' view is a reflection of his values. He may not agree with the idea that scientific associations are the party in our society which rules on values questions and that students should be taught this.
"So if abstinence-only lessons don't get teens to abstain at a higher rate, what could be causing the decrease in teen sexual behavior along with the increase in condom use? My money's on comprehensive sex education programs that teach both abstinence AND condom use, like MCPS."
It's nice for you to have your pet theories but the FACT is that the policies of the administration appear to be working. Why are we trying to change something that is working?
The Mathematica study, the Waxman report, Bearman and Bruckner, all of them report that Abstinence-only education does not increase abstinence, but decrease condom use.
This latest report says that teen abstinence AND condom use have increased. The only programs that can do that are programs that teach BOTH abstinence AND condom use.
Now, please tell us which medical schools teach whether or not anything is a disease is a questions of values.
"This latest report says that teen abstinence AND condom use have increased. The only programs that can do that are programs that teach BOTH abstinence AND condom use."
Not necessarily.
"Now, please tell us which medical schools teach whether or not anything is a disease is a questions of values."
Actually, I don't think medical schools rule on what constitutes a disease. They teach how to treat conditions that are already recognized as disease.
Most situations of non-functionality are not controversial and don't involve values.
Mental diseases rather than physical also complicate the question. Kleptomania might not be considered a mental illness if you were in a society that had no concept of private property. Similarly, exclusive homosexuality, which is rare, might not be considered a disease if there were no societal standard which said homosexuality is immoral.
It's a question of values.
Anon,
No one has ever suggested that health teachers decide was is or is not an illness. That the Advisory Committee suggested -- and what MCPS has now chosen, in part, to include in materials the teachers may use in class -- are conclusions of the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations on these matters.
Here, for the record, is what the AMA, the AAP, and the APA say:
The American Medical Association (AMA):
"[O]pposes the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation." (AMA Policy Number H-160.991 Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population, available at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html).
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP):
Notes approvingly that the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality in 1973 to state that "homosexuality [is] a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder" (Guidance for the Clinician on Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, published in PEDIATRICS, Vol. 113, No. 6 (June 2004) at 1828), available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827).
Encourages its members to "[b]e supportive of parents of adolescents who have disclosed that they are not heterosexual," noting that "[m]ost states have chapters of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to which interested families may be referred," and urging clinicians to "[r]emind parents and adolescents that gay and lesbian individuals can be successful parents themselves." Id. at 1830-31.
Says that most experts have concluded that "one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual." Moreover, according to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is not a "conscious choice that can voluntarily be changed." Id. at 1828.
The American Psychological Association:
States that sexual orientation is not a "conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed," and that gay men and lesbians can "live successful, happy lives." Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality (2007), available at http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html.
States "that "homosexuality is not an illness, it does not require treatment and is not changeable." Id.
States that both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association urge "all mental health professionals to dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation." Id.
Dearest anonymous,
Don't you see that gay people might consider saying that they are mentally ill is hate speech? Or at least dislike speech.
rrjr
"This latest report says that teen abstinence AND condom use have increased. The only programs that can do that are programs that teach BOTH abstinence AND condom use."
Not necessarily.
I call your bluff. Name a program that has been found to increase teen abstinence and teen condom use without teaching both.
Anonymous said "Teachers are not doctors. If any kid asks this, the teacher response should be "I'm not qualified to diagnose people. You should see a doctor and ask him.".
Anonymous as David Fishback has pointed out there is no diagnosis taking place, the teachers are simply affirming what the best medical knowledge shows. It'd be no different if a child when to a teacher and said "I'm jewish, am I mentall ill?", of course the teacher would say no.
Anonymous said "Whether or not it is a disease is a questions of values, concerning what one feels is normal functioning of the human body.".
That's absurd, it has nothing to do with values, whether or not something is a disease is determined by whether or not it interferes in the normal function of day to day life. Study after study has shown that gays are indistinguishable from straights on common measures of mental health - being gay is obviously not a disease and this is why it was removed from the DSM.
"No one has ever suggested that health teachers decide was is or is not an illness."
David, Weast did exactly that at Tuesday's school board meeting. He said this:
"And when a kid, a student, a valuable member of a community asks me a simple question, "Am I mentally ill? Am I sick?" I felt the need."
He runs the school. When a teacher hears him say this, I think they will free to answer the question.
"That's absurd, it has nothing to do with values, whether or not something is a disease is determined by whether or not it interferes in the normal function of day to day life."
Randi, you absurd fool, what if some one thinks the ability to perform in a natural way sexually constitutes a "normal function of day to day life". It's a value judgment.
"It's a value judgment."
