From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:45:35 GMT

Bill Dostalik (dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com) wrote:
> In article <C0n3Mq.IxF@unix.amherst.edu> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:
> >Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
> >> In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> >> >In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> >>  
> >> >| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
> >> >| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
> >> >| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.
> >> 
> >> >This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
> >> >spread of propoganda rather than information.
> >> 
> >> Actually, to support Fritz's line of thought, I'd like to mention an article
> >> I read in Scientific American about two years ago or so, on our nation's
> >> drug policy and attitude toward drugs, over the past one or two hundred
> >> years.  It came to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when
> >> there is a realistic presentation of the facts, not overstated, not under-
> >> stated, not moralized.  When the bad effects of drugs are exagerrated, or
> >> moralization about drug use is used, it's just not taken very seriously by
> >> a lot of people.  The same goes for sex education.  If you stand in front of
> >> a class of teenagers and preach about the evils of sex before marriage, and
> >> the virtues of abstinence, most of the kids will not take you very seriously
> >> (this applies to a church as well), and you will fail to successfully
> >> encourage either abstinence or safe sex.  Give people the facts, and by and
> >> large things will work out better than if you don't.
> >	Not to mention the fact that maybe I don't _want_ my kids to learn 
> >that, say, pot, is morally wrong - or at least any more than any other 
> >substance that can be abused. Personally, I think smoking pot and having pre-
> >marital sex is not only condonable, but to be explicitly encouraged. These are
> >my morals, and then deserve just as much representation as any other person's
> >in our school system. Also, if creationism is to be taught in school, I want
> >the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim theories of Creationism to be given equal
> >weight to Christianity. As for prayer in school, I support it, as long as the
> >breaks are given at the proper times so as to allow the proper method of 
> >prayer to Mecca.
> 
> >	Only Allah knows why guys like Doug think their morals are so superior
> >to everybody else's that they should be taught to our kids.
> 
> If you don't mind me butting in with my 2 cents:
> 
> I'm not Allah, but I think Doug believes that it is a good idea to allow these
> morals to be taught because they are the morals that founded this country.
> They are morals that have been wildly successful in developing the United
> States into the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known. 
	George Washington grew hemp and smoked it. 
> Instilling basic Judeo-Christian values in schoolchildren is hardly a threat to
> their freedom:  no one wants to take away their ability to choose their own
> religious and the details of their own morality.  It simply seems wise (from
> reviewing a couple millenia of history) to instill these values in children
> to give them a basis.  They are free to reject all of these ideas.  (Not to
> mention, I seriously doubt that inner city parents are most concerned that
> their children might learn to pray at school).
	
> 
> The bottom line:  they work.
	I don't think so. I don't want to sound harsh, because I agree with
a lot of what you say, but I think that "Judeo-Christian" values don't work.
At the very least, I don't want them "working" on my kids. 
	I, too, think the United States is pretty neat - however, it may
be for different reasons.
> (BTW, I agree with you on pot, I support legalizing all drugs, at the very 
> least pot).
> 
> - Bill Dostalik   dostalik@utdallas.edu      
>   Go Sooners!
> 
> >					-jesse
> >> 
> >>   - Dave Borden

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh