Teen Abstinence

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

It's a real shame that most people never get any real information until they reach college, and then only if they happen to take the correct courses. By which time it's usually a bit late...

What do you consider "real information" and "correct courses", btw? As it stands, I certainly disagree with you, but I withhold final judgement until I hear more details.

[Rían]

I'm reviewing the thread, trying to catch up, and came across this again:

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Get your head out of the sand. Open your eyes. Take a deep breath. Now stifle your fear response brought on by deep conditioning to think of sex as the source of the ultimate source of all of humanities sins, and try to be rational.

The response worthy of your first sentence is: But you can't hear me unless I go where you are.

My official response, however, is this: IMO, you owe me an apology for those insults. Whether or not you give me one is up to you, obviously. But I won't let those insults stand without comment. The only time I let insults go by is if I think a greater good can be achieved by ignoring them. That is NOT the case here.

And further, I repeat that I have NOT been taught "to think of sex as the source of the ultimate source of all of humanities sins". Please don't assign thoughts to me that I don't have Are those perhaps your thoughts?

I would also like an apology for your "try to be rational" line, unless you can give evidence that I have been consistently irrational. And disagreeing with your opinion is certainly not acceptable evidence!

You might say that was a general "you" and not one specifically directed at me. If you try to claim that, then it is YOU that are being irrational, for apparently you think I should be able to read your mind! When you quote ME, and make a statement immediately after using "your", a rational person would certainly conclude that you were talking to me.

Why do you think that a sexual assault is more horrible than any other assault?

Another case of assigning a thought to me that I never said I had ... would you please stop doing that right now. You may ask me if perhaps I think that way, but please don't assign me thoughts of your own devising.

[Insidious Rex]

Sorry to post such a LONG article. I realize its annoying when people post articles that go on for more then a page but I figured Id make an exception in this case because this article is so relevant to what we have been talking about in this thread for a while and it comes from a different angle which is refreshing. And it introduces some information that we havent yet had here. Apparently its not simply an either/or argument when it comes to sex education…

Teenagers special: Going all the way

05 March 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Alison George
LYNSEY TULLIN was 15 when she became pregnant. The only contraception she and her boyfriend had used was wishful thinking: "I didn't think it would happen to me," she says. Tullin, who lives in Oldham in northern England, decided to keep the baby, now aged 3, although as a consequence her father has disowned her.

Tullin is not alone. In the UK nearly 3 per cent of females aged 15 to 19 became mothers in 2002, many of them unintentionally. And unplanned pregnancies are not the only consequence of teenage sex - rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are also rocketing in British adolescents, both male and female.

The numerous and complex societal trends behind these statistics have been endlessly debated without any easy solutions emerging. Policy makers tend to focus on the direct approach, targeting young adolescents in the classroom. In many western schools teenagers get sex education classes giving explicit information about sex and contraception. But recently there has been a resurgence of some old-fashioned advice: just say no. The so-called abstinence movement urges teens to take virginity pledges and cites condoms only to stress their failure rate. It is sweeping the US, and is now being exported to countries such as the UK and Australia.

Confusingly, both sides claim their strategy is the one that leads to fewest pregnancies and STD cases. But a close look at the research evidence should give both sides pause for thought. It is a morally charged debate in which each camp holds entrenched views, and opinions seem to be based less on facts than on ideology. "It's a field fraught with subjective views," says Douglas Kirby, a sex education researcher for the public-health consultancy ETR Associates in Scotts Valley, California.

For most of history, pregnancy in adolescence has been regarded not as a problem but as something that is normal, so long as it happens within marriage. Today some may still feel there is nothing unnatural about older adolescents in particular becoming parents. But in industrialised countries where extended education and careers for women are becoming the norm, parenthood can be a distinct disadvantage. Teenage mums are more likely to drop out of education, to be unemployed and to have depression. Their children run a bigger risk of being neglected or abused, growing up without a father, failing at school and abusing drugs.

