Texan virgins

[Susie]

Hi there

I was just wondering if any of you saw the texan virgins programme on channel 4 and what you think of the whole Bush- abstinence campaign anyway.

"Teenagers from the Bible belt take the ‘purity pledge’, promising not to have sex until they marry. Are they the last bastion of morality in an immoral world? Or are they victims of an all-powerful church?"

Channel 4 website (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas2.html)

Susie

[Aladdin]

A very clear example of what I've always thought: religious education is a form of child abuse.

America being the land of suing for every subject under the sun, I'm disappointed nobody has sued any of the preachers/teachers/nutters who tell youngsters there that "condoms don't work". If I had contracted HIV or if a pregnancy had been caused because I'd been brainwashed into believing condoms offer no protection, I'd be suing the bastards.

As for the whole issue of abstinence between marriage, again this mostly done on the basis that God doesn't want people to have sex before they get married. Yet another example of lives being wrecked, or at least manipulated by religious fundamentalists no better than the Taleban.

I feel very sorry indeed for those people.

[budda]

If someone wants to make the choice to wait until they are married I cant see how you can criticise them for that, its a personal choice, just because you don’t agree doesn’t always mean they are 'stupid' or 'brainwashed'. You always criticise people on here when they make generalizations yet you make them all the time.

However I do see your point about sex education when it is heavily linked to the type of Christian morals which are popular in the US. That can be a very suspect situation.

I do think that kids should be taught that waiting is an option for them, not really till marriage but how many people do you know who regret their first sexual experience? Close to all of them?

We should be giving kids the confidence to make their own choices about when it is the right time for them, be that when they are 15-16 or when they get married at 30.

[Aladdin]

If someone chooses to remain "pure" until they get married simply because they think it is right that is fine by me. But how often is this decision made with an impartial, balanced and unwashed mind?

I made the point of saying on my previous post that "this mostly done on the basis that God doesn't want people to have sex before they get married". And that is what I have a big problem with: kids being brainwashed from an early age into believing that sex is a dirty, impure thing that must only be conducted between man and wife, and that God would not approve of anyone having sex before marriage and will send them to eternal damnation in the fiery pits of Hell if they dare to do otherwise.

If youngsters were not brainwashed into believing such bullshit, then I would have no problem with the remaining people who chose not to have sex before getting married. But the fact is, the immense majority will remain celibate it because they fear the wrath of God, after being brainwashed into believing such bollocks since birth.

It's disgusting.

[Clandestine]

Blagsta, what you have to realise about this rampant form of puritanism is that it is reinforced with an entire ethos of guilt and fear and shame about the badness of our bodies and the "lusts of the flesh".

In the context of this thread this particular brand of fundamentalism actually fosters what you see on the surface as being "freely chosen". Ive been there myself as a teen, to the point of studying for the ministry itself before breaking away and pursuing politics (yeah the life of the party, that's me lol).

It's a worldview that rampantly anti-scientific (not that i dont have my own criticisms of the scientific absolutism of some) and thus tries to squeeze everyone into the same straightjacket of repression from whence one is actually conflicted constantly over one's own biological nature.

I do agree that people should demonstrate basic levels of self restraint but this is not such unfettered self determination at work, this is essentially coercion which eminates from all the principal influences surrounding the teens in question.

[budda]

I still think you are making generalisations. Yes some preachers, teachers and other people who are religious do try and force their beliefs on others, but its not ALL of them.

People should have the right to their own beliefs, so if you think that if you have sex outside of marriage you go to hell, then thats fine with me.

It sounds to me that you have a problem with religious education full stop, I dont, I can see that it is easy to abuse, and for it to go wrong. But it doesnt have to.

But to be honest I'm not sure why I'm defending this, I really think this kind of program is completely the wrong way to go about sex education.

I just think that sometimes you too can see issues in black and white when they are more complex, a trait that you come down on people so hard for.

Oh and dont call me Blagsta.

[Char_Baby]

i watched that program, that preacher guy 'ed' seemed like a bit of a fruitcake, telling all the teenagers if they had sex they were like 'used toothbrushes' that nobody would want (he didnt say it in so many words, but you could tell that was his drift) also telling them that condoms never work, that the material there made from always has holes in it

all the teenagers interviewed who had had sex were made to feel so guilty about it and dwelled on it, i think they should be able to make their own choices, if they wanna stay virgins till there married then great, but sex isnt a dirty act and nothing to be ashamed off, the wrong message was being drilled into these kids

[lipsy]

i felt so sorry for those teenagers..its like they were being brainwashed. they were told that abstinence was so important, they had to be pure and as a result sex education suffered. -theres high teenage pregnancy and STIs because they didnt know the facts.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by lipsy
theres high teenage pregnancy and STIs because they didnt know the facts.

and there we have the important part.

I have no problem with the church expressing it's beliefs, but I do have a problem with it using the power it has in a campaign of misinformation - that is when religion becomes dangerous.

These children should be given a whole raft of information, including religious aspects, so that they can make a decision based on it all - rather than have just one side of "the truth" put to them.

