How far does "Freedom of Religion" go?

[_John Larsen]

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

I understand that is how you, in your binary and biased way of looking at things, have chosen to see it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion--evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't try to hid under that crap. You are the one who accused your supposed foes of deliberate action. You suggested that organizations that are pro-birth control do not teach abstinence. That is a very black and white, binary and biased statement.

I pointed out that your accusation was wrong and you had no proof. You now accuse me of binary thinking. Any binary thinking is on your part. You are now retreating from your accusation and trying to hide under this post modern drivel. Own up and acknowledge that what you said is wrong before accusing me of some warped world view for noticing you obvious mistake.

[_wenglund]

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

I understand that is how you, in your binary and biased way of looking at things, have chosen to see it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion--evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't try to hid under that crap. You are the one who accused your supposed foes of deliberate action. You suggested that organizations that are pro-birth control do not teach abstinence. That is a very black and white, binary and biased statement.

I pointed out that your accusation was wrong and you had no proof. You now accuse me of binary thinking. Any binary thinking is on your part. You are now retreating from your accusation and trying to hide under this post modern drivel. Own up and acknowledge that what you said is wrong before accusing me of some warped world view for noticing you obvious mistake.

Since you missed my edit, let me post it here: "are you aware that people can and will do things that they loath? In other words, sex ed programs can be set up which contain abstinence language that those designing and implementing the programs may be loath to present, but do so because of public pressure or other such things."

The import of that question is, the nominal mention of abstinence in today's "comprehensive sex education' programs does not demonstrate that my assertion about "loathing" was false, even if one errantly interprets my assertion in binary ways.

I'm not sure this will register to your evidently closed mind, but there it is for those similarly confused.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_John Larsen]

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

I understand that is how you, in your binary and biased way of looking at things, have chosen to see it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion--evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't try to hid under that crap. You are the one who accused your supposed foes of deliberate action. You suggested that organizations that are pro-birth control do not teach abstinence. That is a very black and white, binary and biased statement.

I pointed out that your accusation was wrong and you had no proof. You now accuse me of binary thinking. Any binary thinking is on your part. You are now retreating from your accusation and trying to hide under this post modern drivel. Own up and acknowledge that what you said is wrong before accusing me of some warped world view for noticing you obvious mistake.

Since you missed my edit, let me post it here: "are you aware that people can and will do things that they loath? In other words, sex ed programs can be set up which contain abstinence language that those designing and implementing the programs may be loath to present, but do so because of public pressure or other such things."

The import of that question is, the nominal mention of abstinence in today's "comprehensive sex education' programs does not demonstrate that my assertion about "loathing" was false, even if one errantly interprets my assertion in binary ways.

I'm not sure this will register to your evidently closed mind, but there it is for those similarly confused.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yet another accusation that I have a closed mind. Quit worrying about my mental state and please stay focused to the issues at hand. I may be a raving mad man, but that doesn't mean what I am saying is right or wrong.

You have made another blanket accusation that the motives of those running sex education programs "loath" abstinence . Do you have any proof of that? Wade, do you have any idea of what you are talking about at all? Have you ever set foot in Planned Parenthood? Have you ever sat through one of these programs?

I have some experience with these programs and you are dead wrong. They do promote abstinence but they are looking for a total solution. So they focus secondly on those who will not refrain from sex. I think even the Bible teaches that you cannot complete eradicate sexual promiscuity. However, you can handle the transmission of disease and pregnancy outside of abstinence.

I'm not really trying to argue with you about abstinence, I am trying to get you to be honest in your arguments and quit saying things which are demonstrably false and trying to paint me as someone who doesn't understand reality for point that out.

[_wenglund]

You have made another blanket accusation that the motives of those running sex education programs "loath" abstinence . Do you have any proof of that? Wade, do you have any idea of what you are talking about at all? Have you ever set foot in Planned Parenthood? Have you ever sat through one of these programs?