The US has by far the highest number of teenage pregnancies and births in the west; 4.3 per cent of females aged between 15 and 19 gave birth there in 2002. This is significantly higher than the rate in the UK (2.8 per cent), which itself has the highest rate in western Europe (see Chart).

Another alarming statistic is the number of teenagers catching STDs. In the UK the incidences of chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhoea in under-20s have all more than doubled since 1995. The biggest rise has been in chlamydia infections in females under 20; cases have more than tripled, up to 18,674 in 2003. Chlamydia often causes no symptoms for many years but it can lead to infertility in women and painful inflammation of the testicles in men.

No surprise, then, that teenage sex and pregnancy has become a political issue. The UK government has set a target to halve the country's teen pregnancy rate by 2010, and the US government has set similar goals. But achieving these targets will not be easy. In an age when adolescence has never been so sexualised, in most western countries people often begin to have sex in their mid to late teens; by the age of 17, between 50 and 60 per cent are no longer virgins.

Since the 1960s, UK schools have increasingly accepted that many teenagers will end up having sex and have focused efforts on trying to minimise any ensuing harm. Sex education typically involves describing the mechanics of sex and explaining how various contraceptives work, with particular emphasis on condoms because of the protection they provide from many STDs.

The sex education strategy gained further support in the early 1990s when policy makers looked to the Netherlands. There, teenage birth rates have plummeted since the 1970s and are now among the lowest in Europe, with about 0.8 per cent of females aged between 15 and 19 giving birth in 2002. No one knows why for sure, as Dutch culture differs from that of the UK and America in several ways. But it is generally attributed to frank sex education in schools and open attitudes to sex. Dutch teenagers, says Roger Ingham, director of the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the University of Southampton,"have less casual sex and are older when they first have sex compared with the UK".

But a new sexual revolution is under way. Spearheaded by the religious right, the so-called abstinence movement is based on the premise that sex outside marriage is morally wrong. "We're trying to say there's another approach to your sexuality," says Jimmy Hester, co-founder of one of the oldest pro-abstinence campaigns, True Love Waits, based in Nashville, Tennessee.

Abstinence-based education got US government backing in 1981, when Congress passed a law to fund sex education that promoted self-restraint. More money was allocated through welfare laws passed in 1996, which provided $50 million a year.

A key plank of the abstinence approach is to avoid giving advice on contraception. The logic is that such information would give the message that it's OK to have sex. "The moment we do that, we water down the commitment," says Hester.

If contraception is mentioned at all, it is to highlight its failings - often using inaccurate or distorted data. A report for the US House of Representatives published last December found that 11 out of the 13 federally funded abstinence programmes studied contained false or misleading information. Examples of inaccurate statements included: "Pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms," and: "Condoms fail to prevent HIV 31 per cent of the time." They also use some questionable logic regarding the success rate of abstinence (see "Heads I win, tails you lose").

While some states advocate "abstinence-plus" programmes, providing a level of advice on contraception alongside heavy promotion of chastity, the hard-line "abstinence only" approach is in the ascendant in the US. Around a third of US secondary schools have abstinence-only programmes, and nearly 3 million young people have publicly pledged to remain virgins until they marry.

And it is spreading. Last June an American group came to the UK to promote the Silver Ring Thing, a Christian movement that encourages teens to publicly pledge to remain virgins until marriage and to keep their promise with the aid of a $12 ring. And True Love Waits has held virginity rallies in Australia.

This trend comes amid claims that the UK's more liberal approach not only does not work, but has the opposite effect. "Free pills and condoms boost promiscuity" screamed the headline on the front page of UK newspaper The Times last year (5 April 2004). It was prompted by research by David Paton, an economist at the University of Nottingham, UK, which found that in some areas that had increased access to family planning services, teen pregnancy rates had remained the same and STD rates had actually risen.

[Insidious Rex]

There are now increasing calls from conservative and religious groups for schools in the UK to consider the abstinence option. A programme called Love for Life is now operating in 60 per cent of schools in Northern Ireland. It could be described as abstinence-plus that is heavy on the abstinence. Its founder, Richard Barr, a GP from Craigavon, County Armagh, says that focusing on contraception ignores the bigger picture of human sexuality. "There's a massive need for a more holistic approach, not just a damage-limitation approach."

