CDC: Christian Disease Control

[Ravenstorm]

Here's another thing we can blame Bush for.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php

You can read the bureaucratese for yourself here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/default.htm) as well as lots of comments submitted by people.

Raven

[Chadj]

As X might say...

Lé Retarded

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, because we sure were wiping out the AIDS epidemic the way we were going before.

[Ravenstorm]

Not a single study has shown abstinence only programs to work. Not one.

Condoms, on the other hand, are proven to be highly effective when used properly.

So of course, cut funding for teaching safe sex and funnel it toward what clearly doesn't work. It's the obvious solution.

Raven

[Hulkein]

If you're dumb enough not to know that, then oh well.

It's not like every person in America doesn't know what AIDs is anymore.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Not a single study has shown abstinence only programs to work. Not one. Because we all know how truthful people are when it comes to sexual histories, especially when talking to strangers who have no way of verifying anything. Yes, studies clearly are completely accurate and unquestionable.

[Ravenstorm]

Use your head.

It is very easy to verify the number of teen pregnancies.

It is very easy to verify the number of STDs treated.

It is very easy to verify an increase in the HIV rate.

These are not things an individual can lie about. They all get reported. Look how well Texas did with abstienence only programs when Bush was governor:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsbush.htm

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It is very easy to verify the number of teen pregnancies.

It is very easy to verify the number of STDs treated.

It is very easy to verify an increase in the HIV rate.

These are not things an individual can lie about. They all get reported.Enlighten me. I could've sworn there was some way to end a pregnancy before anyone else knew about it.

[Ravenstorm]

So you're arguing that the actual numbers are in fact higher than reported? That just makes it even more clear it's a dismal failure.

Raven

[Nakiro]

Too bad AIDS isn't a good method for preventing the transmission of HIV.

Not that I don't support the use of safe sex practices, because they do work in preventing unwanted births, but they do not effectively prevent the spread of AIDS.

[i remember halloween]

let aids reign. who really cares in the end anyway.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Not that I don't support the use of safe sex practices, because they do work in preventing unwanted births, but they do not effectively prevent the spread of AIDS.

Define effective. Also define where you get your facts because wearing a condom greatly lessens the chance of spreading HIV. That's pretty damn effective under most definitions.

Raven

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Nakiro
Not that I don't support the use of safe sex practices, because they do work in preventing unwanted births, but they do not effectively prevent the spread of AIDS.

Define effective. Also define where you get your facts because wearing a condom greatly lessens the chance of spreading HIV. That's pretty damn effective under most definitions.

Raven

Yes, it can signifigantly lower the risks of contracting HIV, but there are a few catches. The first catch is that condoms must be used properly, which in practice they are not used properly over 67% of the time (this includes instances in which education is given).

These studies were also conducted on couples who were in mogonous relationships and aware that one partner was infected with HIV. In practice people (and more importantly teens) are less likely to consistantly use condoms, especially when sexual activity occurs outside of long term relationships.

Also, as many as one in three Americans infected with HIV are unaware of it. Those who do not think they are infected are less likely to use condoms.

Lastly, even though condoms do prevent the transmission of the HIV virus substancially when used properly and consistantly, the risk of transmission is still signifigant, and due to the dormant nature of the HIV virus, the risk of continued transmission before symptoms arise is too much to risk.

Raven, did you ever think that some Christians may take the same offense to the title of your post as you would if I said FAGS are the cause of AIDS?

You may not like it, and that is fine with me, but DON'T go around insulting my Belief structure because you do not agree with it, or I see it as a invitation to insult yours even though I do not believe there is a need to. Thanks.


Note-The above use of the word fag was not used with the intent to insult or as a slur for the homosexual community. The intended use of it was to prove a point and nothing more.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
DON'T go around insulting my Belief structure because you do not agree with itUh, am I reading the same thread? All I remember was an article written by a guy who loves to oversimplify and exaggerate his opponents' positions and Raven not being cool.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Yes, it can signifigantly lower the risks of contracting HIV, but there are a few catches. The first catch is that condoms must be used properly, which in practice they are not used properly over 67% of the time (this includes instances in which education is given).

Note that I did say earlier that condoms needed to be used properly so I'm not disagreeing. And if, even with education, are still used wrong one out of three times, can you imagine what will happen when how to use them correctly isn't taught at all? Or aren't even mentioned?

