Thursday, April 28, 2005

Going Over This Again (... and again ... and again...)

Ex-Recall is jeering at us about a new study that demonstrates an abstinence program that seems to work. Well, the author of the study is a friend of mine, and he's an excellent methodologist, and the article is not available online, so I'm not going to comment on it. I was going to write to him and his co-researcher wife for a copy of the paper, but didn't think that would be very nice to ask for a favor and then criticize the article. And anyway, if somebody does have a way to keep teenagers from going wild, I'm eager to hear it -- I've got two of my own.

What I want to comment on is stuff like this:
Oh, I can hear our opponents jeering and screeching now, because of course, they can't abide by any program that actually encourages young teens to abstain.

And this:
They think it is every teenager's God-given right (oops -- maybe not, sorry TTF!) to engage in sexual activity if they want to -- that is why all the fuss about opposing our efforts to make sure teens get all the facts about the dangers of early sexual experimentation -- what it can do to them physically, emotionally and yes, spiritually.

Let's go over this again.

There are plenty of good reasons for a teenager to abstain from sex. The two obvious ones, that nobody disagrees about, are the risk of unwanted pregnancy and the risk of infection. We don't need to go over those again. There are lots of other good reasons. Many of them are included in the new MCPS sex-education curriculum.

For instance,
  • The curriculum talks about how being sexual active can lower your self-esteem. Remember? Ex-Recall was horrified by that
  • Sexual activity for teens can lead to disappointment. Yes, that's what the school will be teaching eighth-graders
  • Being sexually active in your teen years can lead to depression and even suicide -- this is what they're taught in eighth grade
  • You might lose your friends -- the schools will be teaching them this fact
  • Kids will be taught that promises made before sex are often forgotten afterwards
  • Being sexually active can damage your self-concept: MCPS is going to teach that
  • They will be taught that the "negative results" of sexual activity for teens "far outweight the positive"
  • Abstinence, they will be taught, enables you to preserve your self-esteem, and is the best choice "before marriage and for teens" -- this is what MCPS is going to teach eighth-grade students
  • Tenth graders will be taught about date/acquaintance rape, statutory rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault -- good stuff to know about, don't you think?
  • They will be taught that abstinence "permits relationship to develop without sexual pressures" -- a good thing
  • Students will learn a lot about the responsibilities and lifestyle changes that accompany pregnancy and parenthood, and they do not look sweet for unwed teens
  • Tenth graders will be encouraged to make a "commitment to chastity"

This is a program that supports.

As long as I'm bulleting items, here's something else to think about:
  • DOES NOT support any program that brings the teachings of any particular religion into the classroom
  • We DO NOT hate gay or transgendered people or find them abnormal or diseased, and do not approve of the school teaching prejudicial non-truths about them
  • We certainly DO NOT think that teenagers should experiment with sex, though we are not so naive as to expect all or even most of them to wait until marriage
  • We DO believe that students should be given all the facts about reproduction and contraception, as they will someday be adults and will almost certainly engage in sexual intercourse at some time in their lives

One last strange thing they get into over there:
These activists want our kids to believe that everything that used to be wrong is right, that everything that was considered abnormal is normal and that MCPS has the right to teach our kids these things whether we like it or not.

I am sympathetic, but for reasons you might not understand. It does appear that someone wants us to believe that "everything that used to be wrong is right." I'm thinking about such things as violence, war, greed, intolerance, lying, hatred ... I know that's not what you meant, though. I guess we're just all getting old, wishing for the good old days.

Look, it is perfectly appropriate for you to teach your children what you think is and is not appropriate behavior. There have always been differences between people, and between societies, as far as what they consider proper and acceptable behavior, sexual and otherwise. It is not appropriate to take your particular group's norms -- which, don't get me wrong, are fine for you to apply to yourself -- and force other people to live by them. This is America, and we have this thing called "liberty," and we live in the belief that people are free to express themselves as they wish, to be what they feel they really are, within the bounds of a law that secures our liberty. If you want to be conservative in your personal beliefs and behavior, well, cool, I hope you're happy. Others may choose otherwise, and again, cool, be happy. Obey the law and mind your own business and we'll all be fine.

And it really is wrong, it really is despicable, to put words in other people's mouths that they have never said and would never agree with, in order to make yourself look better. If you consider yourself "moral" by ordinary standards, you know that's wrong.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And it really is wrong, it really is despicable, to put words in other people's mouths that they have never said and would never agree with, in order to make yourself look better. If you consider yourself "moral" by ordinary standards, you know that's wrong."