And the value judgements of your religion should dictate how I live my life? How unamerican of you. Will you next tax me to support religious schools? Oh yeah, vouchers.
rrjr
"And the value judgements of your religion should dictate how I live my life?"
Rigby, you're messing yourself up as bad as the Mad Canadian. The point is the government has no place making a value judgment. Whether it is a disease or not is a value judgment.
And, yes, if religious people have to pay for public schools, secular humanists should have to pay for religious schools. There should be equal treatment under the law for all religious viewpoints. Remember, the power to tax is the power to destroy.
"Don't you see that gay people might consider saying that they are mentally ill is hate speech?"
Actually, no. And this is the great problem with all these hate crimes laws. They are basically trying to control thoughts. Liberalism in America has totalitarian tendencies.
And BTW, Robert, homosexuality is probably not a disease unless it takes on a compulsive nature and prevents one from functioning as a heterosexual. It's just a choice.
He runs the school. When a teacher hears him say this, I think they will free to answer the question.
The absurd fool is the one who doesn't know what was added to the curriculum at the June 12, 2007 BOE meeting and approved by a vote of 6-1 by the MCPS Board of Education.
If a student in health class asks the health teacher if homosexuality a mental illness or disease, the teacher is now instructed to respond, "No. The American Psychiatric Association does not include homosexuality in its listing of psychiatric or mental disorders."
"This latest report says that teen abstinence AND condom use have increased. The only programs that can do that are programs that teach BOTH abstinence AND condom use."
Not necessarily.
I call your bluff. Name a program that has been found to increase teen abstinence and teen condom use without teaching both."
I wasn't bluffing about anything, Beatrice. I was pointing out that your statement that you can't encourage condom use without condom demonstration classes is inaccurate. Kids already know about condoms. Studies have shown awareness of condoms is the same among students who have attended ab-only and students who have attended comp sex ed classes. That being the case, simply teaching about the consequences of promiscuity may encourage an effort to ameliorate some of those consequences among those who won't commit to abstinence.
The real truth is that comp classes aren't designed to convey information. They are designed to make kids who are promiscous feel comfortable with the lifestyle.
And make a bunch of old fools think they are looking cool to those in school.
FWIW, I think both Abrams and Weast were not being forthright. To say one agrees with a statement and then vote against it is not logical. Then again, Dr. Weast is not being straight forward either,
Weast: It wasn't a cathartic moment. I have debated this for many many months.
Gee, that's odd...because this is the first time that POV has been expressed...or, am I missing something here? And I believe it is a matter of record here that Jim and TTF fellow travelers wanted the CAC to push the inclusion of this "small" item.
Frankly offering a medical diagnosis in a classroom is risky from a clinical standpoint, but if it serves a political agenda...then I guess it is ok, huh?
"The absurd fool is the one who doesn't know what was added to the curriculum at the June 12, 2007 BOE meeting and approved by a vote of 6-1 by the MCPS Board of Education.
If a student in health class asks the health teacher if homosexuality a mental illness or disease, the teacher is now instructed to respond, "No. The American Psychiatric Association does not include homosexuality in its listing of psychiatric or mental disorders.""
Unfortunately, Weast went further than that and said one should address the kid's personal situation. The teachers pick up on this kind of stuff. It's similar to the unconstitutional stuff in the Fishback revision "teacher resources".
"It's just a choice. "
Alan Chambers of Exodus International, Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Peter Sprigg of PFOX/FRC disagree with you Anon.
Chambers and other Exodus leaders talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray.
A leading conservative theologian outside the ex-gay movement recently echoed the view that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA. To the shock and anger of many of his constituents, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-exgay18jun18,0,4259057.story?coll=la-home-center
1) “Choice”
You said that the argument will be placed before the committee that “being gay or lesbian is a choice.” This is not a statement that I would ever make.
Peter Sprigg
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/11/peters-epistle-to-matthew.html
"Alan Chambers of Exodus International, Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Peter Sprigg of PFOX/FRC disagree with you Anon."
Well, it's a simple statement I made. It's a simple statement that MCPS has made. Truth is, the nature of choice is a philosophical question and not a new question. What is it?
Still, as far as other people disagreeing with me, so what?
Anon, you crack me up! You lie repeatedly like you have a bad case of OCLD. Do you really think you are winning any converts doing that?
I was pointing out that your statement that you can't encourage condom use without condom demonstration classes is inaccurate.
I didn't mention condom demonstration classes.
Studies have shown awareness of condoms is the same among students who have attended ab-only and students who have attended comp sex ed classes.
Name these studies.
The real truth is that comp classes aren't designed to convey information. They are designed to make kids who are promiscous feel comfortable with the lifestyle.
