Of course its the duty of the parents Jay. But in the real world alot of childern do not have the benefit of good parenting. So its society who has to teach them. Otherwise we have to pay for the mess it creates over and over again. Its not about aproving sex Jay, its about understanding what your doing. In no way would I ever support incouraging teens to have sex.
How to stop the spread of fundamentalism?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Here in China there are still people who don't know what AIDS is because of the whole sex taboo. Strange how little red-lighted parlours spring up all over the place though, yet I doubt those young ladies in miniskirts really know how to cut hair. Of course knowledge of AIDS is spreading quickly now thanks to TV adverts, posters, etc. And 'cause of the taboo, there are now condom vending machines all over the place. The government is now experimenting with sex ed in the larger cities, to see how the students and parentws react.
Heck, I'm not for extra-marital sex, but then again, this is about teaching them safe sex. Heck, even if you're married, you need to know how to have safe sex unless you intend to reproduce like rabits, goin' back to the traditional family of twelve! And like Peapod said, it's not about encouraging such behaviour, but about ensuring students know how to protect themselves should that be the course they should choose to follow. This in no way precludes teaching them about abstinence and encouraging them to abstain. heck, we could even plea with them to abstain, and hopefully most will. But some won't, and so let's teach them how to protect themselves and have smaller families too while we're at it.
Heck, I'm not for extra-marital sex, but then again, this is about teaching them safe sex. Heck, even if you're married, you need to know how to have safe sex unless you intend to reproduce like rabits, goin' back to the traditional family of twelve! And like Peapod said, it's not about encouraging such behaviour, but about ensuring students know how to protect themselves should that be the course they should choose to follow. This in no way precludes teaching them about abstinence and encouraging them to abstain. heck, we could even plea with them to abstain, and hopefully most will. But some won't, and so let's teach them how to protect themselves and have smaller families too while we're at it.
SirKevin said:
Dear? How sweet of you. I'm just going to call you Kevin though.....
Isn't Pea a she? (It took me a bit to catch on to that too,)
SirKevin said:
Some believe it is immoral to preach human sex in an environment like school. Not to much I can do about that.
SirKevin said:
So your not familiar with push to populate washrooms in high schools with condom dispensers.
SirKevin said:
They need to be taught the intricacies of economics and monetary policy and its effect on them and their country, but they aren’t, so I maintain that the need as you put it isn't really there. Not to mention it is none of the states business.
SirKevin said:
I don't agree but I'm not going to argue the point.
SirKevin said:
I wonder what else you believe is the states business then.
I say just because you socialize the health care system, and the education system, doesn't give you absolute power to teach what you want, despite wishes of the people who fund it.
Dear Jay:
Instructions for NEW AGE SEX EDUCATION:
1) Obtain Shovel
2) Dig Hole in Nearby Sand
3) Insert Head
4) Empty mind of all offensive thoughts
Cheers!
Instructions for NEW AGE SEX EDUCATION:
1) Obtain Shovel
2) Dig Hole in Nearby Sand
3) Insert Head
4) Empty mind of all offensive thoughts
Cheers!
If we are all supposed to preach and practice tolerance, the first step has to be at your door. The name of this thread subtly is intolerant, given that someone wants to stop the thinking and opinions of fundamentalists. (I am not one, by the way).
The basis of most so-called fundamentalist or religious groups is that they think that there are only 10 basic laws required for a civil society, with a few branches from each one. What they oppose is having the 10 laws eliminated and replaced by others which go against the 10 laws (I think everyone knows what 10 laws I am talking about). I know this may offend some, but if you look at the original 10 laws, and forget about the religious background, can anyone honestly say they are bad or wrong? In my opinion, we could do a lot worse than simply following these, and please, this does not make me a raving right wing religous zealot. I am basically agnostic, which is how I look at the original 10 laws. Anyway, there is no more chance of stopping the spread of fundamentalism than there is to stop the spread of left wing socialism, and that is a good thing, because if we were all alike, there would be no need for these forums!
The basis of most so-called fundamentalist or religious groups is that they think that there are only 10 basic laws required for a civil society, with a few branches from each one. What they oppose is having the 10 laws eliminated and replaced by others which go against the 10 laws (I think everyone knows what 10 laws I am talking about). I know this may offend some, but if you look at the original 10 laws, and forget about the religious background, can anyone honestly say they are bad or wrong? In my opinion, we could do a lot worse than simply following these, and please, this does not make me a raving right wing religous zealot. I am basically agnostic, which is how I look at the original 10 laws. Anyway, there is no more chance of stopping the spread of fundamentalism than there is to stop the spread of left wing socialism, and that is a good thing, because if we were all alike, there would be no need for these forums!