Seatbelts aren't completely effective either. That doesn't mean we should stop using them altogether in favor of only teaching people to drive slower and more safely.

And Edine, please define exactly how that is an insult or how it implies Christians cause AIDS. Bush is Christian. Bush is pushing abstinence only programs: abstinence before marriage being part of Christian dogma. The CDC is a federal organization and is now, despite all scientific evidence, pushing abstinence only programs over what hs been proven to be much more effective.

There is a very clear cause and effect going on there. Bush is using his power to push Christian morality on the country even at the cost of the health and lives of its children. This insults Christianity how?

Raven

Really Raven, its just Christians? I think you need to add Islamic disease control in there as well, not to mention the countless other belief structures that lean towards sex after marriage.<including non-religious>
You singled one religion out, which you do very often, and insult the morals and principles that govern it. In my eyes it is the same as somebody commenting your life preference. In the end though, it is just ignorance on both sides, yours by blaming Christianity, and the person who insults you because you're gay.
Just because it is the "IN" thing to bash traditional views does not make it right.
Address President Bush, not Christianity as a whole.

[Ravenstorm]

Maybe I keep bringing up Christianity because Bush is Christian? And is pushing that agenda? You think? If you believe it's getting a bad rap because of what Bush is doing, feel free to write him and tell him to stop. You should! It's similar to how Americans used to be worried electing a Catholic would mean the Pope would end up running the US. This time it's the Evangelicals.

As I mentioned not too long ago in another thread, parts of Christianity are beginning to gain my respect by becoming more tolerant. Not all denominations of it, and not all people within the same denomination, but it is, I think, moving forward as a whole. That's a good thing.

As far as religion in general, believe what you want. So long as it doesn't affect me, I couldn't care less. But when it is going to affect me and my country, I'm going to say something. However, referencing something doesn't imply an insults of it. He could just as easily be pushing a chocolate agenda in combating HIV and my saying how utterly assinine an idea that is wouldn't be insulting to chocolate.

Raven

[HarmNone]

I don't see where Raven insulted Christianity in any way, Edine. Christian beliefs are Christian beliefs. Raven has not insulted them. He simply brought to our attention an article written by someone else (not written by Raven).

We are all entitled to our beliefs. We are all entitled to disagree. We are all entitled to like or dislike the current administration and its practices. That does not mean that we are insulting everyone, individually or collectively, who follows a given set of belief, or likes the current administration. It only means our opinions differ. :)

HarmNone

[Artha]

And if, even with education, are still used wrong one out of three times, can you imagine what will happen when how to use them correctly isn't taught at all? Or aren't even mentioned?

Sentence 1: Dude...they look like a penis. If you can't figure out how to use them correctly, no amount of education's going to help you.

Sentence 2: They've existed forever, they're in drug stores, they're on TV. Just because they aren't mentioned in school doesn't mean you're not going to hear about them.

Then by the same account your lack of religion affects me and therefor should not be allowed to be part of governmental decisions.
Your kidding right?
I always thought it was stupid when you could go into a hall at a college and have a fishbowl of condoms sitting there. I didn't learn safe sex from Health class in High School or middle school either. I learned it because I was told to wrap it up when I had the sex talk at 12. I learned it because I looked around and saw 16 year old girls pregnant and thought about how much it would suck to be a father at 16. Telling a kid in High School to wear a condom is like telling the same kid not to jack off because he will go blind. They will do it if they want to, you telling them the bad things that can happen wont make a difference.

(Yes, I know jacking off does not make you go blind. Well, I hope it does not...)

[Artha]

(Yes, I know jacking off does not make you go blind. Well, I hope it does not...)

No. It does make you grow hair on the back of your knuckles though.

"""CDC: Christian Disease Control"""

The tone of his post implies that it is wrong. Well lets just say the only way to get HIV if your not having sex is by a mistake.

Originally posted by Artha

(Yes, I know jacking off does not make you go blind. Well, I hope it does not...)

No. It does make you grow hair on the back of your knuckles though.

Shit, thats where the hair came from?

[Tsa`ah]

There are some very deep rooted problems in these guidelines and behind the curtain.