MCPS health classes are comprehensive and full of information. Show us where it makes "kids who are promiscious feel confortable with the lifestyle."
Still, as far as other people disagreeing with me, so what?
It shows just how far out on the radical right fringe your ideas are when they are even farther to the right than those of the leaders of Exodus International and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Anonymous said ""No one has ever suggested that health teachers decide was is or is not an illness."
David, Weast did exactly that at Tuesday's school board meeting. He said this:".
He did not. The major mental health associations have already decided gayness is not a disease, the teachers will simply be repeating that, not diagnosing anyone. If a child says he's gay, it is not an illness - case closed.
Anonymous said "if some one thinks the ability to perform in a natural way sexually constitutes a "normal function of day to day life". It's a value judgment.".
And gays function perfectly well in a natural way - being gay is natural for a small percentage of the population. What people other then the major mental and physical health professions think is normal functioning is irrelevant. Studies show that gays are no different than straights in common measures of mental health.
Anonymous said "The point is the government has no place making a value judgment. Whether it is a disease or not is a value judgment".
The governement is absolutely in the place of making value judgments. The government decides that murder, theft, rape, etc. are against the law. The governement must make value judgements. However, wheter or not something is a disease or not is not a value judgement. Whether or not syphillis is a disease is not determined by anyone's values, its determined to be a disease on the basis of the harm it causes to individuals. Gays are no different than straights when it comes to mental health, and for that reason the experts are in overwhelming agreement that gayness is not a disease.
Anonymous said "if religious people have to pay for public schools, secular humanists should have to pay for religious schools. There should be equal treatment under the law for all religious viewpoints.".
That presumes that all viewpoints are equally valid, they are not. The viewpoint that blacks are inferior does not deserve equal treatment under the law, nor does the viewpoint that gays are inferior. Religious people are welcome in public schools and therefore religious people must pay for them. Secular people are not welcome in religious schools and therefore the public should not have to pay for them.
Anonymous said ""Don't you see that gay people might consider saying that they are mentally ill is hate speech?"
Actually, no. And this is the great problem with all these hate crimes laws. They are basically trying to control thoughts. Liberalism in America has totalitarian tendencies.".
Of course its hate speech, its the basis of denying gays equal rights. You're allowed to think whatever you want, its when you try to use such speech as a basis for harming gays that it becomes unethical. The totalitarians are the conservatives, its they who want to control lives other than their own, not liberals.
Orin said "Frankly offering a medical diagnosis in a classroom is risky from a clinical standpoint, but if it serves a political agenda...then I guess it is ok, huh?".
Grow up Orin, no one's offering a medical diagnosis in school. If a child asked a teacher, "I'm heterosexual, does that make me mentally ill?" would you insist that the teacher defer a response to a doctor? No, of course not and its the same way with gays. It is not a mental illness and it is not a diagnosis to tell a child who's gay that he's not mentally ill. And you wonder why I call you a bigot.
"That presumes that all viewpoints are equally valid, they are not. The viewpoint that blacks are inferior does not deserve equal treatment under the law, nor does the viewpoint that gays are inferior."
I've worked with black people. I know black people. Black people are a friends of mine.
Gays are no "black people".
"Here was the striking part. Weast turned his chair to face Abrams, and spoke with his finger crooked, pointing over at him. He sat tall in his chair, his voice rose, and everyone in the room sort of stopped breathing. It was a great moment by any account."
"Of course its hate speech, its the basis of denying gays equal rights. You're allowed to think whatever you want, its when you try to use such speech as a basis for harming gays that it becomes unethical."
Surprise, Randi! We're allowed to say what we want too.
Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can find a nice girl and settle down.
"The totalitarians are the conservatives, its they who want to control lives other than their own, not liberals."
An ignorant statement. Have you ever heard the term "politically correct"?
It was started by left-wing college professors.
"Whether or not syphillis is a disease is not determined by anyone's values, its determined to be a disease on the basis of the harm it causes to individuals. Gays are no different than straights when it comes to mental health, and for that reason the experts are in overwhelming agreement that gayness is not a disease."
Actually, there are many harmful tendencies associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Promiscuity, drug abuse, et al. Some one might make a case they were caused by the condition.
"The governement is absolutely in the place of making value judgments. The government decides that murder, theft, rape, etc. are against the law. The governement must make value judgements."
No way. They are there to enforce the laws decided on in Democratic manner.
I would have expected that cognitive dissonance would have caused Anon to explode already, but apparently he doesn't read the papers to see just how many of his values friends of the heterosexual persuasion are imploding before our eyes. David Vitter, Ted Haggard and his evangelical counterparts, McCain's campaign manager in Florida -- a veritable cornucopia of sleaze, hypocrisy and corruption.
