> From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am likewise incensed that *my* tax dollars go to > > fund abstinence-only programs (which in MN at least > > have failed to prevent teen pregnancy - see my post > > on > > the ENABL report), and faith-based anything, as > > these > > violate 'separation of church and state.' Mixing > > religious precepts with public health policy is a > > very > > bad idea; medical prescriptions should be based on > > sound science as far as is possible (acknowledging > > that evidence may change our understanding at any > > point). > > > > Be willing to trade off on these two, I would... ;) > > > > Yeah, but you'd be wrong. You may disagree with > abstinence programs, and the motivation behind them > may be religipus, but they are not in and of > themselves religious. You can be perfectly secular > and still be in favor of them. They are not even a > tiny bit a violation of separation of church and > state. You might disagree with them, but they're not > a violation of your rights. They are bad science, disproven in study after study (I saw two just yesterday, one which I posted to this very list), and right-wing propaganda aimed specifically at people who are unable to 'change the channel'. Your argument is hypocritical and mendacious. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
