All or nothing?

[portarica]

I understand that this forum generally leans toward the “orthodox” end of the spectrum and I admire the loyalty and commitment to their faith that most people seem to have here.

But do we ever consider that sometimes the all or nothing attitude may be counter productive to achieving Jesus’ stated goals?

For instance, take the issue of abortion.Lets assume for arguments sake that we all are pro-life and especially so when it comes to abortion.

Can we advocate for comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence in schools, which has generally been seen to best reduce the teen pregnancy rate and resultant abortions. Or must we be precluded from advocating that comprehensive approach because it doesn’t exclude discussion of premarital sex and contraception?

There are other issues that also have a component of the biting off our noses to spite our faces element in them, if they produce ends that are counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings are they still totally valid holdings?

Peace

 

[Barbkw]

IMO, the public school has no right or reason to teach children (who are without income or jobs) how to use artificial contraception.

They do it however, to advance a “secular intellectual elite” agenda. They know better than these childrens’ parents, on how sexuality should be taught to the greater public.

 

[streetpreacher]

Because the moment you water down the message, stance, and belief to make it acceptable by the world, it loses what it means in the first place. The children that learn through the secular system, given both options, are going to consider both as being equally valid, when one is a grave mortal sin, the other is not, some how I think if that particular lesson is taught, the last thing the instructor will be addressing are the moral issues.

At best, we can address issues, explain what they mean and why we have our stances the way they are, it’s up to the recipient to listen, yet only a fraction will do so, for their ears have been deafened and their eyes are closed. The last thing I want to do is entice others into the faith through watering down the message, if it’s too much for them, they can pray about it, the Holy Spirit will guide them to the truth, if they listen to the spirit and not the flesh, they will be in agreement…

 

[portarica]

Because the moment you water down the message, stance, and belief to make it acceptable by the world, it loses what it means in the first place. The children that learn through the secular system, given both options, are going to consider both as being equally valid, when one is a grave mortal sin, the other is not, some how I think if that particular lesson is taught, the last thing the instructor will be addressing are the moral issues.

At best, we can address issues, explain what they mean and why we have our stances the way they are, it’s up to the recipient to listen, yet only a fraction will do so, for their ears have been deafened and their eyes are closed. The last thing I want to do is entice others into the faith through watering down the message, if it’s too much for them, they can pray about it, the Holy Spirit will guide them to the truth, if they listen to the spirit and not the flesh, they will be in agreement…

So is that stance all or nothing or is it just giving up in the face of adversity .

As to enticing others into the faith with a watered down version, do you know of any religion that requires perfect adherence to what Jesus taught? Every religion has watered down Jesus’ message to some extent. From a practical standpoint following Jesus’ message with the total awareness of how it impacts each and everyone of our actions and omissions is just too difficult.

Peace

 

[portarica]

IMO, the public school has no right or reason to teach children (who are without income or jobs) how to use artificial contraception.

They do it however, to advance a “secular intellectual elite” agenda. They know better than these childrens’ parents, on how sexuality should be taught to the greater public.

But government does have the right to teach children about contraception, and in many instances parents have left the sexual education of children up to the schools and to the peers of the children. Is that good for society in general and the goals of Jesus in particular?

Peace

 

[puzzleannie]

quote function doesn’t seem to be working for mebut let’s take the issue of murder, WWJD. OP seems to be saying he would say, well look all my disciples are walking away because I reminded them murder was a sin, and moreover told them cruel words against a brother are as bad as murder. Hmmm maybe I should water it down and tell them selective murder is okay, or activities that endanger life but don’t result in immediate death are okay, after all, having lots of disciples is more important than my mission of preaching the Truth.

 

[St_Francis]

So is that stance all or nothing or is it just giving up in the face of adversity .

As to enticing others into the faith with a watered down version, do you know of any religion that requires perfect adherence to what Jesus taught? Every religion has watered down Jesus’ message to some extent. From a practical standpoint following Jesus’ message with the total awareness of how it impacts each and everyone of our actions and omissions is just too difficult.

