Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mojeaux131

Dobson's Warning

Recommended Posts

There was an op-ed in the New York Times by Focus on the Family's James Dobson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Basically he's warning that he and all his friends will find an independent candidate if both R and D nominees support abortion. He also mentions the importance of upholding and preserving "conservative" principles like "the institution of marriage" in addition to "the sanctity of life". For the others, he kind of generalizes.

A-nyway, I often find myself opposing this guy and his friends. To me, family values includes being supportive of gay families as well as more commonplace "tab A-slot B" families, and the sanctity of life includes policies that are well, kind or beneficial to people. This would not include Bush's recent veto of the SCHIP expansion bill, which would have cost what we spend in Iraq in half a month and which was much cheaper than the Medicare D expansion he was so gung ho about (and which passed) in 2003.

Another of Dobson's friends, the disgraced Ted Haggard once compared gay pride parades to parades for murderers. Don't ya just love these guys? And look what happened there. A lot of people think that the really nutty homophobes (or perhaps most homophobes actually) turn out to be gay themselves. ha ha ha

Actually, I'm happy that Dobson wrote this. Anything to separate the Republicans from the fundamentalists is useful to the progression of America as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was an op-ed in the New York Times by Focus on the Family's James Dobson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Basically he's warning that he and all his friends will find an independent candidate if both R and D nominees support abortion. He also mentions the importance of upholding and preserving "conservative" principles like "the institution of marriage" in addition to "the sanctity of life". For the others, he kind of generalizes.

A-nyway, I often find myself opposing this guy and his friends. To me, family values includes being supportive of gay families as well as more commonplace "tab A-slot B" families, and the sanctity of life includes policies that are well, kind or beneficial to people. This would not include Bush's recent veto of the SCHIP expansion bill, which would have cost what we spend in Iraq in half a month and which was much cheaper than the Medicare D expansion he was so gung ho about (and which passed) in 2003.

Another of Dobson's friends, the disgraced Ted Haggard once compared gay pride parades to parades for murderers. Don't ya just love these guys? And look what happened there. A lot of people think that the really nutty homophobes (or perhaps most homophobes actually) turn out to be gay themselves. ha ha ha

Actually, I'm happy that Dobson wrote this. Anything to separate the Republicans from the fundamentalists is useful to the progression of America as a nation.

I love it! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything to separate the Republicans from the fundamentalists is useful to the progression of America as a nation.

In one of the first Republican debates this year, the moderator asked if there were any candidates that didn't believe in evolution. Three raised their hand -- Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo. That was a useful "separator."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You go James Dobson. Run a third party candidate and guarantee a Democratic win. Even if he backs off of the third party thing Christian conservatives are going to be an apathetic bunch at the polls in '08. The GOP is in a world of hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bash the man for his beliefs? You have yours, let him have his. As for evolution, thank God someone had the balls to stand up and say they don't believe it. It's a theory, pure and simple, and doesn't have much to go on when you really get down to it. You don't have to believe it to be intelligent and you don't have to be in favor of gay marriage to be a good leader of this country.

But then, why should I be surprised anyone in this thread could offer anything but what has already been said? Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It [evolution] doesn't have much to go on when you really get down to it.

I suggest you do some reading.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why bash the man for his beliefs? You have yours, let him have his.

Because this man's (and others of his ilk) sole purpose is to change this country into a totalitarian x-tian state. Do you like what you see in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et. al.?

You can believe in the purple people eater for all I care, but when you espouse hatred and intolerance veiled in religion, and wish to force me to believe as you do (not you specifically, Parrot), I have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you do some reading.

Is that all you have? "Do some reading"?

A combination of reading, and learning from people who support both versions, is how I came to my conclusions about Creationism vs. Evolution.

Orikal, I don't want some religious kook taking away people's civil liberties, but I live in fear that mine will be trampled on and thrown in my face every day simply because I'm a Christian conservative.

At what point did we decide that what was once good and true about this country is no longer? When did we all decide that Christian families and leaders were the enemy? Because they're actually saying what they've been saying since the days of Jesus Christ himself? I do not understand the hatred and the misconceptions and overall lack of empathy toward Christians as a whole, when the very community that wishes to have equal treatment placed upon themselves in the Church can't seem to give any of it worth a damn. I will never understand that mentality, and I was knee-deep in the gay culture for years.

People cannot have it both ways. That's life, that's not just Christianity.

Edited by Parrothead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orikal, I don't want some religious kook taking away people's civil liberties, but I live in fear that mine will be trampled on and thrown in my face every day simply because I'm a Christian conservative.