And the UK mainland is home to a small but growing number of groups, most of them with Christian roots, promoting abstinence-centred education. The word abstinence is less in vogue than across the Atlantic, however, and such groups are more likely to talk in terms of delaying sex until young people are in a committed relationship.

But does the abstinence approach work? Do teenagers - a group not renowned for their propensity to do what they are told - take any notice when adults tell them not to have sex?

Proponents of abstinence claim research supports their strategy. But the vast majority of studies that have been done in this area have been small, short-term evaluations without control groups. "There have only been three well-designed trials where an 'intervention' group is compared with a control group and participants are tracked over time," says Kirby.

One of these, published in 1997, looked at a five-session abstinence-only initiative in California. The trial tracked 10,600 teenagers for 17 months (Family Planning Perspectives, vol 29, p 100). The researchers found it had no impact on the sexual behaviour or pregnancy rates of teenagers. The other two studies had similar results. "None of them show that any abstinence-only programmes had any impact on behaviour," says Kirby.

Although not a controlled trial, one of the largest studies of the effect of abstinence pledges tracked the sex lives of 12,000 US teenagers aged between 12 and 18 (American Journal of Sociology, vol 106, p 859). A group led by Peter Bearman, a sociologist at Columbia University in New York, investigated whether taking a virginity pledge affected the age when people first had sex. It did, with an average delay of 18 months. The pledgers also got married earlier and had fewer partners overall.

But when Bearman went back six years later and looked at the STD rates in the same people, now aged between 18 and 24, he was in for a surprise. In research presented at the National STD conference in Philadelphia last year, he found that though pledgers had had fewer sexual partners than non-pledgers, they were just as likely to have had an STD. And the reason? "Pledgers use condoms less," says Bearman. "It's difficult to simultaneously imagine not intending to have sex and being contraceptively prepared."

Here lies the problem that many have with the idea of abstinence-only education. While it may work for those kids who live up to the ideal, those who don't are left without the knowledge to protect themselves when they do have sex. "It's not rocket science," says Bearman.

But here's where proponents of the liberal approach can stop feeling smug. Because despite many people's unquestioning assumption that comprehensive sex education is the best way to reduce teenage pregnancy, there is actually little good-quality evidence backing this view.

One of the problems in carrying out randomised controlled trials in this area is the question of who should be used as the control group. Most schools now have some form of sex education in place, however rudimentary, and it would be unethical to take this away from some children to create the control group. Instead researchers have tended to compare standard sex education with new initiatives specially designed to reduce pregnancy rates. But the results have been unimpressive. A systematic review in 2002 of 26 such studies showed that not one of them improved the use of birth control or reduced the teenage pregnancy rate (British Medical Journal, vol 324, p 1426).

But in the past few years, a handful of randomised controlled trials have been published showing that some carefully designed sex education programmes do appear to work. One of the most effective is the Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, aimed at 13 to 15-year-olds in a poor area of New York (Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol 34, p 244). Abstinence is mentioned during the programme, but most of the emphasis is on contraception. A three-year study showed that the pregnancy rate of teenage girls who took the programme was less than half the rate of those who didn't. Analysis showed this was due to both greater condom use and delayed onset of sex.

Why should these programmes be any different? As well as lasting longer, they were, says Kirby, "interactive and personalised, not just abstract facts". The Carrera programme, for example, not only covered sexual behaviour, it tackled the social disadvantages that lead to teenage pregnancy. Along with information on and free access to contraceptives, it involved intensive youth work such as sports, job clubs and homework help.

Most UK sex education programmes seem half-hearted in comparison, providing the bare biological facts, perhaps alongside a demonstration of how to put a condom on a cucumber. "It's something I feel quite angry about," says Michael Adler, a former STD physician at University College London Hospital. In his job he saw many casualties of unsafe sex. "We're failing young people right at the beginning," he says.

