does this guy really need a million of the US tax-payers dollars?

[MushMouth]

I'm talking about Denny Pattyn, the leader of Silver Ring Thing, a group that the ACLU is suing the Dept. of H &HS over their alleged use of faith-based iniative funding to promote their religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3419693.stm
Denny confides that he believes that the end of the world is nigh and that Christ will return within a generation.

And so where does abstinence fit into that vision? Well, abstinence, he says, is a tool to reach young people for God, safeguarding them for the Second Coming

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601224.html
"Who would have ever thought we would see the day when promoting sexual abstinence among students would become an opportunity to communicate the Good News of the Gospel," the group's newsletter states. "Through our Silver Ring Thing program, students who are longing for sexual purity have the chance to begin again."

The irony being that this group fails to see anything wrong with using federal money to promote their religion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The main reason to not fund this stuff is that research has shown that it doesn't accomplish much. Abstinence-based programs do appear to very slightly reduce teen-pregnancy rates, but they don't reduce sexual activity or STDs, because the kids are tending to engage in more sexual behavior that won't result in pregnancy - such as oral and anal sex - rather than completely avoiding sex, or rather than engaging in safe-sex practices.

I posted links on this research on this board a couple months ago. Anyone interested can do a search and find the research.

Given that the tangible results are minimal to poor and that funding such programs does blur the line between church and state, in my opinion, these sorts of programs should not receive public funding.

[Michael P]

Plus, "Silver Ring Thing" is an unbelievably stupid name. And this is coming from a guy who once created a supervillain named "Multiverse."

[JeffreyWKramer]

Plus, "Silver Ring Thing" is an unbelievably stupid name. And this is coming from a guy who once created a supervillain named "Multiverse."


"Sounds stupid" is probably a selling point with this Administration.

[Michael P]

From the Post article: "The mission is to saturate the United States with a generation of young people who have taken a vow of sexual abstinence until marriage and put on the silver ring."

Is it just me, or does that mission statement have a sinister "Phase One" vibe to it?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Uh, where do I have to put my silver ring?

[Gaz]

From the Post article: "The mission is to saturate the United States with a generation of young people who have taken a vow of sexual abstinence until marriage and put on the silver ring."

Is it just me, or does that mission statement have a sinister "Phase One" vibe to it?
"Phase Two, we activate the secret brainwashing tech, (the Rings' Things) and command our zombified army to march on DC, take over the Pentagon and then procreate wildly, thus ensuring the survival and expansion of our regime..."

[MushMouth]

That abstience-only programs are not as effective as comprehensive sex ed programs should indeed be enough in itself to do away with them. But these programs seem to go hand in hand with the distortion of sound science and the sad thing is that this happens at the detriment of the very people these programs are supposed to be protecting..

Case in point - The Silver Ring Thing drives home the message that condoms don't work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml
Pattyn doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

"We spoke with some of the kids after the show in Fort Meyers and they said that going into the program they thought that condoms did work, but your show convinced them that they didn’t," says Bradley to Pattyn.

"Right. Well, that’s good because we believe that condoms aren’t the answer," says Pattyn.

"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It’s almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."

[Joe Grendel]

Well, abstinence, he says, is a tool to reach young people for God, safeguarding them for the Second Coming
Must ... not ... make ... the joke!

[Michael P]

Heh. Didn't catch that one, Grendel.

I'm curious to see the specific arguments Pattyn uses to defend his position that condoms don't protect against pregnancy and STDs. If only for the opportunity of ripping it to shreds.

I'm find it interesting that he would advise his own 16-year-old daughter not to use a condom if she were going to have sex. So basically, he's in favor of her getting the clap/ knocked up.

We need an anti-Jack Chick. Someone who makes little comic tracts that poke holes in all the propaganda spewed out at kids by creeps like, well, Jack Chick.

[JerrBear81]

Weren't they saying that you can get AIDS through tears at one point?