I'm geniunely interested in your viewpoint. If you don't mind, I'd like to start a friendly dialogue here:

What civil liberties are you in fear of losing due to your conservative christian stance?

What civil liberties are thrown in your face on a daily basis because of these same beliefs?

How has being a conservative christian negatively affected your ability to exercise your basic civic liberties?

At what point did we decide that what was once good and true about this country is no longer? When did we all decide that Christian families and leaders were the enemy? Because they're actually saying what they've been saying since the days of Jesus Christ himself? I do not understand the hatred and the misconceptions and overall lack of empathy toward Christians as a whole, when the very community that wishes to have equal treatment placed upon themselves in the Church can't seem to give any of it worth a damn. I will never understand that mentality, and I was knee-deep in the gay culture for years.

In an overwhelmingly conservative and christian nation, based on the statements above, I'd like to also like to inquire:

When you talk about "what was good and true in this country," to what are you referencing?

Who is this (again in a conservative/christian nation) majority that persecutes christians?

I'm not quite sure I understand the homosexuality reference; could you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm geniunely interested in your viewpoint. If you don't mind, I'd like to start a friendly dialogue here:

What civil liberties are you in fear of losing due to your conservative christian stance?

What civil liberties are thrown in your face on a daily basis because of these same beliefs?

How has being a conservative christian negatively affected your ability to exercise your basic civic liberties?

In an overwhelmingly conservative and christian nation, based on the statements above, I'd like to also like to inquire:

When you talk about "what was good and true in this country," to what are you referencing?

Who is this (again in a conservative/christian nation) majority that persecutes christians?

I'm not quite sure I understand the homosexuality reference; could you clarify?

I also would like to hear your answers to these queries. While it appears to me that people (including many who are Christians) are only pushing back at certain people and groups who wish to force their religion on others, you clearly do not see it this way. Rather than merely assume what liberties of yours you believe may be trampled, I'd rather respond to the specific fears you have. Who knows? While it seems unlikely that a 90% Christian nation could oppress its Christian beliefs, maybe it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that all you have? "Do some reading"?

A combination of reading, and learning from people who support both versions, is how I came to my conclusions about Creationism vs. Evolution.

I think he meant books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will never understand that mentality, and I was knee-deep in the gay culture for years.

I don't think slamming kamikazis at Montrose Mining Company in 1989 with a bunch of your gay boyfriends constitutes being "knee-deep in the gay culture". That's just being a FH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for evolution.. It's a theory, pure and simple, and doesn't have much to go on when you really get down to it.

So are you saying that you don't believe any animals or plants have evolved over time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

Sorry, but I did too much book reading when I was a youngster, went to church also, the notion that everything just magically appeared one day is misleading.

Does God really exist maybe.

Edited by Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that all you have? "Do some reading"?

A combination of reading, and learning from people who support both versions, is how I came to my conclusions about Creationism vs. Evolution.

Orikal, I don't want some religious kook taking away people's civil liberties, but I live in fear that mine will be trampled on and thrown in my face every day simply because I'm a Christian conservative.

At what point did we decide that what was once good and true about this country is no longer? When did we all decide that Christian families and leaders were the enemy? Because they're actually saying what they've been saying since the days of Jesus Christ himself? I do not understand the hatred and the misconceptions and overall lack of empathy toward Christians as a whole, when the very community that wishes to have equal treatment placed upon themselves in the Church can't seem to give any of it worth a damn. I will never understand that mentality, and I was knee-deep in the gay culture for years.

People cannot have it both ways. That's life, that's not just Christianity.

parrothead, you're begging for a dogpile. many people who are extremely anti-christian are so because christians have not practiced what they preach. i've been one of them. i haven't responded to this thread because it was posted, i'm sure, as an attempt to put down or make fun of a christian leader or christians in general.

this is not the place to "stand your ground" (IMHO). i've found that the ministry of christ is in treating others as you would like to be treated. people, these days, want to know your angle when you are kind for no good reason. responding to a thread such is this doesn't serve you or the people who are craving an argument. it is only through relationships and gentile, patient, unconditional acceptance that we can affect our world. we do not have to explain ourselves, we do have to behave with humility, simplicity, patience, consistency, kindness, and never expecting agreement, appreciation or understanding. the political environment and the history of our country is inconsequential, when practicing unconditional love to everyone we come in contact with.

short story: individuals are more important than political systems, school districts, history, having others see your point......no need to explain yourself or state your case. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

Since you say don't dog pile on parrothead because we disagree on a theory and then go on to rag people that may have a independent mind is confusing, I am not a Anti Christian I am not a sheepeople either.