Unfortunately policy makers have recently lost a good source of information about what works and what doesn't. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, commissioned a panel of external experts to carry out a rigorous review of various sex education programmes. The panel identified five strategies that were successful in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy, all based on comprehensive sex education, and the details were posted on the organisation's website. But in 2002 that information disappeared and the CDC will no longer release it.

According to the CDC press office, the review programme is being "re-evaluated". But sceptics fear it has been dumped because its conclusions don't fit with the Bush's administration's views. "They were inconsistent with the ideology to which this administration adheres," says Bill Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a liberal sex education advocacy group based in New York.

!!!

What of the study that made the newspaper headlines in the UK last year, showing that contraception provision is linked with higher STD rates? Perhaps it should not really be taken as a damning indictment of the liberal approach. The study looked at National Health Service family planning clinics, not school-based comprehensive sex education. Simply doling out condoms without tackling the wider issues is unlikely to have much impact. Anyway, should the correlation between sex clinics and STD levels really be so surprising? "Has it occurred to [David Paton] that they put more services in areas with high rates?" asks Roger Ingham.

[Insidious Rex]

In fact, amid all the scare stories, the average age when a person first has sex now appears to be levelling out at around 17 in the US and 16 in the UK. And although rates of STDs are on the increase in the UK, teenage pregnancy and birth rates are on a downward trend, as they have been in most developed countries for several years. A report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group in New York, concludes this is due to factors such as the rise of careers for women, and the increasing importance of education and training (Family Planning Perspectives, vol 32, p 14). Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that it is among society's lowest income groups that teen pregnancy rates are highest.

In the face of such complex societal forces, those who try to influence teenagers' behaviour on a day-to-day basis undoubtedly have a tough job on their hands. There may be no single solution. More research is needed to produce detailed information on which kind of sex education programmes work best, and in which contexts.

One approach is to involve older teenagers, on the premise that 14-year-olds may be more likely to listen to 18-year-olds than people of their parents' generation. Since having her son, Lynsey Tullin has started working for Brook, a young people's sexual health charity, to ensure that today's teenagers are more savvy about sex. "We talk the same language," she says.

A tactic that she finds hits home is to describe new parenthood in all its gory details - the nappies, the lack of sleep, a social life in tatters. "We run workshops about being parents, telling them what we went through," she says. "It's a shock."

Associated chart:

One thing I found interesting to note is that the problem with sex education is that its intended to counter the natural state of our species which is to have sex (and children!) during your teens. In fact for the vast majority of our history (who do I sound like now ) human females have generally coupled at a fairly young age and motherhood by 17-20 was considered standard. Its just recently that we have begun to purposefully delay this natural state of things because of education requirements and job requirements. We want a different kind of life that means holding off our instinct to breed for a while. So the approach we need to take to do this shouldn’t be one based on “tradition� at all. But on radical change really. Via education.

I also noted that it seems in the Netherlands where they have “frank sex education in schools and open attitudes to sex� more so then either the UK or the US we still see that teenagers there have “less casual sex and are older when they first have sex compared with the UK [and the US]�. Why is that? Apparently theres something going on that both the Sex Ed people and the Just Say No! people are missing. It shows us you CAN have success by emphasizing solid sex education. But what else is going on exactly?

And how sad it is that its simply a political/religious fight in our country (the US). Its REALLY disgusting to see that the Bush administration actually removed the data from studies showing the success of proper sex education. And you people call yourself moral!!!! They are basically KILLING kids so that they can push their religious agenda regarding sex. Absolutely beyond the pale! Simply disgusting in my opinion. Shouldnt this be ABOUT the kids and NOT about simply promoting a political or religious agenda?!

