It still is not cool to have premarital sex, no matter what your religious beliefs are.
At least, that’s what the courts will tell you. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday handed down a verdict ruling the Governor’s Program on Abstinence does not “convey religious messages and advance religion.”
The ruling stems from a case the American Civil Liberties Union brought against the program, claiming it used tax dollars to advance a religious agenda.
According to an article in The Advocate, both parties settled the suit, deciding no religion occurred in the program. Abstinence program officials agreed to make sure participants promote abstinence as a prevention for teenage pregnancy and STDs without using religion as a justification for this behavior.
My question is, if abstinence only education is not based on religious beliefs, on what is it based? And if not faith-based, what is its justification? Abstinence is 100 percent effective, but don’t we have a responsibility to teach alternatives as well, unless religious reasons prevent this?
Religion is the only possible justification for this type of program. A secular perspective would require teaching any and all prevention methods, regardless of whether sex participants have rings on their fingers. So just admit that’s the perspective the program takes.
It’s not as if saying this program is faith-based would promote only a Christian agenda. I cannot think of a single Western religion that condones premarital sex or does not prescribe abstinence in some way, shape or form.
But, if you strip (pardon the pun) away religion, what is left to justify the program? Why else are people supposed to wait until marriage? Sure, there are society’s ideals and expectations, but those are based on — you guessed it — religion.
I’m not saying religion is a weak or untrue justification for abstinence; just admit that’s why we’re preaching it. At my Catholic high school, abstinence was the one topic in our sex ed classes (the lesson plans for sex ed are when birth control and sex are taboo subjects). We all knew this prevention method was religion-based, and we all derived our beliefs about sex before marriage based on our faith.
I’m a faithful person, but I’m also a realist. I know many people do not harbor religious beliefs, and others who do conform to one religion or another may not conform to that religion’s beliefs about premarital sex.
We all know abstinence is the one surefire prevention method, mostly because there’s nothing to prevent. But if this program really aims to cut down on the bad side effects of sex, the moderators need to wake up to reality.
Stated plainly, unmarried people have sex. Not all of them, maybe not even most of them, but some do. And if sex educators choose to close their eyes and blindly preach abstinence, they’ve accomplished nothing.
Fifty-five percent of Southern school districts preach abstinence only in sex ed classes, according to a 1999 study. However, only 20 percent in the Northeast do. And yet, the South has higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. Wonder why that could be?
People in the South need to keep the Bible Belt mentality from preventing prevention. Yes, in an ideal world, everyone would wait until marriage. And if people want to use religion as a justification for this, fine.
But if the program really is not religion-based and aims to cut down on pregnancy and disease, keep mentioning abstinence. But don’t forget to talk about condoms, birth control pills and other methods, too. After all, it’s better for Louisiana’s kids to be safe than to spend nine months being really, really sorry.