Jim, you are a crack-up! Your last sentance toally applies to ALL of you at teach the facts --you continuosly ascribe words and thoughts to the CRC that are totally untrue and you know it! Why, just the other day you said the CRC advocates teaching their religion or some such nonsense in schools. You know that is not true. The CRC just wants the school board to butt out of teaching things to their kids that go against their (or their parent's) morals or religious beliefs.

And this:

"It is not appropriate to take your particular group's norms -- which, don't get me wrong, are fine for you to apply to yourself -- and force other people to live by them."

Maybe the norms of the people of the CRC don't include anal sex. Maybe anal sex is normal for you. Good for you Jim. So, I'll apply exactly what you said to you now: it is not appropriate Jim, for you to take your particular group's norms (anal sex), which, don't get me wrong Jim, are fine for you all to apply to yourselves. Just don't force other people to live by them.


And, please be big enough to leave this post up and not go 'poof' as you do to others that rile you up. Fair enough Jim? :)

April 28, 2005 4:43 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

"... you said the CRC advocates teaching their religion or some such nonsense in schools..."

I said they "would like to have their religious values taught in the public school classroom," and I think you have just supported that statement. Of course that's what this is all about. Narrow it down to one thing: your group's anti-homosexual position. Q:Where's that come from? A: It's a religious value. There's nothing more to it.

You said "Maybe the norms of the people of the CRC don't include anal sex." Are you saying that you believe fewer than half the members of your group engage in anal sex, or that it's not something they talk about, as a norm? I am guessing it's the latter.

Oh, and your comment has content, which is the minimum requirement. The others that have evaporated were simply personal, and sometimes had language I didn't approve of in this context, and didn't contribute to the dialogue.

April 28, 2005 5:45 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Bianca said... or Retta said..

>>>>The CRC just wants the school board to butt out of teaching things to their kids that go against their (or their parent's) >>>morals or religious beliefs.<<<

But why should the school board not advocate the school system teaching a sound health education curriculum that the majority of families support and that children need? Why should the CRC few decide for all based on their narrow wants?

If the CRC few does not want it..opt out is the way to go. Choices are there. Just as the topic you brought up about anal sex. That is a choice too if people practice it. If they practice it then safety protections should be utilized such as condoms, etc. Maybe a CRC member practices anal sex....they should do so with safety measures.

Is that my and neither is it CRC's.

I would say TTF does not try to tell everyone else what their children should be taught and should have allowed to be taught by the school system.

Choices are what TTF advocates for.

Kay R.

April 28, 2005 6:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

For the casual reader who may have come across hese comments and wonders what in the world is going on with Bianca's "anal sex" comments, let me explain.

The MCPS sex-ed curriciulum includes a video about condoms -- how to pick one, how to buy it, how to open the package, how to put it on, etc. In that video is one line, something like, "Remember always to wear a condom for anal, oral, or vaginal sex."

This is the only time in the whole curriculum that "anal sex" is mentioned, but the CRC likes to tell people that the school district "teaches children to have anal sex." For some reason, this one line is very important to them, as you can see by the comments above.

April 28, 2005 9:15 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

On March 23, 2005, a few members of and Michelle Turner, the President of the CRC, attended a meeting at Einstein about the health education curriculum. We viewed the condom portion of the 1992 film, "Hope is Not a Method," a film which is a part of the existing high school health education curriculum.

At the CRC's website home page, a section of its Mission Statement reads, "the CRC recommends that it [the newly revised curriculum] be rejected in favor of the current 8th grade and current high school curriculum." This implies that the CRC supports the film, "Hope is Not a Method" for use as a teaching aid in high school sex education classes.

In "Hope is Not a Method," there is statement of warning made similar to, "You must use a condom whether engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal sex." Didn't your President bother to share this fact with you after watching the film back in March? The inclusion of this statement is one of the ex-recall groups' biggest complaints about "Protect Yourself" and yet a very similar statement is OK in "Hope is Not a Method." Maybe you should try to get your facts straight before you go public with your complaints.

And Bianca, thanks for asking about how long comments on our blog will be allowed to remain posted. Here's a question for you. Why doesn't ex-recall's blog even allow comments to be made?

Chris Grewell

April 29, 2005 11:29 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa-- don't you guys get this? When you lie and make up stuff, we're going to catch you.

First of all, anal sex is not mentioned, as you state, "in the classroom to 13 year olds," unless there is a precocious kid who is a junior in high school at thirteen. It's in the 10th grade curriculum, not the eighth, as you should well know.

Further, the curriculum does not say that "some people are born homosexual." You just made that up. Somebody reading this might not know better, and might believe you. The curriculum says: Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice. Even your spokesman Peter Sprigg says it's not a choice -- even CRC's letter threatening to sue the school board says it's not a choice. All professional psychology, mental health and counseling organizations agree on this fact. This is as close as we find to your made-up statement.

You have a long, quoted paragraph here. Where is this quote from? You say there is an "infectious disease doctor who happens to be 100% behind [you]." Is there a reason they don't have a name? Is this from what somebody said who stood up at the CRC hate-in? Please, who said this, and who said anything about political correctness? Sheesh, change the subject, will ya?

And -- if illness strikes a particular subpopulation of our society, does it seem reasonable to you to respond by stifling any discussion of that subpopulation, and acting like they don't exist? What kind of sense does that make? The obvious thing is, if an infection is transmitted via a behavior, warn people about it and tell them how to avoid spreading the disease. Your doctor's comments have nothing at all -- NOTHING AT ALL -- to do with teaching sex education in middle and high schools.

As far as the illnesses associated with various sexual behaviors, those are not included in the "sex" part of the health curriculum, but in the "health" part. In multicolor gory detail.

Now you say, "lets teach them about anal sex, in detail and at the same time describe gay bowel in detail" -- or are you being sarcastic? What is a "gay bowel?" You're one of Bianca's friends, right? Have you guys been talking about this? Now you want to teach students about anal sex? Ya lost me here.

As far as your comments about "the gay lifestyle." The "gay lifestyle" is in your head, we're talking here about gay people. Some diseases are spread through vaginal contact, yet I don't think you are quite against all heterosexual sex. Some are spread by kissing -- I know some of your group are against that, but it will not be a popular cause, trust me. Some are spread predominantly by anal sex, which is, you know, not an exclusively homosexual behavior, by a long shot. Some people in the community -- um, that would be you -- don't think the schools should teach people how to avoid the risks of anal sex.

The Bible may have a couple of places where it says homosexuality is sinful. OK, fine, you accept one, you accept the other. But commonsense does not come to that conclusion, and not everybody thinks those particular passages are all that important. Theresa, it will shock you, but not everybody belongs to your religion! Some people rely on common sense, and do not conclude that homosexuality is evil or sinful. There's America for ya. You're free to live according to your beliefs, and the rest of us are free with ours. We won't impose ours on you, and you keep yours out of our school system.

April 29, 2005 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But don't you get it Jim? YOU are imposing your belief system on everyone else! For crying out loud, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. You are defending the same thing you accuse 'religious' people of.

April 29, 2005 4:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Joe -- quick one, good one-- I wondered what that fuse would light.

The belief that homosexuality is a sin is part of some religions' values. It is not a fact. It has the status of the Hindu taboo against harming cows, or the Jewish proscription against eating pork. It does not follow from reason, and of course there are no facts to support it. When faith collides with reason in the public domain, reason has to win. Sorry. You want to maintain your superstitions, do it at home. Nobody minds if you do that, we just mind if you bring 'em to school.

Theresa, if you wanted to include the proportion of the population that's gay, I don't think anybody would mind. I don't see how it's important, and this is the first time I've heard anybody complain about its absence. I'm not against it. MCPS could find the best evidence for an accurate number and teach it, if it's important (it's not). I think most middle schoolers realize that "gay" is unusual, but you could petition the BOE to include that, if it was important to you.

You are confused. "Homosexuality" is not risky. Many gay couples live their whole lives, believe it or not, without catching AIDS or any other thing. Promiscuity increases the chances of infection, whether you're gay or straight, and I think that is addressed in the curriculum. Anal sex, as we've said, is a way to spread HIV, and that is covered ad nauseum in the curriculum.

But "being gay" is nothing, you don't get sick just by being gay. (It might even be less risky to be a lesbian than to be straight. Don't you think the schools should teach that?)

And your doctor, does she have an opinion about the MCPS sex-ed curriculum, or does she just treat sick people? I mean, it's true that there are infections of epidemic proportions out there -- is that a justification to discriminate against a group of people, or would it be nicer to figure out how to prevent and cure those diseases? I vote for prevent and cure.