[budda]

Thats exactly what I was saying. I can see it being a difficult thing for the parents though, if you really think that your kid will go to Hell for their actions of course your going to try and stop them. But, Christ is supposed to have given us all free choice.

And as a point its not just these types of Christians who are talk about condoms like this, the Pope himself was saying the same thing only a couple of months ago.

[morrocan roll]

if you want to bring your family up with religous principals i see no wrong in it. it's your choice. what does concern me is this isn't realy the church but the bushbots programme. when religion is government sponsored and driven thats when it's realy dangerous. that programme which i saw bits of in the background reminded me of the taliban. government mind control through missinformation.

[budda]

Church and State should be totaly seperate, and that is laid down in law within the US.

[Clandestine]

The problem isnt separation of Church and state, since we have no state sanctioned religion per se. The problem is the politicisation of the Christian Fundamentalist Right and the special interest power they wield as a lobby.

What should be done is to prohibit all special interest groups from influencing policy whether through financial contributions or other forms of political blackmail.

Unfortunately there is no reliable method to ensure that such prohibition wouldn't be used as a further pretext for abolishing the Constitutional foundations of our system altogether.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
A very clear example of what I've always thought: religious education is a form of child abuse.



So you really beleive a child should not be taught religion ?
Im not religious, I dont go to church unless I have to but I have no qualms about my Daughter being taught religion.


I agree with what has been said about giving children the full facts and I dont like the way this group works, to me these are a cult and not your average church goers.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
So you really beleive a child should not be taught religion ?
Im not religious, I dont go to church unless I have to but I have no qualms about my Daughter being taught religion.


I agree with what has been said about giving children the full facts and I dont like the way this group works, to me these are a cult and not your average church goers. i have no problem with religous educastion at all apart from ...the lies, bullshit and fear they instill. if they stick to the truth and reality then worship god by all means. having faith has been proved to be medicaly and emotionaly beneficial ...in the right doses. trouble i have is with the organisations themselves. every bishop has a palace to live in with servants ...whats that got to do with the teachings of christ? thats what realy gets up my nose. they ripping you off!

[Kermit]

The only part of that article I disagree with is the argument that condoms have holes in- I suppose technically they do, but thats like saying my keyboard does :rolleyes:

The rest of it I find no quarrel with- the preacher, after all, does have a point when he says that if you dont have sex you wont get sexually-transmitted diseases. I think its up to the individual, but the fact remains that the more partners you have the more likely you are to catch an STI, and if everyone only had sex with one person AIDS would disappear within a generation or two.

The fact that theyre not educated the full thing is irrelevant, in my opinion. I dont think it should be like that, but I find it interesting how womens' groups in the North East are starting to refuse to give condoms out to underage girls, because they feel that its dangerous.

Though I dont think religious organisations should be dictating moral policy to Government, dictating to a congregation is different. Though Ill wager that the girl in question is a biffer anyway:p

[Char_Baby]

if i had kids i wouldnt object to them being taught religion, christinaity gives them a lot of good qualitys, sucha forgiveness and kindness, it would make them caring children, i dont think a book written 2000 years ago has much relevance today, but i think the basics of the religion (as mentioned above) should be taught to all children in the form of religion or not

[Dear Wendy]

If I should get kids after all (which might, given that my mission is to outweigh the amount of ugly names in the world) then I'll most probably send them to a school with a religious background. To be honest I've found that the two school in Copenhagen (lokking away from the international ones) who teach most about tolerance and other religions was my own old school (Jewish) and a school nearby whis is founded on catholic principles (though a varied mix of pupils go there).
That said, the education at International schools is the best as the child is introduced to lots of different customs, cultures, religions, etc. And having the highest standard of schooling, plus it's in English. So they get like another language thrown in apart from the ones they are taught and the one they hear at home.
But that probably belongs to a "best kind of education" thread.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Char_Baby
if i had kids i wouldnt object to them being taught religion, christinaity gives them a lot of good qualitys, sucha forgiveness and kindness, it would make them caring children, i dont think a book written 2000 years ago has much relevance today, but i think the basics of the religion (as mentioned above) should be taught to all children in the form of religion or not

There are a lot of religions like that though, not just Christianity.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Kermit


The fact that theyre not educated the full thing is irrelevant, in my opinion.

I thought that as a student of law you would see the value in having all the facts available in order to make a considered choice.

Filtered information leads to biased decision making (which is of course the aim).

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Blagsta, what you have to realise

Pardon? I haven't posted on this thread yet.

[Clandestine]

Shoulda posted my apologies sooner. I had quickly read BB's post and was typing my response whilst on the phone so I accidentally put your name in instead of his.

Sorry.

[Blagsta]

Thats OK :)

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Filtered information leads to biased decision making (which is of course the aim).

And any place wihich has an aim has filtered information- just as the pro-life movement is biased one way, the pro-abortion movement is biased toward the other. If these people attend church they are already most of the way to making the biased decision, what I meant to say is that having the full facts would not change their opinion.

Sorry, Ive been reading 1984, and the only wotrd that crops into my head is doublethink:D

[Blagsta]

I don't think there is such a thing as a "pro-abortion movement" Kermit. Pro-choice, yes. Pro-abortion, no.