Know any hetero prostitutes and drug users, Anon? Come clean now, please.
Oh, Dr, politicians have been sleazy and hypocritical throughout the ages. Nothing's new here. I don't really care that much about their insignificant personal failings. If a hypocrite pushes the right policy, well, at least the right policy got pushed.
Do I know any prostitues and drug users?
Not at this juncture.
Actually, there are many harmful tendencies associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Promiscuity, drug abuse, et al. Some one might make a case they were caused by the condition.
It takes a lot of homophobia to come up with statements like that. Heterosexuals are never promiscuous or abuse drugs because being gay causes both, is that the case you are trying to make Anon?
I have visited many other web sites where obnoxious responders have been banned from the site. It is now time to prohibit this Anonymous character (whoever he or she is) from this site!!! He/she is using it as his/her own personal pulpit...nothing is to be gained for other readers by reading the trash, vituperation, and mean-spiritedness of this piteously nasty person. Enough is enough! And I don't want to hear any more weeping and wailing about his/her maligned freedom of speech rights. Entirely too much effort is wasted here by well-intentioned people trying to reason and debate with what is essentially a bigoted closed-minded person. btw...is this Anonymous one of the 6 or 7 people who comprise the totality of CRC's membership?
Rob
Teen-sex and pregnancy rates are down, according to a National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) report released today. Experts say parents should take a closer look at the data to determine what the statistics show and how to keep kids healthy.
The NCHS study tracked trends among high school students from 1991 to 2005. In 1991, 54 percent of teens reported having had sexual intercourse. In 2005, that number dropped to 47 percent. The rate of teen pregnancy also showed a dramatic decline.
Dr. Joyce Abma, social scientist for NCHS, which is a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the data come from "pencil and paper questionnaires" called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey given to students at public and private schools.
"It's a cross-section of the high school student population in the United States in each of those years," Abma said. "The report contains data from each of the biennial surveys between those two time points, but those time points are interesting because the decline is significant between them."
Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said 1991 is a significant marker for a reason.
"That's when we separated out abstinence education from contraceptive-based education," she said. "We have seen a continual decline since 1991, so we can infer that we've had an effect with abstinence education in our public schools."
Abma said Klepacki is on to something. While the study did not attempt to investigate cause, she said, efforts to educate teens about the risks associated with sexual intercourse have "increased and intensified" over the last decade.
"Given how many of those efforts are going on," Abma said, "it is probably making an impact on both abstinence and responsible sexual behavior."
Harry Wilson, associate commissioner at the Family and Youth Services Bureau for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the study reflects that kids are making better decisions than they were 10 years ago.
"They’re making those good decisions, and, hopefully, it’s because the programs are working," he said. "The messages that they get are that it’s better to wait."
Klepacki said the trend is significant, but cautioned against being overly optimistic.
"Even though sexual-intercourse rates have been declining, that does not mean that other sexual-activity rates are also declining," she said. "We have seen a move to other sexual activities to protect their 'technical virginity.' "
That's why it is important for kids to learn that the best way to stay healthy both physically and emotionally is abstinence until marriage.
"Parents need to continue to teach their children God's interpretation of sexual activity," Klepacki said, "and that's sexual purity in their heart, mind and body."
Andrea- not anon
See, this is why it is not worth answering GA in any serious manner. Anything he(or she) disagrees with is immoral, not scientific or just wrong. Those who disagree with GA are doing it for political motives while those(very few) who agree are great doctors or scientists. Yeah, Steve Abrams, Johnny Garza, and Ruth Jacobs-the great minds of MC.
Anon can't keep himself from posting the Focus on the Family Actions' Citizens Link spin. Here's the source of his most recent spin: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005052.cfm If we want to subscribe to their crappy newsletter, we will. There's no need for Anon to pollute this blog except to satisfy his own obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Jim, I thought you were going to delete unattributed articles posted without commentary. Maybe you're still jet lagged from your trip to London??
Anonymous said "Gays are no "black people".
Just as blacks have been unfairly discriminated against so have gays. Just as bigots once claimed blacks were inferior so do bigots now claim gays are inferior.
Anonymous said "Surprise, Randi! We're allowed to say what we want too.".
Never said you weren't. What I said was that your actions are unethical, not that they're illegal. Hate speech against gays is unethical.
Anonymous said "Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They can find a nice girl and settle down.".
Based on that logic we can eliminate all republicans from the ballot in the next election. Everyone will have the equal right to vote Democrat.
Fact is gays do not have equal rights. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the one person they love most, gays do not have this same right. A woman has the right to marry a man, but a man does not have the same right she does to marry a man, these are not equal rights.
Anonymous said "Actually, there are many harmful tendencies associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Promiscuity, drug abuse, et al. Some one might make a case they were caused by the condition".
Those tendencies are associated with being oppressed, not with being gay. Blacks have problems with promiscuity, drug use, broken families, crime, etc. but bigots like you wouldn't dare say that's because they are black. Its because they are oppressed, just like gays.
Anonymous said "No way. They are there to enforce the laws decided on in Democratic manner.".
That's one of the functions of governement, making value judgments is another that is unavoidable. Whenever a crime is committed the judicial system weighs the value of prosecuting the criminal against the value of not prosecuting. Govenment inevitably makes value judgments in all manner of ways every day. People simple cannot function without making value judgements.
Anonymous quoted "Focus on the Family" "That's why it is important for kids to learn that the best way to stay healthy both physically and emotionally is abstinence until marriage.".
A pipe dream. Never in the history of mankind have all kids remained abstinent until marriage and they never will. Some kids are ALWAYS going to have sex and they need to know about protection as described in comprehensive sex ed programs.
Anonymous quoted "Focus" on the "Family" "Parents need to continue to teach their children God's interpretation of sexual activity,".
The last thing parents should be doing is basing their childrens health, wellness and morality on is something written by bronze age idiots claiming to speak for an immaginary all powerful being. These ancient bigotries are particularly harmful to gay children who hurt no one by being who they are. Gay children don't deserve to be abused by the backwards thinking of primitive bigots.
"Anon can't keep himself from posting the Focus on the Family Actions' Citizens Link spin."
I believe Anon posted that article because it shows that a government official agrees with the interpretation he made of the data yesterday. Abstinence programs have turned the teen prom & preg problems around.
That's significant and obviously something you don't want to hear. It's inconvenient to your desire to protect programs that make teens comfortable with promiscuity.
"Anything he(or she) disagrees with is immoral, not scientific or just wrong."
That's right, Andrea. There's no such thing as immorality.
We all just need to learn to get along.
"A pipe dream. Never in the history of mankind have all kids remained abstinent until marriage and they never will. Some kids are ALWAYS going to have sex and they need to know about protection as described in comprehensive sex ed programs."
Problem is when we started teaching kids about sex without putting in a context of social norms, we wound up with a whole bunch of social problems that still haunt us today. The statistics don't lie. Until abstinence programs caught on, the problem was not abating. On balance, more kids would be protected if societal norms were respected and sex was treated as something married people do.
An inconvenient truth for TTF.
"Just as blacks have been unfairly discriminated against so have gays. Just as bigots once claimed blacks were inferior so do bigots now claim gays are inferior."
The color of one's skin is a physical trait and has no bearing on one's internal life.
Homosexuality is in a different category.
Gays are no black people.
Anon, it has been suggested that I should ban you from this site. Your rudeness and untruthfulness are constantly annoying to everyone else, but I have let you go on as an example of the reason our community needs a group like TTF. Most people who live here are unaware that people like you exist, and it is shocking sometimes to realize how bad it can really be.
Whoever posted that suggestion, I have to admit I am tending to agree with them. Your life goal seems to be to embody Pure Obnoxiousness, and it really really gets old. Really. I have your IP numbers at home and work, and it only takes a minute to pull the plug on you. I've done it before and it didn't bother me a bit. Please try to behave like a civilized human being when you visit our web site.
JimK
"Anonymous said "Surprise, Randi! We're allowed to say what we want too.".
Never said you weren't. What I said was that your actions are unethical, not that they're illegal. Hate speech against gays is unethical."
Actually, you did say I wasn't "allowed" to say things that Randi feels are unethical.
Right here:
"You're allowed to think whatever you want, its when you try to use such speech as a basis for harming gays that it becomes unethical."
"The last thing parents should be doing is basing their childrens health, wellness and morality on is something written by bronze age idiots claiming to speak for an immaginary all powerful being."
You call this post by Randi respectful of others, Jim?
Randi needs a history lesson. Judeo-Christianity did away with the gods of stone and metal that were worshipped in the bronze age. It brought the world from savagery to civilization.
I agree with Rob.
Andrea- not anon
I also suggest that everyone have to identify themselves in some way besides anon(as I did when my account went off somehow). People don't have to use a real name but Anon doesn't cut it. Lots of blogs don't allow anon comments- maybe TTF shouldn't either. I can't tell if there is just one GA or 2 CRC clones. I am setting up a new account today!
I have my account back! I see posters like anon in other places- maybe he/she is one of those who lost their way after Yahooboards closed. However, they needed some name there- hey GA- are you brooksgeo? 1humanity?
