"We live in a culture where condoms can be handed out in schools and bibles can't." - David MacDonald

What do you think?

ULTRON

(Assuming he's talking about public schools) - he's right and it's a good thing.

Aren't condoms one of the secular sacraments? The view that they should be given to teens is certainly derived from a 'religious' POV, or an anti-religious one.  It isn't neutral, that's for sure.

?

It's derived from the studies showing that condom distribution reduces unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs.  There's no religion involved.  It's a secular policy.

I don't really buy that, but I can equally say that the enabling and condoning of destructive behaviors is not good public health policy.

Then why in the world do you think distributing Bibles is a good thing ?

When God Sanctions Killing, The People Listen

Now, if you were to revise the Bible and edit out quite a bit, handing out Bibles would merely be a violation of the establishment clause.

But like I said, I don't really buy it.  Condom distribution reflects moral views on sexuality.

So does the legality of premarital and extramarital sex (UCMJ notwithstanding.)  It's like a public school handing out car safety pamphlets or teaching about the health effects of caffeine.

In apples to apples terms, handing out a condom is like handing out baptismal gowns.

That's absurd.  Baptisms are specific to a certain set of religions and have no secular purpose.  Sex is not specific to any religion and has secular purposes.

The fact that the act in itself has been distanced from the moral and religious framework that inspired it does not make it a-religious.  Handing out a Bible would be like handing out Humanist Manifestos.  But I'm sure you give your Secular Humanistic views a complete pass.  Even though those views have effects on every area that 'religion' touches, I bet you think it would be perfectly reasonable to hand out the Manifestos under the position that they aren't actually religious....

The only place I could see a distribution of Bibles or Humanist Manifestos being legal in public schools would be in comparative religion classes or in a Social Studies / History class.  No free pass for the Humanist Manifestos; for the purposes of the establishment and free exercise clauses, both atheism and humanism are considered as 'religions.'

It's derived from the studies showing that condom distribution reduces unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs.  There's no religion involved.  It's a secular policy.
Condoms don't stop the spread of certain viruses. Furthermore, think about the way teenagers make their beds or fold their clothes or do their homework. They do a pretty sloppy job. Now, you expect them to perfectly use birth control?

Then why in the world do you think distributing Bibles is a good thing ?
The Bible declares fornication a sin, ie., no sex betweem unmarried people. I think abstinence works best against teen pregnancies and diseases. If teens can be taught that cheating on exams is wrong, what's wrong with teaching that sex before marriage is wrong?

So does the legality of premarital and extramarital sex (UCMJ notwithstanding.)  It's like a public school handing out car safety pamphlets or teaching about the health effects of caffeine.
Sex is not the same as caffeine. Sex produces life and sex takes away life (STDs). If human beings came with a users manual, the genitalia area should be pointed out and marked "Use with caution"

ULTRON

It's derived from the studies showing that condom distribution reduces unintended pregnancies and the spread of STDs.  There's no religion involved.  It's a secular policy.
Condoms don't stop the spread of certain viruses. Furthermore, think about the way teenagers make their beds or fold their clothes or do their homework. They do a pretty sloppy job. Now, you expect them to perfectly use birth control?

I don't expect anyone to perfectly do anything.  I expect a certain % of teenagers to have sex, like I expect a certain % of teenagers to drive cars.  Those who drive would benefit from safe driving lectures and materials.  Those who engage in sex would benefit from safe sex lectures and materials.  Both are risky behaviors that large numbers of people voluntarily choose to engage in.

Then why in the world do you think distributing Bibles is a good thing ?
The Bible declares fornication a sin, ie., no sex betweem unmarried people. I think abstinence works best against teen pregnancies and diseases. If teens can be taught that cheating on exams is wrong, what's wrong with teaching that sex before marriage is wrong?

Because our society is not built on the Bible.  Cheating on exams is not considered wrong because the Bible declares it to be a sin.  Cheating on exams is considered wrong because we (generally) value fair play and honesty.

So does the legality of premarital and extramarital sex (UCMJ notwithstanding.)  It's like a public school handing out car safety pamphlets or teaching about the health effects of caffeine.
Sex is not the same as caffeine. Sex produces life and sex takes away life (STDs). If human beings came with a users manual, the genitalia area should be pointed out and marked "Use with caution"

I think you missed the analogy.  The Amish consider things like cars to be sinful.  Therefore, they might claim that handing out car safety pamphlets would be violating the establishment clause because it does not respect their belief that driving cars is wrong.  They lose - our society and laws do not consider driving a car to be wrong.  It is a risky behavior, and we teach classes and even license people on how to do it safely.  But if the Amish believe it is wrong, they can abstain from driving.  If you believe premarital sex is wrong, by all means abstain.  Just like the Amish have to accept that their religious beliefs are not universal and our society does NOT consider driving wrong by itself, you also have to accept that our society does NOT consider sex outside of marriage wrong by itself. 

If you take groups of teenagers and educate them with different methods, make available free condoms or not, etc., you will statistically get different results with regards to unintended pregnancies and STD rates.  A comprehensive sex ed class and condom availability lead to lower rates of unintended pregnancies and STD rates and (from what studies I have read) doesn't even change the promiscuity rate significantly.

sntjohnny said...
------------------
If this is a purely 'secular' issue as you would have us believe, then my objecting to distributing condoms is also a secular decision.  Its' nonsense to think that if you support condom distribution you're acting 'secularly' but if you oppose it you're acting religiously.
-------------------

It's not nonsense to think that if you oppose condom distribution you're acting religiously, especially when you have religious reasons for opposing the distribution.

--------------------
It makes no difference to me.  My point is that the reasons leading to the condom distribution are 'religious.'
---------------------

I don't see how those reasons are 'religious.' Teenagers have (and will continue to have) sex. Sex can sometimes lead to undesirable consequences (disease, pregnancy, etc), and using condoms is an effective (though imperfect) solution to that problem--a protection or safeguard. Therefore, one distributes condoms in order to minimize the amount of potential harm.  What's so 'religious' about this reasoning?

"No, in the legal world,"

You're going back and forth, equivocating as it suits you.  I was not in that paragraph addressing the legal world, but simple reality.  At the end of your comments when I am clearly speaking to the legal aspect you pretend that I wasn't.  Come on.

Rereading...where you say you not addressing the legal world but simply reality I did take you as addressing the legal world.  The topic is talking about whether distributing bibles or condoms is allowed, which means legal.  Rereading the end of my comments...

To clear up:  Secular humanism can be considered a religion in the sense that humanist organizations can be considered religious:

The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District in 1994. In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:

    The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law.

"Sure.  Having certain sets of beliefs - even ethical ones or ones having to do with the origins of the human species - does not make them religious beliefs."

You would be hard pressed to give an example of such a set that doesn't make any of these from a practical point of view identical to 'religious beliefs.'

What do you mean by 'religious beliefs' ?

No, I'm not.  My point explicitly was that for legal purposes it is considered a religion.

  There is a reason for that.  It might have to do with the fact that observers correctly note that there are significant 'religious' implications to humanism.  If not, surely this means you are proposing the legal system has acted arbitrarily on the matter.  If there was such a hard break as you want us to believe, then humanist and atheistic organizations would be classified as truly secular organizations.  Of course, very few really believe that such a hard break is real.  We only hear it in the self-protestations of anti-Christians on the net who would like to think they possess some kind of moral high ground.

Stealing is considered wrong and illegal based on its own merits, regardless of the Christian position on it.   The fact that Christian beliefs also consider stealing wrong does not make it a religious or Christian viewpoint.  Similarly, the vast majority of secular humanism's beliefs about what is are merely scientific beliefs.  The vast majority of secular humanism's beliefs about what we ought to do and value are merely to provide for the general welfare of humans (just like the preamble of the Constitution.)

To try to return to the point... distributing condoms is definitely a policy that secular humanists would suggest, given their worldview assumptions.  If this is a purely 'secular' issue as you would have us believe, then my objecting to distributing condoms is also a secular decision.  Its' nonsense to think that if you support condom distribution you're acting 'secularly' but if you oppose it you're acting religiously.

If all I knew was your position and not your reasoning for it, then it would be nonsense to suggest your position was a secular one or a religious one.

That sort of thinking utterly self-serving and a very good reason why the Constitution does not merely prohibit establishment, but also grants free exercise.  The Free Exercise clause:  the forgotten Constitutional component to discourses on 'church and state' issues.

No one is forcing teens to use condoms or engage in premarital sex.  Their free exercise abilities are intact.  The clash between secular ethics and religious ethics as the basis for U.S. laws was settled when the Constitution was written: not to provide for the Glory of God, not to provide laws and policies to reflect Biblical prohibitions, but to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

How does deliberately adopting policies that produce higher rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies promote the general welfare ?

"Rereading..."

I really appreciate your willingness to do such double-checks.

"What do you mean by 'religious beliefs' ?"

:)  Exactly.

"Stealing is considered wrong and illegal based on its own merits, regardless of the Christian position on it."

The Christian position would be that we are all created in God's image and this is why we share such commonalities.  :)

"the vast majority of secular humanism's beliefs about what is are merely scientific beliefs."