1. You have no right to tell me that my children can't learn about birth control and STD prevention in school. In a perfect world anything I would teach them would stick, but this is not a perfect world and kids are far more likely to take such lessons more seriously from an educator than a parent.

2. Religion should have ZERO, NADDA, ZILCH, NOTHING to do with this. The Bush administration has made it a Christian only club. Did you not catch the paragraph that stated Muslim and Jewish groups would receive NONE of this funding. I'm sorry, but this is a clear violation of the constitution.

3. This is disease prevention, not philosophical rhetoric. ALL methods should be covered. Bush does nothing but demonstrate how socially and morally inept and irresponsible he is.

Just because one does not agree with the materials used by the CDC and other agencies does not give one the right to censor and prevent the education of millions that may agree or not have issues with it.

Intolerance at it's finest. Dubya must be the center or Christianity everywhere.

I guess Dubya took offence to Reagan's son stating in his eulogy that his father didn't flash his religion like many politicians often do.

[Shari]

Oh my gawd...Tsa'ah, he LIVES!

[Tsa`ah]

And that picture not revealing enough.

Prude :P

Did we even mention that Bush bypassed congress to unilaterally pass legislation with respect to ban Ru486 (the moning after pill) as a non-prescription pill? A few very angry professors and one pissed off Chair at Yale quickly switched their votes.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
1. You have no right to tell me that my children can't learn about birth control and STD prevention in school. In a perfect world anything I would teach them would stick, but this is not a perfect world and kids are far more likely to take such lessons more seriously from an educator than a parent.


Alas Tsa'ah you also have no right to require somebodies childd to learn about sex through school. The parent should make that choice, NOT the government.

[HarmNone]

It would seem to me that a compromise is possible here. If a parent does not want his/her child in sex-education classes where such things are taught, that child should be able to attend a study-hall, or other alternative class. However, sex-education classes should most definitely be offered.

HarmNone is all for realistic compromise on the big issues

Sadly Harmnone that is not the case in today's educational system. Health\Sexual Education are required classes for you to graduate from school. In the state of Illinois, I know this to be a fact.

[HarmNone]

A lot of things are true that need not be true, Edine. We are discussing here those things that we feel should be changed. While change is good, in many cases, few people will agree on what, exactly, would be a good change to make...especially, on important issues like education. That's why I pointed out a possible compromise that would address the needs of two opposite ends of the viewing spectrum.

Now, if said compromise were in place, I would not expect to see those children whose parents decided to keep them out of sex education classes showing up on the welfare lines with unwanted children to support. Nor, would I expect them to be showing up at free clinics expecting treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. With every decision comes a price to be paid if the decision was the wrong one.

HarmNone

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Yes, it can signifigantly lower the risks of contracting HIV, but there are a few catches. The first catch is that condoms must be used properly, which in practice they are not used properly over 67% of the time (this includes instances in which education is given).

Everything works more effectively if used correctly. Condoms and birth control pills are nearly 99% effective if used properly. Seatbelts are most effective if used properly. Medication works well if the directions are followed. You can't judge the effectiveness of products because human error decreased that factor.

If this follows through, then the "effectiveness" of such devices will be even worse because if they didn't know how to use them before, they certainly won't now. The human error quota will increase dramatically. It still doesn't render condoms useless.

This is bullshit. Simple. Bush is imposing his Christian principles on my life and that's just wrong. Sex education has been taught in school since I was a little girl. Abstinence does NOT work.

Abstinence is a practice that is preached by the Christian and Catholic faith. When I got married I went to a couple retreat because my family is religious like that. One of the lectures is about abstinence and only having sex in order to procreate. They mention the rhythm method but even that is something they would rather you not do. Birth control is frowned upon. All I could do during that lecture was force myself to keep a straight face because I couldn't believe they are serious. And this is my faith. My government telling me the same thing doesn't make me laugh, it makes me furious.

Thanks. I was leaning towards Bush but now that's down the tubes. I can't stand Kerry so it looks like I'll have to either vote for the other guy or for Michael Douglas.

When it comes down to it Harmnone it does not really affect as many people as the article leads one to assume. The CDC and President Bush will not have a hand in deciding what is and is not allowed to be taught. It is left up to the states to decide, as most decisions concerning the nation should be. It from what I took of it, is meant to affect outside organizations that my pass out pamphlets with say a dildo used to teach somebody how to put on a condom, or other things that may be considered obscene.

