Christian Club Not Allowed to Teach Abstinence Course
From LifeSite.net
Edinburgh University Bans Christian Club from giving Abstinence Course
By Gudrun Schultz
EDINBURGH, Scotland, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - University of Edinburgh officials have banned students with the Christian Union from holding a six-week course teaching abstinence on campus grounds.
The University made the decision to ban the program, entitled ‘PURE‘, after some students objected to literature promoting the course, which apparently included stories from people who had been “cured” of homosexuality, the Scotsman reported Sunday.
The course promotes marriage as the best setting for a sexual relationship, encouraging students to abstain from sexual activity until they are ready to get married. Officials said the course promotional material broke the “equality” and “diversity” rules of the University.
According to a university spokeswoman the course was “contradictory to our equality and diversity values” and not appropriate to run on university or Students Association premises.
The Christian Union is considering taking legal action against the university, on the grounds of human rights violations. Laura Stirrat, vice-president of Edinburgh University’s Christian Union, said, “The university is effectively closing down free speech.”
The Union has been forced to teach the course off-campus in a student’s apartment.
Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the decision was “nothing more than blind and unthinking political correctness” on the part of the University.
The director of Share Jesus International, the Rev. Dr. Rob Frost, told Christian Today the University’s ban was not an isolated incident--he said Christian Unions in the UK have been enduring increasing oppression over the past five years.
“If we cannot have Christian organizations run by Christians, and traditional bible believing teaching given on student property, one must ask, ‘What kind of world are we entering?’”
“I commend those who will say political correctness has its place but there are even more vital things at stake here.”
To respectfully contact Principal and Vice Chancellor Professor Timothy O‘Shea:
The University of Edinburgh
Old College, South Bridge,
Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
__________________ Commen Sense and Critical Thinking are an absolute joke in today's society. Yes I am talking to you!
Hhhhmmmm...abstinence works every time it is tried for birth control and disease prevention. It is actually good public health policy to teach abstinence, regardless of anyone drawing moral implications.
I agree that teaching and encouraging abstinence is a good thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by troylaplante
Hhhhmmmm...abstinence works every time it is tried for birth control and disease prevention. It is actually good public health policy to teach abstinence, regardless of anyone drawing moral implications.
I don't agree with abstinence only programs, though. Mostly because they're ineffective.
Teens will always try to grasp at the forbidden fruit. Instead of beating a dead horse saying "Don't have sex" like it will work, spend more time on education about the use of protection.
__________________ Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself – Twain.
The article even shows the problems with the study. Also, even if the study was accurate in showing that the results were equal either way, it is still better policy to teach absinence as opposed to other means.
This article has nothing to do with efficacy, only that some idiots may teach falsehoods about sexual health. That fact would be no different were it other core teachings, not just abstinence. Ignorance or blatant falsehood transcends and the same misled teachers would teach the same stupidity, either way if that is all they know.
There is no excuse for medically inaccurate or misleading information, but one can hardly blame it on the teaching of abstinence over other methods.
The article even says "rates of teenage pregnancy and birth have declined significantly in the United States". A stupid statement in the article is "Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact". It is hard to say definitively that there is no lasting, positive impact with only five years to rely upon for a time frame. The double standard is that we are constantly told how long we should wait for positive results from government programs, but when it comes to something that does not promote abhorrent behavior and encourages personal responsibility, then it is fine to condemn it. That is the epitome of what liberalism stands for...self restraint and resonsibility are discouraged in favor of encouraging negative behavior of the flesh.
Furthermore, it should not even be the school that teaches this stuff to children. It should be left to the parents to do so. I don't care if some homes do not have responsible parents who properly cover this stuff or not. There are some things that schools should and should not cover. Subjects such as sex education are best left to family and their chosen spheres of influence.
I find it amusing that in using the Puritans as a reference, the writer is totally ignorant about Puritan teachings. The irony of falsely using alleged Puritanical teachings to discredit others of similar faith is laughable. The author is also very ignorant of Church and Biblical teachings regarding sex and physiology. Debunking a falsehood with satirical falsehood obviously is illogical. Of course, this article is commentary and is not factual, but is built upon a false premise.
*To date, six studies of abstinence-only programs have been published. None of these studies found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. Thus, the weight of evidence indicates that these abstinence-only programs do not delay the onset of intercourse. 10
*A study of 7,326 seventh and eighth graders in California who participated in an abstinence-only program found that the program did not have a measurable impact upon either sexual or contraceptive behaviors. 11
*Nearly two-thirds of teenagers think teaching "Just Say No" is an ineffective deterrent to teenage sexual activity. 12
*The National Institutes of Health's Consensus Panel on AIDS said in February 1997 that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education "places policy in direct conflict with science and ignores overwhelming evidence that other programs (are) effective." 13
References:
10. D. Kirby, No Easy Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy (Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 1997), p. 25.