"I also suggest that everyone have to identify themselves in some way besides anon"
Actually, I've tried to that before and could never figure it out. Give me instructions and I'll do it.
I believe Anon posted that article because it shows that a government official agrees with the interpretation he made of the data yesterday.
A Bush Administration appointee, Harry Wilson who has worked at DHHS since 2001, said "hopefully, it’s because the programs are working." In other words, he has no proof. In fact, the Mathematica study Orin likes so much, found that abstinence-only education programs led to no increase in abstinence for teens.
Along with the decrease in teens having sex, the data indicates that there has also been an increase in teen condom use. Could it be that the growing public education about HIV/AIDS (which includes messages of both abstinence and proper and consistent condom usage) has influenced the results? I think so.
Further, the HHS study on "comprehensive" sex education programs released in 2007 that found "these curricula often do not spend as much time discussing abstinence as they do discussing contraception and ways to lessen risks of sexual activity," admits:
The curricula mentioned most frequently were chosen for this study if they were school-based (i.e. not solely for community organizations), widely available, and described by at least one source as “comprehensive” or “abstinence-plus.” Additional weight was given to curricula described as evidence-based or as a “program that works.”
It should be noted that some of the curricula reviewed do not state in their materials that they have an abstinence focus – i.e. that they are “comprehensive sex education,” “abstinence plus,” or in some other way focused on abstinence.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/abstinence/comprehensive.pdf (For more info on this study, see my June 16, 2007 6:02 PM comment at http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/06/fishbacks-address-boe.html )
Garbage in, garbage out IMHO. They studied programs they considered to be comprehensive even if they did not include the abstinence portion of comprehensive sex education programs. If a sex education program does not mention BOTH abstinence AND condoms, it is NOT comprehensive. This is very similar to the data Mathematica analyzed, where they
compared abstinence-only programs to regular health classes even if those classes made no mention of abstinence. Even using dumbed-down control/comparision groups, Mathematica's analysis found ab-only programs did not increase teen abstinence in comparision.
Give me instructions and I'll do it.
Next time you post a comment, instead of selecting "Anonymous" under "Choose an identity" you should select "Other." Then type in whatever "Name" or "Your Web Page" (it seems most everybody leaves this web page part blank) you want.
Or you can go to www.Blogger.com and follow the directions to "Create an Account." Pick a name and password. Then when you type your next comment here, "Choose an identity" of "Google/Blogger" and type in your Blogger account username and password.
Anon,
I don't believe Randi has been offensive. She has never insulted your choice to be religious, or to hold religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion means. But to not criticize your actual religion or its beliefs? Then you're in the territory of Islamofascists who consider any criticism of their religion to be blasphemy and worthy of a death sentence.
If you truly believe, then you should have no problem defending those beliefs against Randi or anyone else.
"I don't believe Randi has been offensive. She has never insulted your choice to be religious, or to hold religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion means. But to not criticize your actual religion or its beliefs? Then you're in the territory of Islamofascists who consider any criticism of their religion to be blasphemy and worthy of a death sentence."
Oh yeah, and that's because I have so often advocated the death sentence for atheists. Come off it. I don't even advocate the death sentence for murder.
I do think Randi's remarks were offensive, comparing religious believers to "bronze age idiots" but that wasn't my objection. Randi can keep on making these type of remarks for all I care; it gives opportunity for response. My objection is that no one seems to suggest banning Randi for these type of comments, which I personally think have been anti-semitic at times.
Peter Berkowitz, a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and law professor at George Mason, writes a brilliant piece debunking the new militant atheism espoused by Dawkins and Hitchens. He writes "The disproportion between the bluster and bravado of their rhetoric and the limitations of their major arguments is astonishing." Among other things he notes that the idea that religion is responsible for all the trouble in the world "begs the question of why the 20th century embrace of secularism unleashed human depravity of unprecedented proportions."
The reason this is all more significant than just a philosophical debate is stated thus:
"by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction."
Wars are lost and ages ended when great civilizations lose focus.
A buck and fifty cents for the Journal and you guys can say, for once, you listened to something other than the choir.
Sorry, guys. I forgot to mention that the Berkowitz piece is in today's Wall Street Journal, op-ed page.
WSJ published the editorial Cairo Joe is talking about on-line for free. Save your buck fifty.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010341
Glad to see the instructions above helped you figure out how to make a name for yourself.
You're calling randi anti-Semitic? I think I would have noticed.
Please document your assertion.
Oh, and I'm sure you're quaking in your boots about the new "militant atheism" of a few writers. If your belief can't stand up to Dawkins, then you've got very serious problems.