It wont affect the programs currently in schools since it is not the CDC that decides that but the State, local government, and school board.


Edit: removed a stray "it"

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by The Edine]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by The Edine
Sadly Harmnone that is not the case in today's educational system. HealthSexual Education are required classes for you to graduate from school. In the state of Illinois, I know this to be a fact.

Then they need to instill compromise statewide (if they continued with the classes) because where I went to school, sex education classes had to have the permission of a parent to attend. If the parent refused, the child was in a study hall type of class.

It's not mandatory everywhere, and it shouldn't be however it shouldn't be removed altogether either.

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by The Edine
Sadly Harmnone that is not the case in today's educational system. HealthSexual Education are required classes for you to graduate from school. In the state of Illinois, I know this to be a fact.

Then they need to instill compromise statewide (if they continued with the classes) because where I went to school, sex education classes had to have the permission of a parent to attend. If the parent refused, the child was in a study hall type of class.

It's not mandatory everywhere, and it shouldn't be however it shouldn't be removed altogether either.

Its not being removed at all CT. The only thing that this will affect are outside organizations. IE "Gay Men Against AIDS" or something like that. The control of what is taught in the educational system is will with the respective state. Raven got his panties in a bunch over nothing.

[CrystalTears]

You mentioned the sex ed classes in your state being mandatory and I was just responding to that.

I do realize that it's not focused on school education. I can read, you know. It's not to say that it wouldn't eventually reach the schools though, since their text and pamphlets do explain proper use of birth control devices which could be affected.

It starts with organizations and then it goes global. It wouldn't surprise me.

[HarmNone]

The response you quoted from me, Edine, was in response to the discussion going on about sex education in schools, or lack of same. I was not, at the time, addressing the article to which Raven linked.

As far as that article is concerned, how can it be right, or just, to deny to one group what another can practice at will? Funds are being alloted to the Christian-supported organization to teach abstinance as a preventative measure. Why, then, should other organizations who espouse different preventative measures not receive equal funding? I hate to put it bluntly, but there are some people who would be just as offended by being handed a bible (as was done in Louisiana by one of the Christian-supported groups) as another might be by being handed a dildo or cucumber as a teaching tool.

HarmNone

CT, the CDC has nothing against the use of birth control in any way shape or form. The article that Raven posted was a rant by some guy who went into a tiffie about not being able to put pictures of a dildo in a pamphlet.

What is acuity being required by this is that WEB based and outside organizations are required to follow the same guidelines set up for school education back in 1992. So in other words they are saying that you cannot make shit up, and if your going to give away information you cannot do it in a lude way.


Read up on the real thing here http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/04–13554.htm

Edit* 1992... Oh wait as a matter of fact wasn't Clinton in office then? So in fact it is not new material being put forward by President Bush, But the same things being required across the board that were put forward By the Clinton Administration.

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by The Edine]

Originally posted by HarmNone
The response you quoted from me, Edine, was in response to the discussion going on about sex education in schools, or lack of same. I was not, at the time, addressing the article to which Raven linked.

As far as that article is concerned, how can it be right, or just, to deny to one group what another can practice at will? Funds are being alloted to the Christian-supported organization to teach abstinance as a preventative measure. Why, then, should other organizations who espouse different preventative measures not receive equal funding? I hate to put it bluntly, but there are some people who would be just as offended by being handed a bible (as was done in Louisiana by one of the Christian-supported groups) as another might be by being handed a dildo or cucumber as a teaching tool.

HarmNone
The thing is Harmnone, the article Is Bullshit.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/04–13554.htm

[HarmNone]

Okay. We're going to teach somebody to put a condom on properly. We're going to do it with a brochure, so they have something tangible to which to refer. Shall we, then, have a picture of a dildo, or shall we go balls-out and put in a picture of a penis? By the Grove, Edine!

HarmNone is having a fit of the giggles just thinking about it

Harmnone I personaly could care less, the fact that I know others that would (points to the whole Dutch Reform side of his family) is what bothers me about people doing so.

Also, it is not the CDC who is saying what is allowed or not. It is the state government.

