> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am likewise incensed that *my* tax dollars go to > > fund abstinence-only programs...and faith-based > > anything, as these > > violate 'separation of church and state.' Mixing > > religious precepts with public health policy is a > > very bad idea > Yeah, but you'd be wrong. Not about mixing religion and public health, I'm not -- I've already posted extensively on this, so I won't belabor it again. >You may disagree with > abstinence programs, and the motivation behind them > may be religipus, but they are not in and of > themselves religious. That's how they began, until the ACLU sued, and 'specific religious content' was supposed to be removed (ruling in 1993). It is not my impression alone that these programs are based on false premises: http://www.jamwa.org/vol57/sec1/pdf/57_1_9.pdf "The belief in abstinence education is based on ideology, not science. In a democratic society, public monies should be expended on programs with proven efficacy and not on those that promote particular ideologies. It is inappropriate to encourage schools and other youth-serving providers to omit critical, perhaps life-saving, information and to promote an ideology that is not shared by the majority of Americans." > You can be perfectly secular and still be in favor >of them. Please cite for me an _abstinance-only_ program that does not have as its beginning a religiously-based organization. ["Abstinence is best, but if you're going to have sex, use a condom" programs OTOH do have some effectiveness, and there are definitely non-religiously-based ones as well.] There is *no* credible evidence that abstinence-only programs reduce teen pregnancy or STDs: "Three high-quality studies focused on abstinence-only approaches, and none found that an abstinence-only program had any significant impact on participants� initiation of intercourse, frequency of intercourse, or number of sex partners. Thus, there is currently no evidence that any of these programs actually achieves its intended purposes." [same cite as above, see also the very recent report on the ENABL program, which I posted under the 'abstinence driving education' thread] > They are not even a > tiny bit a violation of separation of church and > state. <wry> Only in spirit, not the letter of the law? > Faith-based programs are a more difficult case, but > I think that they are only a violation of the First > Amendment if you believe that it requires virtual > government hostility to religion, not neutrality. If > the money is spent by the government specifically to > proselytize, that would be a violation of your > rights. Unless the government is providing equal funds to _all_ religions, it is favoring *one* -- that is a violation as far as I'm concerned (my lawyer friends agree, but admittedly none of them is a Constitution expert). > In this case, however, funding to NPR (given its > political bias) is essentially the Democratic Party > appropriating funds from the general budget to run > ads on its own behalf. I assume that is not okay >with you? Which party has the majority in Congress at the moment? But there are no Republicans who voted grant money for NPR? I am not trying to be flip, for this is literally a deadly business -- if, as you say, only wealthy liberals listen to NPR, but millions of American teens are supposed to be taught about sex, in which is more important to ensure accuracy of information? [Aside: here is a 2002 article which claims that NPR has sold out to 'corporate and military interests that dominate its funding' BTW: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12867 In his new book "The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting," Barsamian points out similarities between the top execs currently running CPB and NPR: "Robert T. Coonrod has been the president and CEO of the CPB since 1997. Prior to joining CPB, Coonrod was deputy managing director of the Voice of America," operated by the U.S. government. Meanwhile, "NPR's president and CEO Kevin Klose served as the director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, which oversees VOA, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio and Television Marti." ] 2003 funding: http://www.os.dhhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020131a.html "President Bush's budget for 2003 will increase funding for abstinence education programs to $135 million to ensure that more children receive the message that abstinence is the best option for avoiding unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The President's budget reflects a $33 million increase over 2002 funding for abstinence-only education, fulfilling the President's pledge to fund abstinence-only programs at $135 million." http://nhpr.org/static/aboutnhpr/financial.php CPB grants $256,081 Other grants $293,103 So even if *all* other grants were from the government, it would be a bit over 1 million dollars -- vs. 135 million for ineffective abstinence-only programs. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