April 29, 2005 5:24 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Woops, missed that last thing. It's funny, Theresa, that "Surgeon General" comment. I have looked for that, and can't find it anywhere. I see it on a million rightwing web sites, and saw it the other day mentioned on a government site, which of course is ... never mind.

Do you have a citation for when any Surgeon General actually said that? It is fascinating to me, a direct quote, always the same, propagated from one True Believer to another, but never an attribution to a source.

April 29, 2005 5:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Oh, and I shouldn't really have referred to anyone's religious beliefs as "superstitions." I apologise for that.

April 29, 2005 5:34 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

That's actually more than I needed to know. Enjoy your trip.

April 29, 2005 9:57 PM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 30, 2005 10:06 AM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

I think you go a bit too literal with your comments. We, the liberal TTF, have never gone so far as to discuss our sex preferences.
I guess what Jim meant was that you were making assumptions of things regarding anal sex that were rarely discuss at all in ANY group, but you were giving them as a given. We don't know or care how many of the people engage in anal sex, and I don't think the CDC cares either, but since anal sex do exist -as disgusting as it may seem for you -, and it's a great way of getting a disease, CDC and TTF consider that people should be well advised of:
1. the risks of anal sex,
2. the limited protection condoms can provide on that case,
3. the ways to at least partially prevent breakage of the condom in anal sex.
You may consider it very disgusting, but since it is "pregnancy-free," kids DO engage on it. Our choices are: tell them that office was not made for that purpose and have the same success that when we were swearing to them that vegetables are better than chocolate; don't even mention it to them and let them discover it for themselves -with peer to peer help-, and get sick in the process; tell them: "it's risky, you could get sick even easier than with vaginal and oral sex, condoms protect a little bit, don't assume pregnancy-free means risk-free."
I guess we here vote for the last option: education instead of ignorance.
I mean, go and quote the Surgeon General to those abstinence pledgers that got the same rate of STIs than the rest of the non-abstinent population while keeping their himen intact: in which "office" you think they were opperating?

April 30, 2005 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is, why are we even discussing anal sex? WHy are our kids discussing it? I mean, the main purpose of 'sex education' in the public schools is to teach about human REPRODUCTION. The point of the course is not to discuss alternative sexual practices which would, under MARYLAND state law be considered EROTIC TECHNIQUES. I mean, if we are going to discuss anal sex which has nothing to do with reproduction last I checked (which, by the way Jim, we have confirmation from a middle school health teacher that anal sex IS discussed in the 8th grade curriculum -- in the STD portion)what is to stop the school board there? I mean, I consider myself a pretty mainstream person but even I know that there are a whole lot of other alternative sexual practices that probably even YOU would deem offensive and not suitable to teaching kids in school. So why do you defend this so vociferously? Do you see how stupid this makes you and TTF look? I kind of feel sorry for you because you and your cohorts have placed yourselves in the unfortunate position of DEFENDING EVERY stupid and unnecessary thing that the BOE though the CAC has done. Now we even have assistant principals saying that (I am paraphrasing) yes, some people do have anal sex and in fact it is very pleasurable. What will be in the next revision? Will our teachers be defending and discussing sado-masochism, just because some people find it pleasurable? Will you then be defending that -- just because a small minority of people do it? (We wouldn't want to make them feel bad, afterall.)

And ultimately, if you MUST defend it, why do you not push that there must be a full and complete accounting of the health risks of these EROTIC techniques? Because there are -- plenty of them. And for a teenager to place his or her life in danger by hoping that a single condom is going to protect you from HIV, well that just makes it all seem too simple and uncomplicated. And as adults we all know that sex is never simple and uncomplicated, especially for teenagers.

April 30, 2005 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I mean, go and quote the Surgeon General to those abstinence pledgers that got the same rate of STIs than the rest of the non-abstinent population while keeping their himen intact: in which "office" you think they were opperating? "

Isabel, you are the last person who should be making fun of someone's use of a word. Please. (And it is 'hymen', FYI.) And you were doing very well trying to be reasonable, and then you had to go and take another stab at ridiculing those 'abstinence pledgers' as you are all so fond of doing. Maybe Montgomery County should have a real abstinence education program like BEST FRIENDS and then we could see what a true abstinence education program can do. Asking kids to make a pledge without giving them adequate encouragement and support and then filling their heads with information about anal and oral sex in the classroom, well that seems to me to be a doomed 'pledge' from the start.