11. H. H. Cagampang, R. P. Barth, M. Korpi, and D. Kirby, "Education Now and Babies Later (ENABL): Life History of a Campaign to Postpone Sexual Involvement," Family Planning Perspectives, 29, no. 3 (1997), pp. 109-14.
12. Roper Starch Worldwide, Teens Talk About Sex: Adolescent Sexuality in the 90s (New York: Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 1994), p. 18.
13. National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement, Feb. 11-13, 1997.
A study of 7,326 seventh and eighth graders in California who participated in an abstinence-only program found that the program did not have a measurable impact upon either sexual or contraceptive behaviors
Quote:
colleagues examined five abstinence-only sex education programs at more than 24 schools across Texas
Yeah, surveys of young teens are notoriously accurate...not. Furthermore, the cross section chosen for any given survey will affect the results, just as with political polls. Another obvious aspect is that even IF there were no appreciable change in actual stats, it is entirely possible that those who would potentially avoid sexual behavior early in life just may have been affected positively in the direction of abstinence rather than promiscuity.
One article already cited admits that the rate of teenage pregnancy and birth has declined. Gee, it just may be because of successful programs as the ones in question. Oddly enough, there are those who will attempt to refute the concept with other data. This will be the case regardless. Just like with global warming, there are people who will argue on both sides of the issue.
Even if there were no measurable results it is still a better public policy to teach abstinence. Obviously, if teen pregnancy rates are going down and abstinence teaching has increased during the same period, there may be a strong correlation.
When I was involved in the fire prevention business, it was hard to quantify the results of the public education efforts. We could never say, "we prevented [x] amount of fires this year". We could look over data of yearly fire calls and look for trends. However, we did not stop teaching fire prevention if fire outbreaks increased or stayed at the same levels. That would only indicate the need to teach more of the right things to people.
As opposed as I am to schools taking over the responsibility of the parental role in sex education, if we have to have such teachings, it makes sense to teach abstinence.
Thus far, nothing you have shown, t2000, has shown an adverse affect by abstinence teaching. You have only cited the conjecture based upon small samples of student surveys that there is little effect. Even if that were true, then it is obvious that previous methods of teaching were ineffective towards the same end.
Abstinence when applied works 100% of the time. The problem is its too easy to have sex and not worry about the implications. How many shows on TV show kids having sex without the consequences of getting pregnant. Sure some do the "Very Special Episode" but by and large its sex sex and sex and party party party! Then what if you get pregnant. Well there's welfare and good ole taxpayer Joe to help you out. What about daddy? Well he'll demand a paternity test before he'll give a dime which we'll end up paying for. Then when he does pay; that $50 a week won't buy diapers and formula for the kid.
The government ought to make it illegal for two people to have a child out of wedlock and it ought to mean imprisonment for both if they are unable to care for the child without being on government assistance.
__________________ Commen Sense and Critical Thinking are an absolute joke in today's society. Yes I am talking to you!
The government ought to make it illegal for two people to have a child out of wedlock and it ought to mean imprisonment for both if they are unable to care for the child without being on government assistance.
Just like the laws in the Muslim world have stopped prostitution, adultery, homosexuality and all the other things they disapprove of.
The Puritans had some pretty harsh penalties, up to and including branding and hanging, for inappropriate behaviour. And they used them regularly, because people didn't stop doing the bad thing anyway.
This will work. I also want to make the grandparents raise the child while the parents are in jail. It will be their punishment for being bad parents and not enforcing no sex to their children.
__________________ Commen Sense and Critical Thinking are an absolute joke in today's society. Yes I am talking to you!
Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America
Posts: 6,342
I don't think the objection was about not having sex. One of the sacred cows was blasphemed! They spoke about "curing" the fagot from stool pushing! Everyone knows they are just fine, happy as a lark! They don't need to be cured from what comes naturally to them.
__________________
"They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf
I don't think the objection was about not having sex. One of the sacred cows was blasphemed! They spoke about "curing" the fagot from stool pushing! Everyone knows they are just fine, happy as a lark! They don't need to be cured from what comes naturally to them.
It's ridiculous to talk of "curing" someone's sexual leanings, like it's some kind of virus you can get rid of with the right medicine. Those people are what they are, just like pedophiles, and you aren't going to change them any more than someone could "cure" you and me of liking women.
What's that doing in an abstinence class to begin with?