[Paul McEnery]

Weren't they saying that you can get AIDS through tears at one point?
Don't know about that. But the last time someone licked the sorrow away from my eyes, they spent the next month at the Betty Ford clinic.

[Gaz]

Heh. Didn't catch that one, Grendel.

I'm curious to see the specific arguments Pattyn uses to defend his position that condoms don't protect against pregnancy and STDs. If only for the opportunity of ripping it to shreds.

I'm find it interesting that he would advise his own 16-year-old daughter not to use a condom if she were going to have sex. So basically, he's in favor of her getting the clap/ knocked up.

We need an anti-Jack Chick. Someone who makes little comic tracts that poke holes in all the propaganda spewed out at kids by creeps like, well, Jack Chick.
We had a guy like that, Bill Hicks... :( (Seriously, it's tragic that he's not here when the country is going the way it is)
Maybe you can go on a truth crusade though, Michael?

[Sanagi]

Uh, where do I have to put my silver ring?
It's painted silver, but the metal's actually copper.

The wire goes down your pant leg to a battery you put in your shoes.

A purely symbolic wire and battery.

[Joe Grendel]

To be fair, genital warts (HPV) is estimated to be carried by some amazing percentage of college students, like 1/3. And it quite commonly results in warts outside of where a condom will cover.

If that's what they're basing the argument on, it's true that at least one STD can be passed by those wearing condoms. Pluralizing that, though, is probably on shakier ground, and HPV is, for the most part, harmless. There's some evidence that women with untreated HPV who smoke may be at higher risk for cervical cancer, but detecting and curing -- or at least removing the symptoms, which is all that's required to lower risk factor -- is pretty routine. Warts should be detected during a pap smear, if I remember my college Human Sexuality classes right.

[Spike-X]

To be fair, genital warts (HPV) is estimated to be carried by some amazing percentage of college students, like 1/3. And it quite commonly results in warts outside of where a condom will cover.

The good news is, a vaccine has been developed to protect against HPV.

The bad news is, the American Taliban doesn't want it to be made available, as it might be seen as "a license to engage in premarital sex."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/19/opinion/main696613.shtml

[Gaz]

It's painted silver, but the metal's actually copper.

The wire goes down your pant leg to a battery you put in your shoes.

A purely symbolic wire and battery.
And that twitching you see and that scent of singed hair and flesh? Also totally symbolic.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The good news is, a vaccine has been developed to protect against HPV.

The bad news is, the American Taliban doesn't want it to be made available, as it might be seen as "a license to engage in premarital sex."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/19/opinion/main696613.shtml


Once more, a group of busy-body assholes trying to force their view upon everyone, regardless of people getting hurt in the process.

Even for the Christian Right, this is a pretty sleazy stance. Fuckers.

[dougputhoff]

Once more, a group of busy-body assholes trying to force their view upon everyone, regardless of people getting hurt in the process.

Even for the Christian Right, this is a pretty sleazy stance. Fuckers.

They said the same thing about Abe Lincoln when he tried to ban slavery.

[JeffreyWKramer]

They said the same thing about Abe Lincoln when he tried to ban slavery.

Real good analogy - preventing people from depriving others of their rights, and from treating people as property, vs. a bunch of zealots fighting against preventing a disease.

No, wait... that's a really shitty and totally retarded analogy!

[Michael P]

They said the same thing about Abe Lincoln when he tried to ban slavery.
Who exactly would be getting hurt by the banning of slavery?

[Michael P]

We had a guy like that, Bill Hicks... :( (Seriously, it's tragic that he's not here when the country is going the way it is)

I have that thought every other day now. Talk about the good dying young...

Maybe you can go on a truth crusade though, Michael?
Don't think I haven't considered it.

[Gaz]

I have that thought every other day now. Talk about the good dying young...
I'd imagine his response to this would be much like his theory on the aftermath of a cure for AIDS. "They're f***ing everywhere! This is Dan Rather and you're not gonna believe this s***!" :D

Don't think I haven't considered it.
Viva la WriterBoy!