April 30, 2005 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, I do not know why my posts are not being published yet -- blogger must be acting up. Anyway here is some information for you Jim and your cohorts and anyone else who cares to read it.

1. This is the long sought after quote you have been scavaging Google for I am sure, about the Surgeon General:

2. During this conversation I have read for the the second time you singing the praises of lesbianism: You said, "it might even be less risky to be a lesbian than to be straight. Don't you think the schools should teach that?" To answer your question bluntly: no, I don't. You also claim that the gay 'lifestyle' is in my head. All I can say is you must have your head up... in the sand. Have you ever heard of "Fistgate" Jim? If you haven't, here is a link for you to try:

Fistgate is what happens when the "State" thinks it knows better than parents and it allows activists to take liberties and cross lines that should never be crossed. Fistgate is absolutely true. It happened at Tufts University. Do your own google search. If you defend it and the sexual practices the gay activists tried to instruct children on -- among them, fisting, well then, there is really no hope for you.

April 30, 2005 11:28 AM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

Bianca, did you read what is written in the link you are quoting?
Did you read what is said in almost every document relating to sex and STIs in the CDCs, the NIH, and pretty much every health site that deals with those issues? If only three people have anal sex, why every health care organization deals with it and mentions how risky it is?
In fact, sadly, the abstinence pledgers were resorting to it and getting sick from it. Don't you think that if they had known that anal sex was riskier and that was, indeed, sex probably they would abstain from it too, or at least use a condom to reduce at least a little bit the risk or getting sick? (even the Surgeon General says so.)
By the way, I see you have a problem of understanding what others say, but, I was not making fun of Theresa use of the word "office", she was joking with it, and I participated on that joke: we were both circunventing the actual term for it.
In fact, I have much respect for Theresa who is the only one brave and respectful enough to identify herself -as we do here in TTF- and be responsible for her comments before us and before the entire community, what you and the rest of the anonymous avoid doing, so you can offend and be vulgar at will without losing you appeareance of decency.
And thanks for your spelling correction, yes, English is not my first language.

April 30, 2005 11:44 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

You ask, The point is, why are we even discussing anal sex? It was you who brought up anal sex and who practices it, not me. It is fascinating that one statement that a condom should be used during anal sex -- a statement that has been in the curriculum for decades -- would have you believing that the next thing is teaching about sadomasochism. You're a nut. Sorry, gotta say it. There is nothing resembling reason in the way you jump from one thing to another.

And this is not the Surgeon General's original quote, this is the same thing everybody else says. It quotes "the Surgeon General" -- which Surgeon General, what report? I spent a couple of hours recently looking for the original, and am beginning to think there isn't one. I don't really believe any Surgeon General ever said this.

And "fistgate" is what happens when rightwing psychos hear about somebody doing something inappropriate five years ago -- they try to make you think that it's happening everywhere, all the time. We could easily find inappropriate hetereosexual statements if we cared to, and what "gate" would that be? -- Nothing-gate, just like this fist thing. (And I do wonder why people like you are so fascinated with homosexuals...)

April 30, 2005 12:06 PM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

Theresa's comment: "Scientifically, was this the anatomical purpose of this orfice ?"

Now I understand why Bianca thought I was making fun of Theresa. But I didn't even notice that she made a typo because I know this is not a publication, and people write on the run here, I wouldn't be picking on a typo when there is substance to an argument. I doubt Theresa wouldn't know how to write such a complicated word as "office."
A typo is a typo and adds nothing to the discussion. My appologies to Theresa -although I doubt she would have taken it badly, because she does seems to distinguish between a typo and a joke.

April 30, 2005 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I took your little 'joke' as making fun of her -- which upon looking further I see she actually did spell 'orifice' and not 'office' like you 'joked'. (so what was? Not really sure and I am quite sure it doesn't matter.) I am usually too busy in my my real life (and I am real and do have a real life)to make fun of people, which seems to be the main pastime here. I was actually quite serious about the fistgate controversy, but I see that there is no moving any of you in any direction reasonably resemblng (stay with me Izzy, I know its hard for you) common sense. I should have known better. Hopefully other people who read this will appreciate the information or at the very least begin to question what happens when you let a school board have too much power. I feel sorry for you all. I truly do. Your venom is so obvious and I was naive to think that you wanted to engage in a serious dialogue.