I was stating a general impression (not to be confused with "blanket accusations") about the pro-abortionists (of which Planned Parenthood is but a small part) after listenning to more than three decades of debates on the subject (not to be confused with having set foot in a Planned Parenthood class). I could take the time to document the evidence (not to be confused with "proof") upon which my impression has been based, but given your dismissal of the Heritage Foundation, I am not sure there would be much of a point in me trying. Clearly, your mind is made up (i.e. "closed") on the matter.

I have some experience with these programs and you are dead wrong.

That I differ in my general impression from your specific experience, does not make me dead wrong--except to the closed-minded.

They do promote abstinence but they are looking for a total solution. So they focus secondly on those who will not refrain from sex. I think even the Bible teaches that you cannot complete eradicate sexual promiscuity. However, you can handle the transmission of disease and pregnancy outside of abstinence.

I'm not really trying to argue with you about abstinence, I am trying to get you to be honest in your arguments and quit saying things which are demonstrably false and trying to paint me as someone who doesn't understand reality for point that out.

Again, that I differ in my general impression of the sex ed debate from your specific experience with Planned Parenthood does not make me dishonest or demonstrably false--except to the closed-minded (not to be confused with "someone who doesn't understand reality"). It just means that it is unlikely that I could have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject (precisely because of your closed mind).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... e-4215.htm

They do talk to the young woman about all the different birth control available, and abstinence is one of them -- they do this before a woman walks out of their door. If they want birth control pills (that's preferable than the woman coming back for another abortion) they are provided these by Planned Parenthood, as well. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. If it was there wouldn't be such a push to get ALL the women that come to their clinics on some sort of birth control.

[_wenglund]

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... e-4215.htm

They do talk to the young woman about all the different birth control available, and abstinence is one of them -- they do this before a woman walks out of their door. If they want birth control pills (that's preferable than the woman coming back for another abortion) they are provided these by Planned Parenthood, as well. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. If it was there wouldn't be such a push to get ALL the women that come to their clinics on some sort of birth control.

Thanks, -You're a Dodo

I was aware of the contents of that link--having read it prior to responding earlier to John Larsen.

Evidently, though, you lack the same capacity to make the distinctions I pointed out to John (as well as inclined to jump to the inane conclusion that teaching about birth control means one is not pro-abortion), which led him to mistakenly call me dishonest and you to mis-direct your use of the name "Dodo". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_GoodK]

I'd like to hear more about this pro-abortion industry... whatever that means.

Who/What makes up this industry, Wade?

[_Moniker]

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... e-4215.htm

They do talk to the young woman about all the different birth control available, and abstinence is one of them -- they do this before a woman walks out of their door. If they want birth control pills (that's preferable than the woman coming back for another abortion) they are provided these by Planned Parenthood, as well. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. If it was there wouldn't be such a push to get ALL the women that come to their clinics on some sort of birth control.

Thanks, -You're a Dodo

I was aware of the contents of that link--having read it prior to responding earlier to John Larsen.

Evidently, though, you lack the same capacity to make the distinctions I pointed out to John (as well as inclined to jump to the inane conclusion that teaching about birth control means one is not pro-abortion), which led him to mistakenly call me dishonest and you to mis-direct your use of the name "Dodo". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You should have read the contents of the link before making a false statement and then trying to backtrack. It's a false statement. Own up to it.

Wade, read your own words:

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.

I replied to the second part of your sentence. It's false. They do not loathe it -- they infact do talk about abstinence with their clients.

I then talked about the term "pro-abortion". If a clinic was pro-abortion would they want women to be on birth control so they no longer get pregnant and seek abortions?

So, you see, Wade. I took that sentence and broke it down and showed how one aspect was false. Then I went back to your term and informed you how I felt "pro-abortion" was not an adequate descriptor of their stance on women's reproductive choices.

[_Coggins7]

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Every single sex ed program that I am aware of, no matter their position on abortion, teaches that abstinence is the best practice. This includes Planned Parenthood. Can you please give an example of a program that is " loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance", or were you just making that up?