Re the Berkowitz editorial, I had a comment on this topic last year, quoted HERE -- I said:
"I doubt that God would have created a world so terrible that learning the facts about it would disprove His existence."
I first encountered Richard Dawkins many years ago in graduate school, we read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker in a psychology seminar. His view of memetics had a lot of influence on my swarm programs, I think of them as a better way to look at the same phenomena, the evolution of ideas. I saw him up-close a week or so ago in London, and he soft-pedaled the atheist angle, more than the others in the debate, in fact.
I disagree with some of my TTF colleagues, I really do think evolution is a serious threat to traditional religion, and don't see any easy way to reconcile the two -- I don't see how any religion that requires belief in a literal creation myth can exist in the light of modern science. Or any religion that depicts man as outside of nature. I look forward to the next stage of thought in America, where people learn how to keep the faith without needing to deny scientific facts. I believe that religious faith is an important part of life -- there I disagree with Dawkins -- but when scripture makes statements about empirical phenomena, there is necessarily going to be conflict.
JimK
Aunte Bea said:
"Could it be that the growing public education about HIV/AIDS (which includes messages of both abstinence and proper and consistent condom usage) has influenced the results?"
I would agree. Just about every sex ed program talks about HIV/AIDS. Students hear a lot about it.
rrjr
Does this child deserve a response?
From the pages of the NY Times,
July 16, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
When 3 Really Is a Crowd
By ELIZABETH MARQUARDT
Chicago
SOMETIMES when the earth shudders it doesn’t make a sound. That’s what happened in Harrisburg, Pa., recently.
On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case, Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, involved two lesbians who were the legal co-parents of two children conceived with sperm donated by a friend. The panel held that the sperm donor and both women were all liable for child support. Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, “I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.”
The case follows a similar decision handed down by a provincial court in Ontario in January. In what appeared to be the first such ruling in any Western nation, the court ruled that a boy can legally have three parents. In that case the biological mother and father had parental rights and wished for the biological mother’s lesbian partner, who functions as the boy’s second mother, to have such rights as well.
The idea of assigning children three legal parents is not limited to North America. In 2005, expert commissions in Australia and New Zealand proposed that sperm or egg donors be allowed to “opt in” as a child’s third parent. That same year, scientists in Britain received state permission to create an embryo from the DNA of three adults, raising the real possibility that they all could be granted equal legal claims to the child if the embryo developed to term.
Astonishingly, few legal experts, politicians or social commentators have considered the enormous risks these rulings and proposals pose for children. Those who have noticed tend to say they are nothing new, because many children already grow up with several parent figures. But this fails to recognize that stepchildren and adopted children still have only two legal parents.
Supporters of the rulings argue that if two parents are good for children, aren’t three better? True, some three-parent petitions are brought by adults who appear deeply committed to the child in question. In the Ontario case, the two women and the father all seem devoted to the boy. But in Pennsylvania, the sperm donor, whom the children called “Papa,” was ordered to pay child support over his objections, and the lesbian co-mothers have already ended their relationship.
What is the harm if other American courts follow Pennsylvania’s example? For one thing, three-parent situations typically involve a couple and a third person living separately, meaning the child will get shuffled between homes, and this raises problems.
A few years ago, along with Norval Glenn, a sociologist at the University of Texas, I compiled the first nationwide study of children who grow up in so-called “good” divorces — that is, families in which both divorced parents stay involved in the child’s life and control their own conflict. We found that even these children must grow up traveling between two worlds, having to make sense on their own of the different values, beliefs and ways of living they find in each home. They have to grow up too soon. When a court assigns a child several parents, some of whom never intend to share a home, they consign that child, at best, to a “good” divorce situation.
Of course, sometimes the three adults might want to live together, which leads to a different set of concerns. As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, “If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.” If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage? America, get ready for the group-marriage debate.
And these are merely the worries if the three parents cooperate. But, as the Pennsylvania case shows, they may not. Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?
Finally, why should courts stop at assigning children only three parents? Some situations involve a couple who wants the child, the sperm donor, the egg donor and the gestational surrogate who carries the pregnancy. If we allow three legal parents, why not five?
Fortunate children have many people who love them as much as their parents do. But in the best interests of children, no court should break open the rule of two when assigning legal parenthood.
Elizabeth Marquardt, a vice president of the Institute for American Values, is the author of the forthcoming “My Daddy’s Name Is Donor.”
Orin asks "Does this child deserve a response?"
Sure, Orin, every child deserves truthful answers to their questions, even gay kids as Dr. Weast pointed out. But I read the editorial and no child asked a question.