I don't think its really fair to characterize using the term 'merely' here.  So long as there are humans involved in any endeavor I think we have to be realistic in saying that there are no such thing as 'mere beliefs' of any kind.

About the general welfare thing.  I could argue that I also have in mind the general welfare of society.  I might say that I think that the most healthy society will be one that acts in concordance with how we are created.  Eg, I might say that I think society would be best served if it promoted monogamy and sexuality as best kept within the context of a man and a woman.  Just because I have a 'religious' source for some of the finer details doesn't mean that the argument has no place in society or public policy.

"No one is forcing teens to use condoms or engage in premarital sex.  Their free exercise abilities are intact."

You misunderstand me.  I'm talking about the policies of distributing condoms and bibles.  The Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Why shouldn't I be able to distribute Bibles on public land or have, for example, a Christmas scene at city hall?  Sure, if a bunch of Muslims want to do it, let them.  But on the other hand, the free exercise grants explicit permissions while distributing condoms has no such explicit protection.

"How does deliberately adopting policies that produce higher rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies promote the general welfare ?"

But that is debatable.  Higher rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies are the result of a certain class of sexual behaviors.  STDs are unlikely to happen in a couple who have never had sex with anyone except for each other.  How does deliberately adopting policies that continue to promote such destructive behaviors promote the general welfare? 

"Stealing is considered wrong and illegal based on its own merits, regardless of the Christian position on it."

The Christian position would be that we are all created in God's image and this is why we share such commonalities.  :)

But we all covet our neighbor's property, don't we?  Did this tendency also reflect God's image?     As an explanation of moral principles, the Christian position can explain all of the similarities that we wish to pin on God and none of those that we wish not to pin on him.  There are much better explanations for our moral prescriptions that don't rely on God-given intuitions.  We are social animals, and social animals have to establish protocols of behavior.  In human society, moral prescriptions are complex rules that help people to live with each other in a safe and respectable manner.  Taking properties that belong to others often causes anger, resentment, and violence.  It is a destabilizing force.  Therefore, complex societies form taboos against stealing.  Since gods are allegedly in a position to command obedience, we make sure that our gods tell people not to steal things.
This isn't just a Christian thing, but some Christians like to think that it is.

About the general welfare thing.  I could argue that I also have in mind the general welfare of society.  I might say that I think that the most healthy society will be one that acts in concordance with how we are created.  Eg, I might say that I think society would be best served if it promoted monogamy and sexuality as best kept within the context of a man and a woman.  Just because I have a 'religious' source for some of the finer details doesn't mean that the argument has no place in society or public policy.

Religion has its place in a community of believers, but non-theocratic governments need to come up with secular principles to motivate laws, which apply to believers and non-believers alike.  Some believers argue that that homosexuality does not violate any religious principles.  What should the policy of a government be when there are disputes of that nature?  Should it impose one moral prescription on everybody by force of law?  Should it be in the business of interpreting scripture?  Our society has historically adopted the position that the government is not the right mechanism for imposing such moral prescriptions.  It is up to families, churches, and other voluntary non-governmental units to impose such limits on the behavior of their members.

"No one is forcing teens to use condoms or engage in premarital sex.  Their free exercise abilities are intact."

You misunderstand me.  I'm talking about the policies of distributing condoms and bibles.  The Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Why shouldn't I be able to distribute Bibles on public land or have, for example, a Christmas scene at city hall?  Sure, if a bunch of Muslims want to do it, let them.  But on the other hand, the free exercise grants explicit permissions while distributing condoms has no such explicit protection.

The 14th Amendment makes that rule apply to all levels of government, including those that run the public school systems.  Parents have a right for their children not to be proselytized in the schools, and citizens have the right not to be proselytized by their governments.  Both your religious group and the Muslims can duke it out rhetorically in churches, mosques, on street corners, and in public parks.  Nobody cares what you do with respect to religion as long as you are not doing it with official government endorsement or disrespecting the rights of those who don't want to listen to your message.

How does deliberately adopting policies that produce higher rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies promote the general welfare ?"

But that is debatable.  Higher rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies are the result of a certain class of sexual behaviors.  STDs are unlikely to happen in a couple who have never had sex with anyone except for each other.  How does deliberately adopting policies that continue to promote such destructive behaviors promote the general welfare? 

You need empirical studies to back up such claims.  So far, it seems that condom distribution programs cut down on STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and abstinence-only programs do not.  Abstinence-only programs may even backfire, since they do not prepare youngsters who will eventually drop their abstinence vows for safe sexual encounters.  Perhaps it would be desirable to stop all of that teenage promiscuity, but there seems to be no public program that can stop it.  So, we need to implement public policies that are effective and practical in modern society.  Condom distribution works.  Abstinence-only does not.