Edited by Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty
parrothead, you're begging for a dogpile. many people who are extremely anti-christian are so because christians have not practiced what they preach

I see your point.

Edited by Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

I think she can defend herself without you coming to her rescue prince charming. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

I remember she was trying to pawn her dog on the net. would any loving christian give away her pets to total strangers on the net, NO practice what you preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my five year old weimer i call a puppy. my 17 year old nephew i call boy. it's perspective. if you want to argue semantics at this time of night, perhaps you should IM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty
if you want to argue semantics at this time of night, perhaps you should IM me.

Maybe you should read the forum more often instead of jumping in the middle of the thread, that would help alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think slamming kamikazis at Montrose Mining Company in 1989 with a bunch of your gay boyfriends constitutes being "knee-deep in the gay culture". That's just being a FH.

ROTFLMAO.

That was good times right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should read the forum more often instead of jumping in the middle of the thread, that would help alot.

Hey Bach, why don't you knock the dust off of your new moderator wand and take some action.

What are ya? Chicken?

(j/k... sorta.. well, not really :) )

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't start the post to put down Dobson or make fun of Christians. I consider myself Christian, actually. This was intended only as political commentary.

If others want to tell me I'm not a "true" Christian, that's fine. Doesn't make it true, though. God gave us brains (which he created over time by using evolution) so we could think for ourselves and not have to turn to the Bible for all the answers (especially when many are inclined to believe in the literal truth of the Bible (NO WAY)).

People are free to believe what they want, sure. But that's why it's important that we live in a nation with many Christians and not a Christian Nation. The issue I and many others have with political Christianity is that it seeks, in effect, to hinder the nation while working from its own precepts. When we don't proceed with stem cell research from embryos that will destroyed ANYWAY, the nation is hindered. When we don't implement effective sex education and dispersal of prophylactics for disadvantaged youths (which STOPS future abortions by the way), the nation is hindered. When we have trouble teaching evolution in the classroom because there's nothing in the Bible about it, the nation is hindered.

The intelligent design thing is such bunk. We can't teach anything besides science in the classroom. This is because science follows its own, universally ratified process and is repeatable and empirical. Religious views are not. Honestly, someone can't accept evolution because evolution makes no mention of God? God and evolution are not mutually exclusive; it's just that one can be empirically observed (in fruit flies, for example) and one cannot be proven or disproven by human methods. Are we to become like the nation of Iran, which begins every single film made there with a screen shot saying "In the name of God"? If we make a movie in the United States without acknowledging the existence of God, how is that different from accepting evolution? It's not.

Today's upset with evolution is nothing more than the contemporary version of the Copernican heliocentresis controversy. We don't need to have God written into everything (especially not on our money, which does plenty of evil) because that's what FAITH is for.

Parrot, no one wants to take your rights away as a conservative Christian. But when the "Christian" political agenda is so potentially damaging to the country, we must remind ourselves to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

;)

Any non-Christian or atheist or agnostic reading this should know I got nothing but love for you and let's work together to make this the best country we can, with or without the help of the more "old-school" flock.

Edit: "God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive". whoopsie.

Edited by mojeaux131

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty
Hey Bach, why don't you knock the dust off of your new moderator wand and take some action.

What are ya? Chicken?

(j/k... sorta.. well, not really :) )

Like your first post to me in the first week I joined this forum you called me the pot calling the kettle black...

I alway thought you was a jerk; your own words here recently.

Jeebus

1992?? More like 1982!!

Sadly, the only outfit from those pictures that is still fashionable is the groom's tux.

Editor

This woman was nice enough to share with us the most important moment in her life, and that's all you can say? Geez. What a jerk. Think before you post.
Edited by Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When we don't proceed with stem cell research from embryos that will destroyed ANYWAY, the nation is hindered.

This is false. Such research is not outlawaed. You just can't use federal dollars to pay for it. Even then, federal dollars are being used on some embryonic stem cell lines.

When we don't implement effective sex education and dispersal of prophylactics for disadvantaged youths (which STOPS future abortions by the way), the nation is hindered.

One can also argue that when we don't teach them self-control, the nation is hindered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE

When we don't implement effective sex education and dispersal of prophylactics for disadvantaged youths (which STOPS future abortions by the way), the nation is hindered.

One can also argue that when we don't teach them self-control, the nation is hindered.

Shouldn't we do both? The "my way or the highway" approach of the far left and the far right really is a hindrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't start the post to put down Dobson or make fun of Christians. I consider myself Christian, actually. This was intended only as political commentary.

