So I was going through a couple of weeks worth of mail and came across something interesting. A local organization calling themselves "Fairness in Education" sent out some information on Intelligent Design and why it should be taught in our schools along side evolution. The basic "teach all sides and let the kids decide for themselves" drivel. I gave it to chuck pretty quickly.
Then, I come across another local group "Abstinence Promise Organization" who were decrying the concept that children in our schools receive sex ed if it is not an abstinence only program. I chalked this up to prude fundamentalist bullshit and was getting ready to toss it, when the similarities between this and the ID mailing caught my attention.
They had the same bulk rate permit on the envelope. They came from the same organization. So this got me to thinking, how intellectually dishonest do you have to be to justify in your mind the obvious dichotomy between these two positions? What happened to teaching all facts and let kids sort it out? If you accept either argument, it serves to diminish the other, does it not?
I doubt that anybody here is a proponent of either of these batshit crazy ideas, but the next time I hear someone promoting ID or abstinence only, I'm going to have to hit them up with the other, just to see. Of course if anybody does subscribe to these contradictory ideals, feel free to defend them. (I'm looking at YOU, lurkers :shock: )
If I think about it later, I'll make some scans of the envelopes.
i^2
Then, I come across another local group "Abstinence Promise Organization" who were decrying the concept that children in our schools receive sex ed if it is not an abstinence only program. I chalked this up to prude fundamentalist bullshit and was getting ready to toss it, when the similarities between this and the ID mailing caught my attention.
They had the same bulk rate permit on the envelope. They came from the same organization. So this got me to thinking, how intellectually dishonest do you have to be to justify in your mind the obvious dichotomy between these two positions? What happened to teaching all facts and let kids sort it out? If you accept either argument, it serves to diminish the other, does it not?
I doubt that anybody here is a proponent of either of these batshit crazy ideas, but the next time I hear someone promoting ID or abstinence only, I'm going to have to hit them up with the other, just to see. Of course if anybody does subscribe to these contradictory ideals, feel free to defend them. (I'm looking at YOU, lurkers :shock: )
If I think about it later, I'll make some scans of the envelopes.
i^2