[Edited on 7-3-2004 by The Edine]

[Jazuela]

Ahem - a couple of posters mentioned this but it needs to be stated a little more emphatically:

That "article" in LA Weekly was not an article. It was an op-ed piece - an editorial. And LA Weekly is a weekly newspaper written -primarily- (but not exclusively) for the gay community. Nothing wrong with that - everyone deserves to have a little spin thrown their way. But it's important to understand the writer's perspective and his targetted audience, because the media will ALWAYS spin things in the direction to get their audience riled up about something.

If you read the actual bill - you'll see that it has NOT been passed - contrary to the editorial's statement - it is under review and not up for vote until some time in August. You'll also see that it is a bill to change the -guidelines- and not the -laws- of federal funding for sex-education in both schools and health-care facilities, with each getting its own seperate set of guidelines.

You will -also- see that under these guidelines, there is VERY specific mention of what they recommend if the patient/student is not willing or unable to live with abstinence as a sexual lifestyle choice until marriage. They recommend that IF you need to educate people who are not or do not plan on being abstinent, that you explain both the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of condoms.

In short - they expect educators to be more responsible and not mislead people by NOT mentioning abstinence as a responsible choice, AND by promoting condoms by claiming that they are the most effective method of prevention without also warning of the risks involved in using them - correctly or incorrectly.

Imagine if a school system's sex ed program was funded by a condom company - it could open up a whole new epidemic of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, because you KNOW that even the most responsible kid is gonna end up with a broken rubber eventually. And it only takes one. And you also KNOW that condom companies aren't gonna promote abstinence, because that is their primary competition.

After reading the bill for the new guidelines, I think it makes good sense. If it were up to me, I'd require parents to educate their own kids. Unfortunately, many parents aren't educated enough themselves to do this job, AND many who are educated aren't willing to have a serious talk with their own children about it. And so - since SOMEONE has to do it - I'm grateful that the school systems provide the classes. And I'm glad they're promoting abstinence while at the same time glad they're owning up to the responsibility of explaining the benefits AND risks of using condoms in lieu of abstinence.

[HarmNone]

Heh. There are several conversations going in this thread, Jazuela (as is usual for these boards ;) ). Individual matters are being taken up that have arisen from the discussion without being directly related to either Raven's link or the bill itself. Hence, confusion abounds. So...what's new? :lol:

HarmNone knows the bill, itself, does not say these things

[CrystalTears]

Yeah sorry. I had gone off on tangents more from responses I saw, not necessarily about what they were proposing.

I guess I just went a little nuts because it just takes them to limit ONE avenue and then it filters into everything else remotely related to it soon after.

Or maybe it's cause I'm a sicko and the thought of abstinence makes me a little loopy. :weird:

[Jazuela]

New? Eh. This same subject cropped up in another forum that I read - the various opinions tossed around were pretty much the same until someone pointed out that it wasn't an article, it was an editorial, and that the opinions presented were based on snippets of the bill taken out of context to promote the spin for the weekly paper it was written in. At that point the thread died a glorious death and could not be revived.

I've been busy in the garden - my french lavender plant has grown to such mass proportions that it threatens the delicate oregano daily, and I have to keep cropping the stems on what seems like an hourly basis. That ends up being a good thing though - the honeybees are catching on and migrating slowly to my lilies and echinacea, which in turn keeps the carpenter ants at bay. WHY carpenter ants have such a fascination with asiatic lilies and echinacea is beyond me, but there ya go.

I've been riding my bike - damn but I do love spring and summer! I get to actually MOVE for a change eh? Now that the Big Y supermarket opened up down the street I can even walk to pick up mid-week groceries. Lost 5 pounds that I gained over the winter just by moving my fat ass off the computer chair.

Still playing "that other game" daily, though on Saturdays we all get to take a break and explore the evils of real life (or joys, if we're into it), because it shuts down every week for updates, bugfixes, new implementations, and maintenence.

Still looking for work - every day I read the daily rag, check the internet, ride around town seeking just some little part time shit-job for minimum wage, but damn if those high school kids aren't taking all the jobs. I'm "overqualified" - even though I keep telling the employers that I have no career goals - I just want a job that I can do for the next 5 or so years to pay the grocery bill. They don't believe me. It sucks.

Have I derailed this thread enough? Or should I try harder next time?

And - thanks for asking HarmNone - how YOU doin?