As a related topic, what do you all think of this site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Jay said:
Gosh darn. I thought 'sweety' would have been nice in light of me calling you dear; but I suppose you can't always have you want, eh? Kinda like the CHP wanting people's votes...or the Conservatives for that matter.
Jay said:
Pea a she? Was that supposed to be poetry?
Anyways...I have no idea what type of reproductive organs pea possesses; never really thought about it.
Jay said:
Some believe that blacks are inferior people; not much I can do about that. Some believe that modern medicine is immoral; not much I can do about that. Don't kill yourself trying to please the crazies.
Jay said:
Oh, schools do and should offer condoms..never disputed that. It was the "have all the promiscuous fun you'd like" part that was supposed to be my point. No one is saying "Here, have a condom and have fun." It's kinda like, "Well, if you do that, this and this could happen and you acquire this and this disease...but if you still want to do it, put this thing on and the risk of all those scary things decreases."
Jay said:
Of course they do -- they need to be taught ALL real-life matters. Politics, sex, drugs, economics...most certainly not physical geography. But hey...we aren't gonna get that anytime soon so we might as well take what we can get and if that only happens to be sex ed. then so be it.
Jay said:
Are you currently in high school? Other than science, I know what they are teaching me. We get both sides of the story. "Do it this way and use this if you're gonna do it, but dont' even do it at all and avoid the risks altogether!"
Jay said:
Educating people on real life issues is; see the anti smoking campaigns...if you're wondering about my opinions on anything else feel free to ask.
Jay said:
Sending your kid to a public school is a choice. On the eighth day, God made homeschooling, private schooling and the Catholic system.
It's no more anyone's right to complain that they don't like their child being taught sex ed. than it is my parents' right to complain that they don't want their taxdollars wasted on teaching me effing useless Canadian geography.
How did my gender get into this thread 
Well what can you really say Sorry Jay, but I find your logic on sex education being taught in schools lacks any reason or compassion for the nature of the human condition. Most of all it avoids the real realities of life.
Well what can you really say Sorry Jay, but I find your logic on sex education being taught in schools lacks any reason or compassion for the nature of the human condition. Most of all it avoids the real realities of life.
peapod said:How did my gender get into this thread
I'm playing the devils advocate here.
I don't think things are as cut and dry as others do.
The thing with Christian fundamentalism is it basically seeks to reform the state as a Christian state, meaning their religious rules are law.
Which is kind of stupid.
The job of the government is to protect people from other people, get people to take care of themselves and make things such as medicare equal.
The job of the state is not to bring one's religious salvation, that is one's own duty to oneself. If you do not allow one to veer from what you deem to be "God's path" is there any faith, meaning or belief in their action?
If you do the good without be allowed to be tempted by the evil, you never made a choice and thus your action is devoid of any meaning.
My basic arguments against fundamentalism.
And sex-ed is not supposed to be forcing morality on people. It is supposed to be forcing information on them so that they can make more responsible decisions. Decisions that they will have to make.
Which is kind of stupid.
The job of the government is to protect people from other people, get people to take care of themselves and make things such as medicare equal.
The job of the state is not to bring one's religious salvation, that is one's own duty to oneself. If you do not allow one to veer from what you deem to be "God's path" is there any faith, meaning or belief in their action?
If you do the good without be allowed to be tempted by the evil, you never made a choice and thus your action is devoid of any meaning.
My basic arguments against fundamentalism.
And sex-ed is not supposed to be forcing morality on people. It is supposed to be forcing information on them so that they can make more responsible decisions. Decisions that they will have to make.
Chake99 said:
Whether some like it or not, our society and it's laws are based on the Judeo Christian background. Virtually all our laws come from this background. I do agree that choices are important,and all sides of every issue need to be explored. I am not against sex ed in the school, but I get a little nervous when I hear the phrase "force information" on them. The problem with this is that the people doing the forcing have their own beliefs and that naturally affects how the forcing is done. Most educators fall on the left side of the polictical spectrum, so they will naturally slant their teachings that way, it would be impossible not to. So, as much as the left is opposed to believing that the so-called Christian fundamentalism is being forced on them, is having the socialist non-Christian (I don't like this phrase, but I can't think of a different one to make this point) viewpoints taught to children who literally are being forced to listen? I really have a problem making something mandatory, or forced, unless it can be guaranteed there is absolutely no bias in the presentation.
