Wow!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_re_us/abstinence_suit
BOSTON - The federal government agreed to stop funding a nationwide program that promotes teen abstinence to settle a lawsuit alleging the money was used for Christian proselytizing.
The agreement was reached Wednesday between the
Department of Health and Human Services and the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Under the deal, the Silver Ring Thing program won't be eligible for more funding unless it ensures the money won't be used for religious purposes.
"Public funds were being used to fund a road show, really, to convert teens to Christianity," said Julie Sternberg, an ACLU attorney.
She said the ACLU supports the program's right to offer religious content, but not with taxpayer money.
Joel Oster of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the program in court, said it was "pleased that abstinence-based sex education programs like Silver Ring Thing will continue to have the right to seek federal funding."
The Silver Ring Thing program, related to a Christian ministry based in the Pittsburgh suburbs, has received more than $1 million in federal funding during the past three years.
The program puts on shows at churches that include comedy skits, music videos and a message of abstinence. Young people are given a silver ring and decide whether they want to pledge to abstain from sex.
In its federal lawsuit in May, the ACLU complained that the ring was inscribed with a Biblical verse exhorting Christians to remain holy and refrain from sexual sin. It also alleged that group members testified how accepting Jesus improved their lives.
An attorney for the organization has said teens can chose between religious or secular programs and that the program's religious teachings have taken place separately from anything the government funds.
The government terminated the grant effective Jan. 31. A call to an HHS spokesman Thursday was not immediately returned.
this is interesting. although, to me it's pretty difficult to ever divorce religion from "wait until marriage" because so much of the idea of "saving yourself" comes from religion. that's too bad really, because waiting for a commited relationship isn't necessarily a bad idea per se, and tying it to religion can put some people off who otherwise might feel like it's the right choice for them.
abstinence only sex ed is idealistic and dangerous. school curriculum is so arbitrary...we make all of this bullshit stuff required that students won't ever use beyond the final exam, and then we deny them this information that can be literally life-saving. why make sex this taboo, forbidden fruit, particularly when the same adults who say, "don't do it!" are probably doing it themselves? it doesn't help bridge the gap between teens and adults. and it's hard not to establish through that kind of message that sex is inherently bad in some way, even though, if conducted correctly, it's safe and fun. i would hate for my child to ever associate having sex with other bad things people don't want teens to do, like hard drugs or driving drunk. and damn, wouldn't everyone be better off with a few less sex hang-ups? a much better approach would be to teach kids to think, to make their own choices, to explore their own sexuality and reject ALL notions of it as a one-size-fits-all concept, meaning that they can have sex, but they don't HAVE to have sex. and sex is so tied into so many other things, like body image or goals or stereotypes or self esteem or platonic relationships or pressure, etc., that openly discussing it can illuminate a lot of other pathways that might otherwise never be explored. and more self-discovery would happen if we talked about what goes nto the choice to have sex and feeling ready and what kind of maturity it takes than if we just say, "oh you're married now, fuck away."