Peace

What do you mean by requires? If you mean that we all have to be perfectly good all of the time, Catholicism teaches that “all have sinned,” and provides a venue for dealing with imperfect adherence. Even those later canonized as saints went to confession regularly, some even more often than most of us very unsaintly folks.

So I would not say that Catholicism has in any way watered down the message of Christ, unless you have some specific examples you would share with us.

 

[Corki]

But government does have the right to teach children about contraception,

The government only has rights over our children to the extent we give them those rights. The government in my state has not been given the right to teach children about contraception.

and in many instances parents have left the sexual education of children up to the schools and to the peers of the children.

I think this is a chicken and egg argument. Starting back in the 60s schools started telling parents “don’t worry; we’ll handle that uncomfortable sex education so you don’t have to”. Parents started relying on that and some parents let that be the only sex ed their kids received.

Is that good for society in general and the goals of Jesus in particular?

No, it is not good for society to have sex ed taught in the schools instead of by families. No, it does not foster the goals of Jesus to have sex ed taught in the schools - especially not the way it is now (with or without ABC and abortion included) in the manner that destroys the innocence of children and encourages risky behavior.

 

[Barbkw]

“But government does have the right to teach children about contraception, and in many instances parents have left the sexual education of children up to the schools and to the peers of the children.”

Why?

From a communicable disease stand point, I can understand that in explanation. But not to show children how to unroll and use a condom on a banana.

 

[St_Francis]

But government does have the right to teach children about contraception, and in many instances parents have left the sexual education of children up to the schools and to the peers of the children. Is that good for society in general and the goals of Jesus in particular?

Peace

The Church teaches that the parents have primary responsibility to teach the children God has given to them. The government does not have the *right *to teach them anything at all, and certainly not about something which is immoral, as the use of artificial contraceptives. What the government has is a duty to support the parents in the task of educating the children.

It is certainly not good for the goals of Christ, society in general, or the children themselves for the parents to leave the teaching of such a delicate and private matter to the schools, I agree. Each would be best served if parents taught their children themselves about these matters in a context of encouraging self-discipline and a prayerful life which would allow the children as they grow older to live in accordance with Christ’s teachings.

 

[portarica]

quote function doesn’t seem to be working for mebut let’s take the issue of murder, WWJD. OP seems to be saying he would say, well look all my disciples are walking away because I reminded them murder was a sin, and moreover told them cruel words against a brother are as bad as murder. Hmmm maybe I should water it down and tell them selective murder is okay, or activities that endanger life but don’t result in immediate death are okay, after all, having lots of disciples is more important than my mission of preaching the Truth.

No that is not the case at all. I never said to water down ones values or principles, but to look more closely at what the actual highest priority is and adjust the tactics to achieve the desired outcome.

What you mentioned about killing is how we arrived at justified war, we watered down the principles of not killing and made them conform to the perceived needs of secular states.What goal of Jesus did that make happen?

What I’m suggesting is that we do not bite off our noses to spite our faces.

Perhaps what Jesus might say is that just as being cruel to a brother is as bad a sin as murder, the forgiving of the murderer should come as easily as forgiving those that verbally abuse us. That neither diminishes the principles of Jesus nor does it ignore the reality that sometimes we need to put things into perspective to arrive at well principled solutions.

One of the problems I have with not settling for the all or nothing approach is that it isn’t as easy as settling for the all or nothing approach. Your example is systematic of that problem. It is easy to come up with a construct that appears to give credence to the all or nothing approach, the creativity to come up with solutions that are both principled and effective requires more effort and reflection.

That’s why the wisdom of some of the teachings of Jesus is so very awesome. Take the concept of requiring the first stone to be throw by the one without sin. At first glance it seems to allow for capital punishment, especially if Mary was present, but on the other hand it makes the actual application of capital punishment impossible by the fact that we are all with sin. It gives to Caesar what is Caesar’s , yet doesn’t allow Caesar to take what is Jesus’.