I think you put it badly, show a very limited perception of the issues, and a tendency to conflate them with irrelevancies, as in that remark I quoted.Jay said:
Sex education isn't about what children or adults do in their bedrooms. It's about the anatomical details of male and female bodies, the mechanics of the sex act itself, the biological drives that make it so attractive, the physical and emotional consequences of doing it, how to protect yourself, where babies come from, stuff like that. It's basic information about human sexuality and its consequences that everybody should have. I'd agree that parents should teach this stuff to their children, but too many adults don't have that information, in my experience. Thanks to all the uptight Protestants who created and settled this country, human sexuality and in fact most other normal bodily functions are surrounded by a lot of foolish taboos and misinformation.
I have no idea where you get the idea that sex has f all, as you so delicately put it, to do with the state. I can only assume you're not paying much attention to the world around you. At the most basic level, sexual activity is what produces the next generation of voters and consumers, which the state has a strong interest in. More generally, have you not noticed that there are laws relating to certain aspects of sexual behaviour? And that some of them are currently hot political issues? Are you unaware that certain kinds of sexual behaviour are grounds for divorce? The state is very much interested in the sexuality of its citizens, and in a, we can hope, enlightened liberal democracy, it is in the interest of the state and its citizens, both individually and collectively, that everybody know as much as possible about human sexuality. That, ideally, is what Sex Ed is about.
Putting Jay's views aside now, this thread is about the spread of religious fundamentalism, of which human sexuality (mostly the repression of it) is but a part. I've been troubled by this for at least three decades... <sigh> probably longer than a lot of you reading this have been on the planet. I originally perceived it as a spreading extremism of all sorts, not just religious, but political and social as well. I still see it, in the unbridled capitalism of our southern neighbour for instance, and the "every man for himself" ethos that seems to inform so much of the political right. But I see the same thing on the left too, socialism and collectivisation that denies human nature and destroys individual initiative. Now it also seems to me that religious extremism underlies a lot of it.
I dunno what the solution is. I wish I did. Not because it might make me rich (though it probably would, if I handled the information properly) but because it might save us from the worst excesses of our own irrationality. There's not much I'm really sure of when it comes to politics and religion, but on the short list is the belief that extremism in any form is dangerous and stupid. Not because it's necessarily wrong, but because it blinds us to other perspectives and ideas, and that's the ultimate intellectual sin.
Jacob Bronowski said it best. He was a Polish Jew who lost many of his friends and family to the Nazi concentration camps. I saw him on TV wade into the pond that abuts the crematorium at Auschwitz, scoop up a handful of the mud from the bottom, which was still visibly gray with ashes over 25 years after the event, and say this:* "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave."
The epitaph of the 20th century. I hope we can do better in the 21st. But it doesn't look encouraging so far.
"...absolute knowledge, with no test in reality..." Isn't that pretty much the definition of fundamentalism?
*That quote is exact. I have the book made from the TV series open in front of me. The reference is: Bronowski, J., The Ascent of Man, Little, Brown and Co., 1973, page 374.
Jay said:
Gee Dex, didn't bother to read the above post?
I suppose it isn't your style to see these things.
It's OK though Dex, you can look at the world through your self-righteous black and white glasses.
I have to ask though, If I'm showing "a tendency to conflate them with irrelevancies" Why do you devote a whole paragraph to explain this irrelevancy?
"I have no idea where you get the idea that sex has f all, as you so delicately put it, to do with the state. I can only assume you're not paying much attention to the world around you. At the most basic level, sexual activity is what produces the next generation of voters and consumers, which the state has a strong interest in. More generally, have you not noticed that there are laws relating to certain aspects of sexual behaviour? And that some of them are currently hot political issues? Are you unaware that certain kinds of sexual behaviour are grounds for divorce? The state is very much interested in the sexuality of its citizens, and in a, we can hope, enlightened liberal democracy, it is in the interest of the state and its citizens, both individually and collectively, that everybody know as much as possible about human sexuality. That, ideally, is what Sex Ed is about."
I know why you did, I just wonder if you do.
And since you claim you have no idea where I got this idea that the state has no place in the bedroom (That means sex, in case you didn’t know) lets quote Pierre Elliot Trudeau "The State has no place in the bedroom's of the people."
peapod said:
I'm a strong believer in sex education and confess to being Christian. My teenaged daughter was taught the "facts of life" in grade 2. The time and questions were right. We have maintained open discourse on sex since.
I agree with the rest of your post, peapod.