I think it helps to understand the evolution of the government-related sex ed programs. For years, the predominate form of sex ed was "safe sex", which, understandably, did not entail abstinence since the underlining philosophy was that teens will envariably have sex, and so abstinence was a moot issue. However, parents rose up in revolt and gave rise to "abstinence-only" sex education, which found its way into not a few public school systems. Because of the revolt, and to maintain public support, the "safe sex" programs very reluctantly gave way to "comprehensive sex education" programs, which merely make a pretence at teaching abstinence. For a good article on this, see the heritage Foundations: What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Larson--as I've long suspected--is just another know-nothing liberal with a great many attitudes and a bag full of pop media revisionisms that have nothing to do with actual history, but just justify the Zeitgeist. "Safe sex", as Wade has correctly pointed out, was, for probably some thirty years, the sole acceptable teaching of the American Left and the public schools. Planned Parenthood, and similar institutions, from the seventies into the nineties, remained viciously opposed to abstinence, or anything that smacked of tradition Judeo/Christian moral values. This change to some degree of tolerance for abstinence is of recent date.

Larson's comment about Heritage is an utter riot, but the humor value is dampened by the dispiriting lack of well rounded education and intellectual depth this individual belies, as well as what is clearly (yes, yet again) the inability of liberals to explore and digest the ideas of those with whom they disagree, and instead rely on the old hoary crutch of self satisfied intellectual disdain. Heritage is very likely the most prestigious think tank in the country (and yes, it happens to be conservative) and its intellectual firepower is unquestionable (you need not agree with its conclusions on various issues, but this attribute is still unquestionable). The only thing the Left really has to compete with it is Brookings (other tanks of similar stature would be Hudson, Hoover, AEI etc.)

That Larson is simply out of the loop regarding Heritage and its known and respected level of scholarship and research quality is just another bit of evidence (along with his, what I have already aptly termed "Romper Room scientism) that taking him seriously is probably a dead end.

[_wenglund]

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health ... e-4215.htm

They do talk to the young woman about all the different birth control available, and abstinence is one of them -- they do this before a woman walks out of their door. If they want birth control pills (that's preferable than the woman coming back for another abortion) they are provided these by Planned Parenthood, as well. Planned Parenthood is not pro-abortion. If it was there wouldn't be such a push to get ALL the women that come to their clinics on some sort of birth control.

Thanks, -You're a Dodo

I was aware of the contents of that link--having read it prior to responding earlier to John Larsen.

Evidently, though, you lack the same capacity to make the distinctions I pointed out to John (as well as inclined to jump to the inane conclusion that teaching about birth control means one is not pro-abortion), which led him to mistakenly call me dishonest and you to mis-direct your use of the name "Dodo". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You should have read the contents of the link before making a false statement and then trying to backtrack. It's a false statement. Own up to it.

Wade, read your own words:

The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance.

I replied to the second part of your sentence. It's false. They do not loathe it -- they infact do talk about abstinence with their clients.

Again, the fact that they may teach something, doesn't not mean they don't loath doing so. I loathe square dancing, but I have square danced on occasion. I loathe cooked spinach, but I ate it quite frequently in my youth. I loathe hearing people gossip, but I have have subjected myself to it quite frequently here. ;-)

Are you starting to understand yet? Or, do I need to connect the dots?

I then talked about the term "pro-abortion". If a clinic was pro-abortion would they want women to be on birth control so they no longer get pregnant and seek abortions?

Are you supposing that people can't be both pro-abortion and pro-birthcontrol? Because if that is what you assume, then you can easily test your hypothesis by calling the local Planned Parenthood office and asking them if they are pro-abortion. In fact, why not check out the same website you recommended to me (after I had alreay read it), and read the following position statement: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/

So, you see, Wade. I took that sentence and broke it down and showed how one aspect was false.

No. You simply demonstrated your lack of understanding and logic.

Then I went back to your term and informed you how I felt "pro-abortion" was not an adequate descriptor of their stance on women's reproductive choices.

Hopefully, you now understand that your "feelings" were, ironically, inadequate and incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-