If others want to tell me I'm not a "true" Christian, that's fine. Doesn't make it true, though. God gave us brains (which he created over time by using evolution) so we could think for ourselves and not have to turn to the Bible for all the answers (especially when many are inclined to believe in the literal truth of the Bible (NO WAY)).

People are free to believe what they want, sure. But that's why it's important that we live in a nation with many Christians and not a Christian Nation. The issue I and many others have with political Christianity is that it seeks, in effect, to hinder the nation while working from its own precepts. When we don't proceed with stem cell research from embryos that will destroyed ANYWAY, the nation is hindered. When we don't implement effective sex education and dispersal of prophylactics for disadvantaged youths (which STOPS future abortions by the way), the nation is hindered. When we have trouble teaching evolution in the classroom because there's nothing in the Bible about it, the nation is hindered.

The intelligent design thing is such bunk. We can't teach anything besides science in the classroom. This is because science follows its own, According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is false. Such research is not outlawaed. You just can't use federal dollars to pay for it. Even then, federal dollars are being used on some embryonic stem cell lines.

No, it's not outlawed, but it's a hindrance that Bush limited federal funding to arbitrary lines when other more recently developed lines are said to have much more promise. It's so random and hypocritical, don't you think? The only reason he took that action is to appease religious conservatives, which is ridiculous. The fact is, the embryos would be destroyed anyway, so why limit federal funding to a certain number of lines when others could be much more effective? Why have the federal funding in the first place?

One can also argue that when we don't teach them self-control, the nation is hindered.

Let's not be naive here. Young people are going to have sex no matter what. That's not to say that there's no place for abstinence education. However, what we've seen recently with federally funded abstinence education is absolutely ridiculous. If you want me to get a quote, I can, but believe you me, some of Bush's people in charge of this go around espousing pseudoscience to our nation's young people. It's a shame that while we're more religious then other Western, industrialized nations, we have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection. It is not the role of the state to teach young people self control. That is the task of the family and the faith structure. There's no question that the vast majority of federally funded sex education should focus on safe sex and not abstinence.

Edited by mojeaux131

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not be naive here. Young people are going to have sex no matter what.

Of course they are with people like you saying things like that, basically telling them to go ahead and do it. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I agree with you that there needs to be a balance, we just probably disagree on where that balance should lie.

I'll also relate you an example from my own life. I went to high school from 92-95 and we had a buttload of "safe sex " ed as you describe. Didn't stop several of my classmates from achieving pregancy or acquring various "maladies." Funny, the mere possibility of waiting until we were responsible adults was never broached.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't stop several of my classmates from achieving pregancy or acquring various "maladies." Funny, the mere possibility of waiting until we were responsible adults was never broached.

funny, responsibility doesn't necessarily correlate with age. what's to say those folks wouldn't have repeated the same choices, just when they crossed that "adult" threshold...(not saying that it is better to have those things happen when you're a kid, but just sayin....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funny, responsibility doesn't necessarily correlate with age. what's to say those folks wouldn't have repeated the same choices, just when they crossed that "adult" threshold...(not saying that it is better to have those things happen when you're a kid, but just sayin....)

I don't disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they are with people like you saying things like that, basically telling them to go ahead and do it. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I agree with you that there needs to be a balance, we just probably disagree on where that balance should lie.

I'll also relate you an example from my own life. I went to high school from 92-95 and we had a buttload of "safe sex " ed as you describe. Didn't stop several of my classmates from achieving pregancy or acquring various "maladies." Funny, the mere possibility of waiting until we were responsible adults was never broached.

Please. Don't put words in my mouth. You've no idea what "people like me" are saying. If you did, you'd probably agree with me.

Your example shows only that the education wasn't effective. I could drag up many examples of abstinence-only sex ed that is ineffective as well. The problem is that your (since it's "people like me") approach very often leads to misinformation and the propagation of ignorance among our young people with respect to this subject.

Of course some people will get pregnant or "maladies", but the more young people KNOW about how to have safe sex instead of "wait until you're married" the less these things will happen. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not outlawed, but it's a hindrance that Bush limited federal funding to arbitrary lines when other more recently developed lines are said to have much more promise. It's so random and hypocritical, don't you think? The only reason he took that action is to appease religious conservatives, which is ridiculous. The fact is, the embryos would be destroyed anyway, so why limit federal funding to a certain number of lines when others could be much more effective? Why have the federal funding in the first place?