*deep breath*

It seems the ideal form of sex education is NOT either extreme but the careful middle ground where you have abstinence genuinely presented to kids as an option so that it breaches their consciousness but ALSO giving these kids the tools they need to be able to operate in the often dangerous world of sexuality. This is shown by the fact that those kids who were ONLY told not to have sex till they were married and then were told lies about how ineffective condoms were, were just as likely to get sexual diseases as those kids who were given an “aggressive� sex education with no abstinence teaching at all. Why? Because when they found themselves in a situation where sex was eminent they didn’t have a clue about at least protecting themselves. And they had sex without any protections. Or they didn’t use the protections correctly. And furthermore, its not simply teaching the mechanics. Its backing it up with programs designed to prevent the very social disadvantages that lead to teen prenancy. Sports clubs. Homework help groups. Job promotion. Etc. That should really be all a part of a proper over all sex education program.

So food for thought. We should neither be throwing condoms at them and telling them to be sure to have sex with these nor should we be throwing bibles at them and telling them to never have sex because its evil unless yer married.

[Insidious Rex]

And if yer a teenager and actually read that whole thing I think we dont need to worry about YOU having any sex any time soon.

Sorry about the length again...

[Millane]

Unfortunately policy makers have recently lost a good source of information about what works and what doesn't. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, commissioned a panel of external experts to carry out a rigorous review of various sex education programmes. The panel identified five strategies that were successful in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy, all based on comprehensive sex education, and the details were posted on the organisation's website. But in 2002 that information disappeared and the CDC will no longer release it.

According to the CDC press office, the review programme is being "re-evaluated". But sceptics fear it has been dumped because its conclusions don't fit with the Bush's administration's views. "They were inconsistent with the ideology to which this administration adheres," says Bill Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a liberal sex education advocacy group based in New York.

that truly is ****ed...
I havent really heard much about the sex ed programme they are teaching in australia now but i assume its still the fully detailed programme that i recieved which goes through everything pretty thouroghly...

[inked]

Good post IR, despite the length which wasn't bad. Since I have been excoriated on threads for posting CDC data, I am happy to see that yours has been well tolerated.

Perhaps the best combination is broad education and an emphasis on abstinence. I know of no study that suggests anyone anywhere at anytime has died from abstinence. Pimples maybee....... !

[The Gaffer]

Well, if we all over-indulged in abstinence the consequences would be severe.

Everything in moderation, including abstinence

But anyway, reliability of data would be a function of the method of collection and reporting, not the source.

* sigh * totally agree about the CDC thing. But that's been known about for a long time. Why didn't the democrats shout this kind of thing from the rafters?

[inked]

TG, that would be because the Democrats were too concerned with the need for the proliferation of their bases in the process that they didn't want anyone to know due to the effectiveness of the 70% programs .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Good post IR, despite the length which wasn't bad. Since I have been excoriated on threads for posting CDC data, I am happy to see that yours has been well tolerated.

ROTFL!!!!

Originally Posted by IRex

Its REALLY disgusting to see that the Bush administration actually removed the data from studies showing the success of proper sex education. And you people call yourself moral!!!! They are basically KILLING kids so that they can push their religious agenda regarding sex.

I'm sorry to see that you are going on hearsay from a liberal group about this.

Originally Posted by from IRex's article

According to the CDC press office, the review programme is being "re-evaluated". But sceptics fear it has been dumped because its conclusions don't fit with the Bush's administration's views. "They were inconsistent with the ideology to which this administration adheres," says Bill Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a liberal sex education advocacy group based in New York.

According to the CDC, it's being re-evaluated. Perhaps that's right. According to people with nothing to do with the CDC, "skeptics" and a guy from a "liberal sex education advocacy group", the data was pulled because it was inconsistent with the ideology of the Bush Administration. Why do you automatically believe these guys, with their OWN ideology, when the CDC says otherwise? I hope I'm never on trial with YOU on a jury! Why should you believe this Bill Smith guy, who has his OWN ideology? Honestly, I think you're overreacting to some scare tactics.

Shouldnt this be ABOUT the kids and NOT about simply promoting a political or religious agenda?!

Yes.

[The Gaffer]

IIRC, when the withdrawal decision was made, some data had already been collected which showed they weren't effective. One might question the motives of a person drawing attention to that and making the assumption that it had been censored, but to assume that it wasn't being censored would seem to be rather naive.

Inked, sorry but I don't understand your reply.

