What are the Biblical terms for “contraception”, “erectile dysfunction”, and “anal sex?”

Well let’s see. I guess anal sex could be described as “sodomy” if you use the term, uh, loosely. Contraception could be expressed as say, “wasting seed.” As for erectile dysfunction, hmmm. Oh I know, “piety!”

What are the Biblical terms for “contraception”, “erectile dysfunction”, and “anal sex?”

How about “fisting”? “Blowjob”? “Rimming”?

More importantly–where are those examples they spoke of? The Bible may be a much more interesting book than I heretofore believed!

I’m atheist now. Indoctrination doesn’t always work.

That is why I went on to say,

On the one hand, protecting their rights also protects ours. On the other, it practically ensures global and societal collapse.

In my view, it’s a lose-lose situation.

There is a very large contingent of homeschoolers who are fundamentalist Christians. However, there are also very many secular homeshcoolers, which includes both nontheists and some very mainstream religious folks who don’t believe that religion needs to be infused into everything. Secular homeschoolers tend not to get noticed as much because we blend in with the rest of y’all, whereas the fundie homeschoolers do tend to isolate and segregate themselves. They have all kinds of activities just for themselves (homeschool soccer, homeschool band, homeschool whatever), but my kids and other secular homeschooled kids do the same things as publicly schooled kids. My kids do Tae Kwon Do, soccer, dance, girl scouts, Cub Scouts, fencing, and baseball in regular community groups, and typically the other kids don’t even know they’re homeschooled. They have friends who are homeschooled and others who aren’t. My point here is that not all homeschoolers are denim-jumper wearing, lord-praising fundies; they’re just the most visible.

As far as curriculum goes, oversight varies by state. Some states regulate heavily and others don’t. We do come across a lot of the A Beka and similar materials, and they kind of make me cringe. I can tell you that most homeschoolers, even the religious ones, don’t use a single source of curriculum. It’s usually pretty eclectic. Many people vary the curriculum within their family depending on each child’s learning style. Even the fundamentalists aren’t usually exposed only to their own worldview. Most homeschooled kids, religious or not, do end up prepared for college or the working world. The flip side of that is that there are a lot of kids going to public K-12 schools who still get the religious indoctrination outside of school and still believe it for the rest of their life. And after spending a year teaching an intro level college course a couple years ago, I can attest that there are a number of publicly-schooled kids who aren’t being adequately prepared academically.

While I do think it’s unfortunate that kids are exposed to this kind of material, I have to support a parent’s ability to direct the education of their own children. Some of the things the fundies teach their kids scare me, but statements like this, from above, scare me more:

I’m wondering whether or not it may be time to start pushing for an end to constitutional protections for stupidity – “I can believe whatever I want to believe”.

Do we really want the government telling us what we can or can’t believe? I’d be willing to bet that atheism wouldn’t be on the approved list.

Children raised in environments which consistently reward convergent reasoning and strict adherence but punish divergent reasoning, could conceivably grow into adults who are prone to getting stuck in various beliefs or ideologies. Might our current preoccupation with strict religious fundamentalism be creating obstacles to resolving the complex dilemmas we face in the world today? If we continue to insist that children around the world unfailingly adhere to the tenets of religious fundamentalism which promote intolerance, are we doomed to repeat the past simply because we have nurtured a world of thinkers who will not diverge from what they are told?

Cipher,

Above is a paragraph from the said article that you are referring to. And thank you again for sharing it. First of all, I don’t know that it’s at all conclusive that fundamentalism is genetically linked. And I don’t think you can single out the religious when discussing the subject of promoting intolerance.

While the article addresses religious fundamentalism in particular, I believe we can apply it across the board to any belief system or ideology. The fundies do not have a monopoly on close-mindedness. We pass down all kinds of ideas and beliefs to our children in an attempt to make them think like us. If not consciously or purposely, they learn simply by watching and mimicking.

I just wanted to point out that the hatred (or intolerance) for the religious is also an ideology that can influence and shape our children.

Yes, I know. It’s one factor among many. Not conclusive, but enough evidence to warrant taking it seriously. Just something to take into consideration. I wasn’t trying to make a hard and fast point. My point was that fundamentalism appears to be self-perpetuating, and it’s here to stay.

Let’s not be too quick to conclude a genetic basis from a neurological basis. Always keep in mind that development and environment play a big role in the final shape of the phenotype. The genes aren’t so much an exact blueprint as a sort of set of rough guidelines, and phenotypic plasticity is always there.

I have seen some studies which provide some provocative evidence of a neurological basis for certain fundamentalist and conservative tendencies (if I remember correctly, one recent study that I remember used an EEG to measure activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, which reacts to cognitive dissonance, and found that self identified conservatives has less activity in the ACC). So while it’s definitely not a closed case by any means, there’s at least enough evidence to take the neurological hypothesis seriously.

But that does not prove it’s inherited. The results could be due to brain plasticity or some other phenomenon. Also, genetic predispositions will react differently to different environments. Or, the brain patterns could be the result of training or habituation. There are many ways that the neurological component of fundamentalism (if it exists) could be produced that aren’t necessarily genetic.

The article I sent you a couple of months ago presents evidence favoring a neurological basis for ideological preference. If further research bears this out – and I fully expect that it will – I think it’s reasonable to infer it’s a heritable trait.

There is also a growing body of evidence that fundamentalism has a neurological basis. If this is true – and I’ve suspected as much for years, long before it became a subject of research – they’re passing this trait onto their progeny.

cipher,

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Yes, I also agree that there is a link between fundamentalism and cognitive preferences, but to say that religious fundamentalism is genetically passed down is unfounded, in my opinion.

The research indicates genetic predisposition to certain personality traits. Those traits are present in people within all different belief systems; not only the fundamental religious groups. As Richard pointed out, the “Rational Taliban” people would have similar traits as the “Religious Taliban” people. Different beliefs; similar traits.