I'm still not interested in the views of those who work at the Institute for American Values, which is all about limiting marriage to one man and one woman. IMHO the IAV works to stir up opposition to their real targets: same sex couples. You know, like your gay neighbors. And you still haven't told us how their hypothetical marriage would prevent other marriages.
It's interesting to note that the NY Times was willing to actually print an editorial from one of IAV's members. Can you show us some Murdoch-owned or other right wing media outlets that print editorials from say a VP at Advocates for Youth?
"You're calling randi anti-Semitic? I think I would have noticed."
You might have a blind spot, Dr.
"Please document your assertion."
Personally, I've always thought of anti-semitism as a racist tendency but, in our discussion a few weeks ago where Randi asserted that Jesus was anti-semitic, Randi noted that one defintion of anti-semitism is hostility toward Jewish people as a religious group. I looked it up and, turns out, Randi was right.
Randi has made so many disparaging remarks about the Jewish religion that I think readers can go back and make up their own mind without me analyzing the remarks. I'd point to the comment about "bronze age idiots" as hostile to the Jewish religious group, for one example.
Of course, you may think that it is a harsh term, considering the historical connotation, and I'd tend to agree, except that Randi is the one who felt it was apropriate to apply the term in such a facetious manner.
"Oh, and I'm sure you're quaking in your boots about the new "militant atheism" of a few writers."
Oh, not personally, but considering the sales numbers of some of these books recently, it is dismaying to think large numbers of people may be mislead.
"If your belief can't stand up to Dawkins, then you've got very serious problems."
Stand up, it already has. Oxford professor Alistair McGrath books have pretty much put Dawkins' arguments out of their intellectual misery.
"I really do think evolution is a serious threat to traditional religion, and don't see any easy way to reconcile the two -- I don't see how any religion that requires belief in a literal creation myth can exist in the light of modern science."
Evolution is not really a threat to Judeo-Christianity, even if it is eventually widely accepted. The Genesis account is not that detailed and many possibilities exist.
"Or any religion that depicts man as outside of nature. I look forward to the next stage of thought in America, where people learn how to keep the faith without needing to deny scientific facts."
There are plenty of people of faith aren't denying any scientific facts right now.
"I believe that religious faith is an important part of life -- there I disagree with Dawkins -- but when scripture makes statements about empirical phenomena, there is necessarily going to be conflict."
If religion believers recognize that scripture isn't always specific and science recognizes that there is a level of uncertainty to any scientific findings and that no level of empirical findings represent a moral finding, there should be no problem. One problem currently is that some have come to put too much faith in the scientific community. Science without skepticism isn't science.
oops!
that last one was Cairo Joe.
One problem currently is that some have come to put too much faith in the scientific community.
The problem with "faith" is not in the scientific community IMHO. Here's an excerpt from an interesting article in today's NY Times:
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
It seems to me that those who are blinded by faith and who call the theory of evolution a "deceit" and "a feeble and perverted ideology" are the ones with a problem.
Joe,
I will still disagree with you. I don't recall Randi calling Jesus anti-Semitic. And as a well-educated Jewish woman I have no problem with her calling some of my ancestors "Bronze Age idiots," either. She's talking about the religion and its interpretation. One can say "Judaism as a religion makes no logical sense, is based on myths, condones genocide, etc." without being anti-Semitic. Saying "Jews condone genocide, are stupid . . ." is racist/anti-Semitic.
Jewish education usually encourages discussion and debate, unlike Protestant fundamentalism.
"I don't recall Randi calling Jesus anti-Semitic."
I'm surprised you weren't reading because Randi argued this line for days.
"And as a well-educated Jewish woman I have no problem with her calling some of my ancestors "Bronze Age idiots," either. She's talking about the religion and its interpretation. One can say "Judaism as a religion makes no logical sense, is based on myths, condones genocide, etc." without being anti-Semitic. Saying "Jews condone genocide, are stupid . . ." is racist/anti-Semitic."
"Idiot" was about the believer, not the belief. And I don't have a problem with arguing about religious beliefs. It's more the hostile tone which Randi takes.
Come to think of it, has Randi cancelled Randi's ISP or soemthing?
"Jewish education usually encourages discussion and debate, unlike Protestant fundamentalism."
Interesting juxtaposition. All Jewish education vs one branch of Christianity. Misleading too because of the common misunderstanding about how to classify various forms of Christianity.
What would you say if someone said:
"Christian education usually encourages discussion and debate, unlike orthodox Judaism."
For the record, I think evangelical Protestantism encourages discussion and debate more than any other religious perspective of Judeo-Christianity. See the Book of Acts where Paul goes to Mars Hill to debate with the Greek philosophers.
Post a Comment
<< Home