Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed

WrongSizeGlass writes "USA Today is reporting that the DA of Juneau County, Wisconsin, is warning teachers that they could face arrest over the new sex-ed curriculum. District Attorney Scott Southworth said a new state law that requires students learn to use condoms and other contraceptives 'promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.' Southworth also said, 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers. I've got enough work to do.'"

Comments

Re:Why contradictory?

[similar_name]

I don't think any of those examples of contradictions in the law.

You are 61 miles away from the courthouse, are due in court in 1 hour, and the speed limit is 60 miles per hour. You are either going to break the law by speeding, or break the law by missing your appointed court time.

You should have left for court earlier.

A person who has taken out a restraining order on you is standing in the only exit from a private building from which you have been asked to leave. Remaining inside is trespassing. Walking past that person is a violation of the restraining order.

You have a restraining order and you put yourself in a position to be asked to leave. Sounds like your problem not the laws.

You discover that a bag you recently picked up is full of cocaine. Continuing to hold onto it is a felony. Dropping it is anywhere from a weak misdemeanor (littering) to a felony (various unlikely scenarios).

Don't pick up bags that aren't yours and they won't have cocaine in them. Unless that's what you want.

I'm sure there are laws that contradict each other but these aren't it.

"Religionist?"

[Valdrax]

In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.

What is a "religionist?" If you can't communicate your intent with common, neutral language and feel the need to coin special jargon to dehumanize your opponents (e.g. by lumping them all together in a sinister "-ism"), then that's generally a bad sign on whether you're coming from a point of view that's not particularly based on reason or open-mindedness.

Or to rephrase, you don't sound any better than the people you're decrying. Substitute "ignorant" for "evil," and you sound like any other fundamentalist.

Re:"Religionist?"

[Valdrax]

The people who believe in superstition are not worthy of the respect of modern humans. Their drivel should not even be in the marketplace of ideas, deserves nothing but scorn and attack, and is a drag on human progress.

Then you have utterly closed your mind off from seeing if any of their ideas on society are worthwhile merely because they are "tainted" with the association of "superstition." You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you wish to engage in genetic fallacy and call it logic, then feel free, but realize that most people consider this sort of strident hate-spewing towards people who are merely "wrong" in your book as a sign of poor credibility.

Well, except Ann Coulter fans, anyway.

The only people who want religion respected are superstitionists themselves.

While I'm sure the militant Dawkins fan club has your back, I somehow doubt that all atheists are quite so arrogant in their beliefs. You might as well ask a Fred Phelps supporter if "real" Christians respect atheism. Anyone who advocates religious tolerance must be No True Scotsman, eh?

Ardent belief in the absence of God is no more provable than ardent belief in the presence of God. It's a matter of Faith. You're just another religious zealot insisting that his interpretation of the unprovable mysteries of existence is the "holy truth" and that all the unbelievers need to be purged. And so, I close by saying, "Bah."

Re:Translation for the legislative impared.

[VShael]

How's that war on actual facts going?

Have you seen Fox News lately? I think they're winning.

Re:Sex

[dfenstrate]

Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear.

Humans are, and you're one of them. One of the nice things about the Judea-Christian Heritage is that it teaches some humility, a desirable trait.

In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition.

And the faux-intellectual elite hate it when traditions are taught that impede their desire to fornicate with anything willing. Unfortunately, they fail to see the basis for teaching self-restraint ("Any pleasure not rationed by a preacher or priest is evil"), and think that because these traditions are taught with supernatural stories, they must be just as worthless as superstition.

The hallmark of such people is a complete and utter lack of imagination, as they can't see that religion would be a good vehicle for passing forward practices that experience has shown to be beneficial to society. They seek to tear down religion, but in fact have no realistic alternative for teaching useful morals and values that has been demonstrated on a widespread scale.

Don't be too in love with specifically articulated rationality. The ability to explain useful traditions is limited by the individuals experience, by their verbal skills, and by your ability to listen. Since you started out by implying how awesome you think you are compared to everyone else, your attention will always be a weak link.

The traditions you deride have moved our civilization through the last several thousand years. You're not smart enough to create such a legacy. You can look around the world and see that there are many traditions far worse than the western one.