Peace

 

[katieh921]

I think the schools should teach about contraception, birth control, abstinence, etc. Families should then teach their kids the morals of having sex before marriage. It isn’t the public school system’s place to enforce religious morals on kids.

Getting taught about contraception isn’t going to make kids decide to go have sex. Society and lack of teaching from parents are what is responsible for kids having sex.

 

[Corki]

I think the schools should teach about contraception, birth control, abstinence, etc. Families should then teach their kids the morals of having sex before marriage. It isn’t the public school system’s place to enforce religious morals on kids.

The other day, I heard an interesting response to this kind of statement.

We expect our schools to enforce morals in any number of areas. We want them to teach that bullying is wrong, cheating is wrong, helping others is good, recycling is good, being disrespectful to elders is wrong, sticking up for the weak is good, etc.

Why is it that when it comes to sex we want the school to stay out of the moral side of the teaching?

 

[katieh921]

The other day, I heard an interesting response to this kind of statement.

We expect our schools to enforce morals in any number of areas. We want them to teach that bullying is wrong, cheating is wrong, helping others is good, recycling is good, being disrespectful to elders is wrong, sticking up for the weak is good, etc.

Why is it that when it comes to sex we want the school to stay out of the moral side of the teaching?

Because without looking at the issue religiously, it isn’t really wrong. Bullying, disrespect, etc…these are pretty much objectively wrong. Someone is making someone else feel bad. That is wrong religiously or not. Sex out of wedlock is only wrong if you view sex as God’s gift to humanity and view it as a sacred thing. If you don’t believe in God then you likely wouldn’t have this view.

Who is really supporting abstinence only teaching in schools? I can only imagine the great majority of them are Christians.

 

[JimG]

Educators do use the all or nothing approach in some cases. For example: just say no to drugs; just say no to bullying; zero tolerance on weapons; zero tolerance on drugs in school—even aspirin. And No smoking.

They don’t generally teach safe use of drugs, methods of safe bullying, or recommend the use of bullet-proof clothing for protection in gun-fights, or the use of filter tip cigarettes if you choose to smoke.

But when it comes to extra-marital sex, which is bad for kids, the attitude is, well, we know you’re going to do it anyway, so let’s learn some ways to make it not so dangerous.
The message the kids get is, they know we’re going to do it, so it’s expected.

 

[PJM]

=portarica;7186004]I understand that this forum generally leans toward the “orthodox” end of the spectrum and I admire the loyalty and commitment to their faith that most people seem to have here.

But do we ever consider that sometimes the all or nothing attitude may be counter productive to achieving Jesus’ stated goals?

For instance, take the issue of abortion.Lets assume for arguments sake that we all are pro-life and especially so when it comes to abortion.

Can we advocate for comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence in schools, which has generally been seen to best reduce the teen pregnancy rate and resultant abortions. Or must we be precluded from advocating that comprehensive approach because it doesn’t exclude discussion of premarital sex and contraception?

There are other issues that also have a component of the biting off our noses to spite our faces element in them, if they produce ends that are counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings are they still totally valid holdings?

Peace

WOW! Awesome post! Thanks.

While I’m unformfortable with your verbage of “all or nothing” without disagreeing with it; it sems to that like both the Late GREAT JP II said and as His Holiness Benedict XVI said:
:There cannot be your truth and my truth; for then there would be NO TRUTH.

So despite [perhaps because of] ONLY a single truth is possible; confrontation seems sadly eneveable. Still we must, Kown, Live and SHARE this singular truth, without which Salvation becomes close to impossible.

 

[Brendan]

There are other issues that also have a component of the biting off our noses to spite our faces element in them, if they produce ends that are counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings are they still totally valid holdings?

Peace

What you would need to ask yourself is what does Jesus want the kids to do?

Does He desire them to use contraceptives or does He desire them to abstain until marriage.