Anyhoo, the evidence seems pretty clear: that education programmes in general don't seem to work all that well, and that would seem to apply to abstinence-only as well as others. What does seem to work (in terms of reduced STDs and unwanted pregnancies) is giving people access to contraception.

I'd like to ask (generally, not to anyone in particular) how much effectiveness matters to this question. If we wanted to reduce STDs or unwanted pregnancies, we could just put some drug in pop tarts or something so that teenagers wouldn't get the horn.

Clearly, that would be immoral. So there's always some sort of trade-off between morality and "effectiveness".

My question is: how far does that go? If a person's moral code states that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, then I can well see that that person would have a problem with anything other than abstinence-only education. Whether it works or not, it would seem that such a person would want to encourage people to behave in a moral way. So where's the dividing line? When would it be acceptable to encourage immoral behaviour?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry to see that you are going on hearsay from a liberal group about this.

According to the CDC, it's being re-evaluated. Perhaps that's right. According to people with nothing to do with the CDC, "skeptics" and a guy from a "liberal sex education advocacy group", the data was pulled because it was inconsistent with the ideology of the Bush Administration. Why do you automatically believe these guys, with their OWN ideology, when the CDC says otherwise? I hope I'm never on trial with YOU on a jury! Why should you believe this Bill Smith guy, who has his OWN ideology? Honestly, I think you're overreacting to some scare tactics.

did you miss the part about it being PULLED from their web sites when the studies were deemed legitimate and clearly did NOT support the agenda of the white house? you happily accept the notion that the studies suddenly became flawed over night? And that everything the white house does no matter how dubious should be accepted at face value without question? If that’s the case why in the world wouldn’t they tell us WHY they now refuse to release that data? Just saying they are “re-evaluating� is simply asking for trouble. I mean sounds like something youd hear about in the former soviet union. And a conservative is celebrating this? I can only assume thats because it parallels your own political agenda. Whereas if the same situation had happened but from the opposite political agenda point of view you would be the first here yelling to high heaven about it.

Is it just coincidence that these studies (composed of “external experts� by the way… not “liberal groups�) went against what the Bush administration has been aggressively pushing for their political agenda? Is it even more coincidence that this same administration poured millions of dollars into “sex education� that has mislead and lied to kids in the name of that very same agenda? Open your eyes I say. There was no reason to censor legit data maintained by what SHOULD be an IMPARTIAL government service agency WITHOUT giving a real reason for the sudden move.

[inked]

The Gaffer says "My question is: how far does that go? If a person's moral code states that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage, then I can well see that that person would have a problem with anything other than abstinence-only education. Whether it works or not, it would seem that such a person would want to encourage people to behave in a moral way. So where's the dividing line? When would it be acceptable to encourage immoral behaviour?"

The proverbial nail on the head, Sir. In the USA where school funding is via tax dollars and public, the government's alignment may be a moral one or not as the govetrnment chooses. The problem becomes the militancy of the various groups involved in such.

There are advocates of "value-free" education who contend that since all morality is relative in their view, no moral teaching should be done at all. This of course elevates their value to the highest pinnacle: morality is relative. The argument is obvious bosh.

Then there are those who think Caesar should be "in bed" with specific values of libertinism and who regard any restriction on sheer hedonism as somehow interruptive of their rights (presumably to coitus as in coitus interruptus)which they regard as a dreadful imposition of abstinence or at least, shall we say, moderation?

Then we have the various religious moralities at play: Islamic, Christian, Bahai, independent, etc (Moloch worshippers are not an identified contingent yet, but give them time...).

Then we have the secularists who insist on "value-neutral" education who require A) the presentation of all moralities and values on an equal basis, or B) who insist on no values being taught because of 1) the complexity of A, or
2) they really think their way is best as in the "value free" above.

What Caesar gets is an increasingly libidinous society which has no moral compass and no moral values and pursues whatever its momentary desires are at full speed...until a more disciplined culture successfully ends the dithering and bickering and licentiousness (at least on the part of the conquered).