[HarmNone]

Heh. Same ol', same ol'. I work, I eat, I sleep, I play. I try to spend most of my time doing the latter, but am usually foiled in my efforts. :D

HarmNone, lazy at heart

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

2. The Bush administration has made it a Christian only club. Did you not catch the paragraph that stated Muslim and Jewish groups would receive NONE of this funding. I'm sorry, but this is a clear violation of the constitution.


what part of the constitution does it violate?

and are you talking about the one signed on the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth?



[Edited on 7-3-2004 by theotherjohn]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
ALL methods should be covered.Next week in school: Chopping off one's penis is a surefire way to prevent AIDS.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Abstinence does NOT work.On the contrary, abstinence ALWAYS works. We have to discount human error, of course, because "You can't judge the effectiveness of products because human error decreased that factor."

[CrystalTears]

Heh, I'm sorry, I meant that instilling abstinence as THE method birth control to teach and not giving any other option is what doesn't work.

And yes I feel that you can't judge something based on human error. If you don't follow the directions of something as what's intended, then it's not effective. It shouldn't be the fault of the product if the user is a dipshit and can't use something correctly.

[Kefka]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

2. The Bush administration has made it a Christian only club. Did you not catch the paragraph that stated Muslim and Jewish groups would receive NONE of this funding. I'm sorry, but this is a clear violation of the constitution.


what part of the constitution does it violate?

and are you talking about the one signed on the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth?



[Edited on 7-3-2004 by theotherjohn]

Bill of Rights, Page 1, sentence 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Anti-disestablishmentarianism - It describes Jefferson and Madison and many of their allies who, observing the 400 year reign of religious bigotry and hatred in Europe, determined to keep the churches' nose out of State business.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Kefka

Bill of Rights, Page 1, sentence 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.



what religion is getting established?

[Ravenstorm]

Some points:

1) Rereading the first link, I agree it was not clear in the beginning that these guidelines were not in effect yet. At the end though it specifically states as much and the CDC's own page made it clear as well. The key word here is 'yet'.

2) The CDC is the primary federal agency responsible for the health of America. From their own page:


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people - at home and abroad, providing credible information to enhance health decisions, and promoting health through strong partnerships. CDC serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.

De-emphasizing the use of condoms in favor of a method that has never once been show to work (just the opposite) directly runs counter to their expressed purpose and puts people at risk. That this is being done at the orders of the president to push his religious agenda just makes it worse. The CDC is not a bludgeon to be used to spread the gospel. And when you consider the implications of these new guidelines while keeping in mind the federal money diverted from other HIV education programs and given to his 'Faith based initiative' abstinence only programs (which may or may not be primarily Christian though I would put money on it) he's making his intentions transparently clear. Faith based initiatives, step one. CDC guidelines, step two. What's step three going to be?

If you approve, fine. If you don't, you know what to do. It's really as simple as that.

Raven

[Kefka]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

Originally posted by Kefka

Bill of Rights, Page 1, sentence 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.



what religion is getting established?

I think you missed the point of that line so I'll add this:

The Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion... or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.

The fact that there are a far greater amount of Christian charities should not be considered?
Perhaps that might be why they get most of the money?
Oh the humanity of it all!

[Faent]

>>And they demand that all such materials include information on the “lack of effectiveness of condom use” in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs

Excellent!

Most people have no clue how easy it is to transmit STDs even while using a condom. You want to SKYROCKET your chances of contracting an STD? Fine, use your condom, engage in nonmonogamous sex with suspect partners, and then suck up the consequences you begged for.

70% of sexually active individuals (the one's you're likely to get laid by) have HPV. That's permanent, and your spearamint condom won't do much to save you from a forest of cauliflower-like, puzz oozing sprouts spawning on your nether regions.

I'm sick of stupid idiots babbling about how safe condoms make sex. Notice I haven't condemned any sort of sex here. I'm condeming the bullshit myth propogated by the liberal, free-sex community that condoms make fucking safe. If you want to fuck, suck up your STD.

Next time you get laid, think about that forest of cauliflower. =)

-Scott

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by Faent]

[Warriorbird]

Mmm. Love that self hatred. Real great philosophy there. I'm sure the therapists have a field day.

[Faent]

>>Mmm. Love that self hatred. Real great philosophy there. I'm sure the therapists have a field day. -Warriorbird

:?:

-Scott