Once you have determined what Jesus wants, the next question becomes “Does the Church have the authority to advocate any behavior that Christ Himself does not desire”

You sound like you are trying to rewrite the Bible. When Christ spoke to the adulteress, He told her “Go and sin no more” NOT “Go and sin no more, but if you do, use a condom”.

Likewise, He told us “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect”. Christ WANTS perfect behaviour, for us to be sinless. For the Church to say anything otherwise would be it denying the very words of Christ.

Follow the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of the world. To be truely Christian is to be countercultural.

 

[Barbkw]

I don’t trust public school educators to know what is appropriate to teach children. They have agendas and most of those are hidden.

For example, look at the NEA website - nea.org/home/19583.htm

How nice, right?

Then read this:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09080701.html

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, August 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the National Education Association (NEA) last month confirmed its support for abortion and same-sex “marriage,” one teacher’s association is reporting an influx of new members seeking an ethical alternative source of liability insurance and other benefits.

The American Association of Educators (AAE) says that more teachers are discovering their legal options, after the NEA in its July convention voted down an attempt to end the group’s abortion advocacy, and strengthened their support for same-sex “marriage.”

In addition, they say, teachers coming to the AAE have expressed outrage with retiring NEA general counsel Bob Chanin’s speech at the same convention, where he launched into a tirade against “right-wing bastards” who are challenging the organization’s liberal politics.

As the largest teacher’s association in America, the AAE says it can provide teachers with liability insurance, access to legal assistance, and supplementary insurance benefit plans - all without the politics of the NEA. Although many American teachers are unable to break free of paying union dues, says the group, the story does not end there.

Gary Beckner, AAE’s Executive Director, said many teachers are unaware of the legal options available to keep their dues from supporting the NEA’s liberal politics.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

But government does have the right to teach children about contraception, and in many instances parents have left the sexual education of children up to the schools and to the peers of the children. Is that good for society in general and the goals of Jesus in particular?

Peace

No, that is NOT the function of government! The public schools should be educating children in ACADEMIC subjects, not the proper role of sexuality in human lives!

Planned Parenthood and the sexuality branch of the US government are just dandy with teaching your children about all kinds of sex from kindergarten up. They teach that any sort of sex is normal, that any sort of relationship is normal and that sex itself is not only normal and healthy, it is value-neutral and has no meaning other than physical pleasure.

“Comprehensive sex education” is a code phrase that means what is being taught is licentiousness and fleshly pleasures. It undermines parents’ authority as well, because all through the curriculum, kids are told “Your parents won’t understand you, so don’t expect them do. Don’t even bother to talk to them, because they are old-fashioned and out of touch.”

It’s very subversive. Get Planned Parenthood OUT of your child’s school!

Here is where SEICUS sends people for more information on abstinence-only programs. the KINSEY Institute? Planned Parenthood? As if they know ANYTHING about abstinence!

Abstinence Only Until Marriage Programs
For more information on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, try these websites.

Advocates for Youth

ETR Associates

The Guttmacher Institute

The Kinsey Institute

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Here is SEICUS curriculum. Notice that the genders are not separated out, the girls hear all about boys and the boys hear all about girls. Totally inappropriate! Your eyes will bug out of your head when you read this. Many school districts use this program.

sexedlibrary.org/

 

[RosaryFan]

I understand that this forum generally leans toward the “orthodox” end of the spectrum and I admire the loyalty and commitment to their faith that most people seem to have here.

But do we ever consider that sometimes the all or nothing attitude may be counter productive to achieving Jesus’ stated goals?

For instance, take the issue of abortion.Lets assume for arguments sake that we all are pro-life and especially so when it comes to abortion.

Can we advocate for comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence in schools, which has generally been seen to best reduce the teen pregnancy rate and resultant abortions. Or must we be precluded from advocating that comprehensive approach because it doesn’t exclude discussion of premarital sex and contraception?

There are other issues that also have a component of the biting off our noses to spite our faces element in them, if they produce ends that are counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings are they still totally valid holdings?

Peace

Talking about premarital sex and contraception with teens IS counterproductive to Jesus’ teachings.