So it would seem that to encourage immoral behaviour is a non-sequitur, at least in theory. But it usually devolves into a practical value of what advances Caesar's agenda - until some bright soul realizes that there is NEVER a value-less Caesar.

The exercise of individual freedom must take into account the social consequences in some way. There must be a balance. As it is, the pendulum sways between latitudinarian and controlled, between late and early Roman, as it were. The presentation of serious options of abstinence
and responsible behaviours when no longer choosing abstinence is the best combo.

[inked]

Liberal and weak clergy blamed for empty pews

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE LONDON TIMES

LONDON (2/6/2005)--CHURCHGOING is in freefall in Britain because clergy and ministers are failing to stand up for moral values and treasured beliefs, a new survey has found.

Churches are being “silent� and “lukewarm� in the face of moral and social collapse, according to the £20,000, year-long study of 14,000 British churchgoers and those who have left the Church.

Researchers found “a widespread sense of anger and frustration� at what was happening to churches in the UK and Ireland. The 42-page report is an indictment of modern preaching and worship, illustrating how excessive liberalism and lack of conviction are driving worshippers from the pews.

The report portrays a desire for sermons based on the Bible and traditional teaching, rather than on politics, social affairs or audience-pleasing stunts.

The report calls for better apologetics, or Christian teaching, and claims that many clergy are unable to mount a convincing argument in defence of Christianity and are not interested in trying. When asked to explain why Christianity might be true, the common response is: “It is just a matter of faith.�

The report says: “This has resulted in a growing number of people being left with the false impression that there are no strong reasons for Christian belief. Ultimately they abandon churchgoing and are mystified that Christianity continues to grow elsewhere in the world.�

The report blames the contemporary practice of teaching the universal nature of God’s love. Because people believe God will continue to love them no matter what they do, they no longer see any need to go to church to confess their sins or seek guidance on how to change their lives. The aim was to explore the reasons why Christianity is in decline in Britain and Ireland but thrives in other parts of the world, including prosperous countries such as the US.

Researchers found that the thousands of people who still do go to church do so out of a sense of duty and not because it brings them any fulfilment. They report widespread criticism of the current fashion for “family� or “all age� services for bordering on entertainment rather than worship. One Shropshire churchgoer said: “I’ve seen balloons rising from the pulpit, fake moustaches and all manner of audience appeal . . . but with no real message behind it.�

Instead, churchgoers want to be told how to live a Christian life, and to understand how to evangelise in a society distracted by materialism. The report correlates statistics from the past 150 years showing attendance rising in the last half of the 19th century and peaking around 1905 before going into steady decline, with an inverse trend of crime, drunkenness and illegitimacy falling to a low at the turn of the 19th century and then steadily rising.

END
*******

When there is a strong moral sense there are consequences. When there is no strong moral sense there are consequences. I thought this reflective of the change in GB over the last century - no doubt impeccably researched.

[Rían]

IRex - I won't address your post point-by-point; the only thing I wanted to point out was your apparent total and complete acceptance of an interpretation put on the situation by groups described in the article as "skeptics" and a guy from a "liberal sex education advocacy group". That's all

There was no reason to censor legit data maintained by what SHOULD be an IMPARTIAL government service agency WITHOUT giving a real reason for the sudden move.

The reason given was, 'the review programme is being "re-evaluated"'. How do you know this is a sudden step? How do you know whether or not it's been thought about for a while and then they decided to pull the info and re-evaluate it? You MAY be right. But I don't think it's a good move to automatically buy into something that supports your bias and get all angry about it. These topics are emotional enough as it is! Perhaps it's a legitimate concern on the part of the CDC.