I expect that you will make this comment 'go away' Jim. Alas, this is the very reason the CRC doesn't have comments on the blog-- to answer your nagging question. We'd have to engage sarcastic and hateful comment makers like you all and our time is better spent with our families and community and getting more people on our side.

What was I thinking trying to engage you loonies in a serious discussion? (big sigh) Have a nice, rainy weekend.


April 30, 2005 1:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Bianca, I called you a "nut," which is not too bad, considerin'. Generally, we don't make fun of individuals here. Your logic was so far out of bounds, it could not be taken seriously as lucid reasoning. Sorry, but I wasn't making fun of you, just trying to keep my head above water as I discussed these things with you.

As far as "fistgate": five years ago, somebody in Massachusetts had a "seminar" that got ridiculous. You can make as big a deal out of that as you like, but you really can't make a case that that has anything to do with the MCPS sex-ed curriculum. We could take any of a large number of scandals involving preachers and conclude something horrible about Christianity, but that's not worth doing, either. We could find very, very many scandals involving straight people, but it's not worth doing. You can take that one event and keep talking about it, but really, nobody cares. It wasn't important, it didn't happen again, and it just makes you look nuttier.

I make some comments go away, it's true. Some people just write in to say "You're a !@#$% *&^%!!!" or some variation on that. Not worth wasting bandwidth on, and not what this site's here for. But you're saying something -- I don't delete comments that do that ... well, maybe I would if they were vulgar, since I can't edit them.

April 30, 2005 1:28 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Since there is no way to write to CRC on their web- let me answer 2 things to Bianca, about her wonderful CRC friends, Susie Q wrote some extremely nasty personal comments to Isabel and Jim - and she is not the only one-and plenty of CRC statements are untrue- whether you say they are or not. Stating that "You should use a condom for anal, oral and vaginal sex" is not teaching erotic techniques- it is teaching someone to use protection no matter what they do. As studies show- sadly-, kids are doing all these things before they have even had health education-MCPS has plenty of pregnancies each year- and not in 12th grade. CRC is constantly looking for some way to find a law violation and they make it up if they can't find a real one.

And hard as it may be for anyone in CRC to believe(as if I care), I am religious and proud of it. I do not require a public school to follow my religious beliefs and practices- I have friends who send their kids to private schools for those reasons. I am surprised at the CRC members who are so offended by the few changes to the health ed curriculum(based on moral and relgious beliefs) but have no problem sending their kids to schools where there is so much immodest clothing and bad language(and since you think we are so sarcastic-I am perfectly serious about this-I am shocked at the clothing or, lack thereof, on HS girls). I would say that the day to day atmosphere of a public school would be much more of an issue based on the outrage shown in some CRC blogs and CRC commenters on the TTF blog.

April 30, 2005 2:52 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Maybe the CRC folks should be open about their impending try for a restraining order to halt the health education curriculum in Fed. court.

Maybe PFOX should too...

But hey I would ask the question on their blog if the Recall blog was as open as the TTF one that CRC uses quite frequently these days.

Kay R

April 30, 2005 7:12 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Well, what an interesting debate. After all this discussion, the FACT remains that no one from ex-recall has yet been able to explain why they say it's OK for a statement which goes something like, "You should use a condom for oral, anal or vaginal sex," is not OK in the 2004 "Protect Yourself" video but is fine in the 1992 "Hope is Not a Method" film.

Ex-recall supports the 1992 film even though it is so out of date that it contains information about contraceptives that are no longer available on the market! Then they bring up the five year old Dobson-funded "Fistgate" information campaign (which has absolutely nothing to do with the MCPS curriculum) in a transparent effort to draw attention away from their illogical arguments about their "traditional family values" desire to dumb down the health education curriculum. They say the curriculum must be in line with their religious beliefs (abstinence until marriage except for gays who must remain celebate) rather than in line with today's reality (50% of American teenagers will become sexually active before they graduate from high school and 99% of Americans will become sexually active before marriage). They believe ignorance will keep kids safer than information about sex and safety.

Instead of explaining their illogical stands, they make a big fuss about the so-called incomplete new curriculum which they claim does not sufficiently explain the supposed "dangers" of various "lifestyles." If you think this means they want more information in the curriculum, you are wrong. With a straight face they make these arguments as they continue to support the old curriculum which contains less information than the new.

They are wrong. Knowledge is power.

Chris Grewell

May 01, 2005 11:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home