[Michael P]

I'd imagine his response to this would be much like his theory on the aftermath of a cure for AIDS. "They're f***ing everywhere! This is Dan Rather and you're not gonna believe this s***!" :D

"'Course, all you see on the evening news is *porno music* That's right, the hairy bobbing man-ass. The one adults know and love!"

[Gaz]

"'Course, all you see on the evening news is *porno music* That's right, the hairy bobbing man-ass. The one adults know and love!"
It did my heart good the other day when I heard someone quoting that in a bar. :)

[Michael P]

It did my heart good the other day when I heard someone quoting that in a bar. :)
He lives on in our hearts and our album collections.

[MushMouth]

The good news is, a vaccine has been developed to protect against HPV.

The bad news is, the American Taliban doesn't want it to be made available, as it might be seen as "a license to engage in premarital sex."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/19/opinion/main696613.shtml

The fundamental flaw with their approach to sex is the belief that ignorance is better than knowledge. That an ignorant person will make better decisions than an educated person. Not only is this unsound reasoning, it is unethical, as they have no right to make that decision on the behalf of someone else.

[dougputhoff]

Real good analogy - preventing people from depriving others of their rights, and from treating people as property, vs. a bunch of zealots fighting against preventing a disease.

No, wait... that's a really shitty and totally retarded analogy!

I don't think so, we're talking about moral values here. You think the concept people owning other people is not a good moral value; but on the other hand, you don't give a tinker's dam whether or not kids have sex.

I believe they're both repugnant.

And please don't use the word "retarded".

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't think so, we're talking about moral values here. You think people owner people is a good moral value; while encouraging kids to have sex is not.

I believe they're both repugnant.

I "think people owner people is a good moral value?" You apparently can't read, as I said nothing of that sort, and your grammar there is piss-poor.

In truth, I think people owning people is repugnant, and letting people make up their own mind about sex - and, in this actual example, having availble treatments for diseases - is a good idea. Both are respectful of the rights and welfare of other people.

[dougputhoff]

I "think people owner people is a good moral value?" You apparently can't read, as I said nothing of that sort, and your grammar there is piss-poor.

In truth, I think people owning people is repugnant, and letting people make up their own mind about sex - and, in this actual example, having availble treatments for diseases - is a good idea. Both are respectful of the rights and welfare of other people.

Thank you for correcting my grammar, I was a bit flustered when I first wrote it.

At least was able to express myself without using profanity.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Once more, a group of busy-body assholes trying to force their view upon everyone, regardless of people getting hurt in the process.

Even for the Christian Right, this is a pretty sleazy stance. Fuckers.

Aren't they the opposite of that final word though considering what they are trying to do?

And this whole "Silver Ring Thing" is stupid. I'm sorry, no matter how hard you try you are not going to make being a virgin cool. And by trying to make it a fad it is just going to blow up in their faces when the next fad comes around.

And what was that about getting kids to stop doing the nasty because Jesus will be here in a couple of years? My church says abstinance only because we believe it is the religious thing to do (as far as I know my church hasn't joined with those trying to get it down politically) and we believe that the end is a lot nigher than some think but how does one relate to the other? I mean my church hasn't stopped letting people get married so what is this whole "Be a virgin till Jesus comes" (one joke and fire will come down from on high you got it!) thing. Depending on your beliefs, as I think some churches are more accepting of premarital sex, it is one of those gifts God gives to everyone so why stop it?

Oh and the Bible says something about how anyone who tries to narrow down the time Jesus will reappear on Earth is extremely foolish. Just thought I'd throw that in for good measure.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Thank you for correcting my grammar, I was a bit flustered when I first wrote it.

At least was able to express myself without using profanity.