I doubt that you'll agree with me, but there it is.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IRex - I won't address your post point-by-point; the only thing I wanted to point out was your apparent total and complete acceptance of an interpretation put on the situation by groups described in the article as "skeptics" and a guy from a "liberal sex education advocacy group". That's all

Rian Im the one that POSTED the article. Youll notice I didnt censor the part about the “liberal sex education advocacy group� because (unlike the Bush administration) I don’t have a problem with full disclosure. And frankly Im a bit disappointed that you would read that WHOLE article which was BALANCED and had issues with BOTH extremes really, and simply jump on the single phrase “liberal sex education advocacy group.� Although I guess I shouldn’t say Im surprised though…

It certainly doesn’t matter WHO pointed this out because of the FACTS of the case. You don’t censor a study that has been found to be legitimate by “external experts�, POSTED on a government site THEN once the new agenda has been established PULLED OFF same site and explained ONLY with a mysterious and totalitarian like ve are “re-evaluating� dis information… and that’s it. Again I ask you how can you celebrate (even support) such tactics with a straight face? Just because a (heaven forbid) liberal spoke up on this is means we should automatically take the governments side without any explanation? I would dare say it makes sense for a liberal group to speak on this issue because it goes directly AGAINST what most of them believe is the right approach to sex education. And frankly, because they aren’t afraid to call a spade a spade. Would you expect a conservative to jump up and down about this? No most of them will just keep quite and hope no one makes a big fuss about it.

The reason given was, 'the review programme is being "re-evaluated"'. How do you know this is a sudden step? How do you know whether or not it's been thought about for a while and then they decided to pull the info and re-evaluate it?

then why wouldn’t they say Hey people HERE and HERE and HERE is where its wrong. THAT’S why we are pulling it. I know it looks horrible because of our agenda and all but really truly there are legit reasons for it. but no we got NONE of that. Quite obviously a call was made and quick action was taken without real thought (or caring?) as to how it would look from the public perspective. Yet despite how foul it smells you STILL sit there saying hey well I don’t see any problem with it I trust government to do the right thing. Well honestly I find that a little scary really.

But I don't think it's a good move to automatically buy into something that supports your bias and get all angry about it.

oh whats good for the goose isn’t good for the gander eh. Better not post any more ACLU threads then or act indignant about any issue you feel goes against your “truth� (since my “truth� is simply “bias�?). When you get bent out of shape because the city seal is too pagan and not Christian enough I don’t berate you and tell you you are silly for being angry because someone mentioned a conservative group or speaker in the article about the subject. I respect your right to be peeved as legitimate based on the facts of the case at hand. And THIS particular case seems fairly cut and dry to me. Now im sure the administration will pressure the CDC to eventually put its own spin on it and come up with a reason after the fact for why such a move had to be made. But they already lost credibility when they yanked it off in the dead of night and refused to give any real immediate reason for this action. Washington is a political town. And politics rule the day. And the Bush administration with throw around as much muscle as anyone. And frankly there agenda on this issue is more important to them in my opinion then basic truth. This has been shown not only through this specific instance but also in the “education� they have been promoting complete with distortions and lies designed to scare kids rather then teach kids.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My official response, however, is this: IMO, you owe me an apology for those insults. Whether or not you give me one is up to you, obviously.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, but those aren't insults. Unless you consider it an insult to tell someone they have their head in the sand and their eyes closed.

And further, I repeat that I have NOT been taught "to think of sex as the source of the ultimate source of all of humanities sins". Please don't assign thoughts to me that I don't have Are those perhaps your thoughts?

I forgot, you're not a mind reader. I should have said fear of sex outside monotheistic religiously sanctioned marriage.

I would also like an apology for your "try to be rational" line, unless you can give evidence that I have been consistently irrational. And disagreeing with your opinion is certainly not acceptable evidence!

Sorry, but I don't think you are going to get it. It is my opinion that you are being irrational about certain things.

Not the least of which is going away off on this discussion because of a reaction to an incidental comment on lawrence v texas.

I'm also done with this thread, it's been hashed over enough. If there are still people in the US that think abstinence only based education is a good idea, they can stay that way as far as I'm concerned, and vote how they like.

I'm trying to get set up to move my operations out of the US.

[Rían]

btw, I guess your world destruction didn't work this time - sorry

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'm trying to get set up to move my operations out of the US.

You mean your 18 & 19 year old teen porn operations? J/K
You all need to lighten up.

... on teen abstinence, I still say wait til they're 20...