1/29 One quarter of US AIDS money going to religious groups preaching
abstinence-only.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/ap_on_he_me/aids_prevention
\_ Liar. "President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight
AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter of its grants to religious
groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners
that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and
fidelity over condom use."
1/4 to religious groups. There's no % listed of how many of them
are preaching abstinence only.
\_ Don't be pedantic.
\_ I'm usually the first to say this, but in this case that
is a pretty important difference.
\_ I challenge you to find a federal funded religious
group that is doing AIDS outreach and education that
doesn't involve abstinence only education in some form.
Also, doesn't the idea of a "federally funded religious
group" kinda bother you?
\_ Did not seem to both Thomas Jefferson or any
of a large number of subsequent number of
presidents to this day.
\_ "in some form". Any sex ed of any sort that doesn't
teach "in some form" that *not* having sex is the
best way to avoid a sexual transmitted disease is
pretty stupid. What is wrong with telling people
that condoms, etc aren't perfect and abstinence is
the most effective method of avoidance? As far as
"federally funded religious group" goes, these are
not "federally funded religious groups" in the sense
that you're implying they are State Sponsored
religions. Churches have always done charity work.
Would you prefer they just stop? Does it bother you
that they run soup kitchens too? Relax your knee.
\_ pp is referring to "abstinence-*only*" education.
\_ Ok. How does that change anything?
\_ Abstinence-only education is actually worse
than no sex education.
\_ URL or just opinion?
\_ Here's a study from Minnesota
high schools. There are many more
like this:
http://csua.org/u/etq --!pp
\_ Your link doesn't say that
abstinence-only is worse than no
sex ed at all. "That [the
abstinence-only rate] is still
lower than the average rate of
sexually active adolescents in
those counties, researchers said."
Now, the actual report may actually
say that abstinence-only is worse,
since your article includes many
provocative statements that
abstinence-only is a failure,
but the article itself does not
present logic or statistics to
support those statements. And with-
out supporting evidence, those
statements by themselves are
worthless.
\_ Oh yes - Minnesota public schools.
Where they can help your child
obtain an abortion without you
ever knowing anything about it.
\_ Also, I am thrilled that churches continue to do
charity work. I don't think federal funds should
should be used to support them.
\_ "to support them". To support them doing charity
work? You think the Feds are more efficient at
helping at the grass roots level than the people
who actually live in a community? I've seen
how Fed & State funded programs "work". You'd
be hard pressed to find an organization more
corrupt, slack, inefficient or less caring about
the 'customer' than someone who has a government
job giving away other people's money. They get
rated on how much money they give away and there's
no oversight. It was pretty sickening.
\_ I think you missed where he said "I _don't_
think..."
\_ I didn't miss it. I'm sharing my
experience as anecdotal evidence that he
should reconsider his thoughts.
\_ So... you WANT the feds to give away
money? Even though it's sickening?
\_ No, but since they're going to do
it anyway, I'd prefer it go to small
local efficient charities instead of
getting handed out like candy to the
wrong people by the wrong people who
are just pissing it away. I thought
it was clear that the sickening part
is the waste involved in government
aid "projects".
\_ How about they don't give the money
away, lower taxes, and let people
give their own money to whatever
causes they want?
\_ Not if you believe in charity.
Even in the same town, Mr Rich
Guy is unlikely to know that
Mr Poor Guy could use a new
pair of shoes for his kid on
the other side of town, but
I'll bet Poor Guy's local
religious figure and his
neighbors know. I don't believe
in large money sucking non-
charities either. Same deal.
Huge org sucking up cash and
giving out pennies on the
dollar to the wrong people.
Large professional charity
orgs in this country mostly
suck and IMO are even worse
than the Feds because they
pull on heart strings to get
your dollar and then piss it
away. At least the Feds tax
you by force with no pretence.
\_ Cf. Salvation Army. |