And when you rewrote it, you still continue to misstate my POV and make false accusations. It's not that I don't care if young folk have sex. As I've stated many times, sexuality is a big responsibility, and in general, it's one I think teens are not well-prepared for. This is particularly the case with younger teens. However, I am also a realist, in that I recognize that prepared or not, some people are gonna do it, and that there really isn't anything I can do about that. Beyond that, I really don't have the right to force others to look at things the way I do.

Given these facts, the responsible thing to do is to make sure that if kids choose to have sex, they be able to do so in as safe and responsible a manner as possible. Thus, it is a good idea if they have information available which increases the chances they will make good decisions, use safe sex, etc. Similarly, if there are means available to prevent STDs, it is responsible to have those available.

I can disagree with something without trying to force my POV on others, and while remaining realistic. Unfortunately, the religious right apparently can't do this, or be bothered to do so. They feel they have the right to make decisions that affect others, and to demand things be their way. Concepts such as freedom, respect for different points of view and responsibility don't really come into play for them - all that matters is doing things as dictated by their particular set of morals and their interpretation of religious principles.

And, I'm perfectly able to express myself without using profanity, as I do in this post. When I use profanity, I do it by choice, for effect or to make my point. You may not like that choice, but it's mine to make.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Aren't they the opposite of that final word though considering what they are trying to do?

Now, that is a good point.

Rather than call them fuckers, it would be much more appropriate to call them hypocritical assholes.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Now, that is a good point.

Rather than call them fuckers, it would be much more appropriate to call them hypocritical assholes.

See finding the correct label is important.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh and the Bible says something about how anyone who tries to narrow down the time Jesus will reappear on Earth is extremely foolish. Just thought I'd throw that in for good measure.
Slipping off topic for a sec, true dat.

I'm studying Yoga techniques of bodily mastery in aid of transcendence right now, and I hit some bits of the sutras where they talk about the need to ditch earthly concerns if you're going to step into the world of Spirit. Which sent me scrabbling for my Bible, where I found Mark 8:35 and Matthew 16:25 -- the bits where you get "whosoever shall seek to save his life will lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall gain it."

Now I'm reading that bit as a straight up description of how to achieve divine union (or salvation, if that's your vocabulary of choice). The stuff either side of the verse backs this up. But then the bookending of the whole goes into the scourging of the Son of Man, which is now reread by the gospel writers as a historical reference rather than as spiritual teaching. And it's followed by the stuff about "there are some here who will not die until they see the Son of Man return in all his glory with his posse of angels to fuck up all your shit! Damn!"

(Yes, I do have a more colourful version of the Bible in my head; and no, you can't borrow it; it's mine and mine alone, so there.)

Now I know there's literalists who'd have a fit about this sort of thing, but for me, it's obvious that Jesus's original teachings about how to live the spiritual life in order to know God (where know=realize, and where realize=make manifest) have been transformed in the light of his crucifiction and the destruction of the temple into a millennial comfort; i.e. a myth that gets in the way of realizing the original spiritual content of the teaching.

Veering sharply back on topic:

The whole point of sexual continence isn't about whether or not God's going to have a parental hissyfit if he catches you necking with that football player; what it's about is that sexual continence is part of a spiritual discipline so you can open up the curtains to let in the divine light.

(Hmm. No wonder Jeffrey doesn't see God! :D)

Which is fine and dandy, if that's what you want to do. But it's not going to do you a lick of good outside of that spiritual discipline. And, in any case, there are other spiritual disciplines.

Excuse me, I've got to go practice my one-fisted tantra now.

[Gaz]

Thank you for correcting my grammar, I was a bit flustered when I first wrote it.

At least was able to express myself without using profanity.
Actually, your analogy has some merit,but not in the way you meant. Allowing people to make their own choice about what they want to do, where to work and live, is a great liberty.
Allowing people to choose whether or not to be cellibate by teaching them the pros and cons of such a choice and how to stay safe if the opposite choice is reached, and making available medical care if those who CHOOSE not to have health problems as a result, also furthers freedom. Instead, these people want these kids to stay ignorant and do as they're told. Which is better?