Let's not be naive here. Young people are going to have sex no matter what. That's not to say that there's no place for abstinence education. However, what we've seen recently with federally funded abstinence education is absolutely ridiculous. If you want me to get a quote, I can, but believe you me, some of Bush's people in charge of this go around espousing pseudoscience to our nation's young people. It's a shame that while we're more religious then other Western, industrialized nations, we have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection. It is not the role of the state to teach young people self control. That is the task of the family and the faith structure. There's no question that the vast majority of federally funded sex education should focus on safe sex and not abstinence.

are you comparing us to china or india, perhaps? if a girl brings dishonor to her family in many other countries, she could be disfigured, thrown out or hidden until the baby comes and then the baby is thrown away. i doubt that teen pregnancy is reported as much, anywhere else in the world (as the US). and since when is it not the school's responsibility to teach self control? do teacher's and administrators expect kids to behave during class? do they expect kids to complete tasks and act responsibly? why should we expect self control in some areas and then drop the ball elsewhere? personal/cultural/civic responsibility should be a part of any learning experience. it is negligence to not expect self control from the students a community is trying to reach. you're right, it's not the state's responsibility, it's the community. in many cases the schools are the center of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a pragmatist, if the programs worked, I'd support them. They do not.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67979.php

http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=9831189

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/educatio...amp;oref=slogin

With evidence mounting daily that the real world demands real solutions, one would think that those who care about children would not turn a blind eye to them, or worse, use them as political fodder. Well, live aint fair, and sometimes nowhere is it less fair than when the pious are involved.

It makes perfect sense to teach children not to play with matches. Do we then not teach them how to escape a fire, since that might encourage matchplay? Of course not. Sex education is even worse. What moron thinks that a teenager, discovering lust (disguised as love) for the first time, will have a clear enough head to think what their abstinence teacher told them. Well, according to studies, 50% will forego the pleasure REGARDLESS whether they attended class. 50% will do the deed, again REGARDLESS whether they had the class. For THIS 50%, advice on the use of condoms is critical.

Given puritan views on sex, it is not hard to understand the opposition. While one might think that preventing unwanted teen pregnancies is a laudable goal that Christian political leaders would support, one would be wrong. The pregnancy is seen as punishment for having sex before marriage. If teens see that they will be saddled with raising the child, that will teach them not to have sex. If I saw political support for more adoptions, pre-natal care and support for unwed teen mothers, I might not feel this way. Given the animosity shown towards all mothers who do not conform to the proper Christian model of married to man with a job and insurance, who can blame me.

Now, there are Christian groups out there who do support these principles. They do not get the publicity of demogogues like Dobson, because frankly, Christians who ACT like Christians are not news. It is only the ugly Christians that get the press. I would love to see these groups take people like Dobson out of the spotlight. Thankfully, his power appears to be on the wane. His threat to the Republican candidates does not appear to have caught their attention...at least last night's debate did not indicate so. This can only be a good thing. The vitriol that some Christians believe is aimed at them is in fact aimed at people like Dobson. As he fades from public view, so will the attacks. Then, maybe we can get back to doing things because they work, instead of because some demogogue says so.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please. Don't put words in my mouth. You've no idea what "people like me" are saying. If you did, you'd probably agree with me.

Look, as Red pointed out, I'm all for people teaching teens how to escape from a fire if in fact they do play with matches.

However, when the people who are really pushing for only teaching kids how to escape from fire are justifying it by saying, "No matter what you do, kids are going to play with matches anyway," you are in fact giving them a license to play with matches and undermining ANY effort you put into trying to teach them not to play with matches.

That is EXACTLY what "people like you" are saying.

And if you honestly don't believe that any form of abstinence education is undermined by the load bleating in every aspect of society "WELL THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, YOU CAN'T STOP THEM!" by opponents of abstinence education, then I'll shut up and you can declare me an idiot.

Edited by CDeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you comparing us to china or india, perhaps? if a girl brings dishonor to her family in many other countries, she could be disfigured, thrown out or hidden until the baby comes and then the baby is thrown away. i doubt that teen pregnancy is reported as much, anywhere else in the world (as the US). and since when is it not the school's responsibility to teach self control? do teacher's and administrators expect kids to behave during class? do they expect kids to complete tasks and act responsibly? why should we expect self control in some areas and then drop the ball elsewhere? personal/cultural/civic responsibility should be a part of any learning experience. it is negligence to not expect self control from the students a community is trying to reach. you're right, it's not the state's responsibility, it's the community. in many cases the schools are the center of the community.

No, I'm not comparing us to China and India because I said "other Western, industrialized" countries. Self-control with respect to sexual relations is NOT the same as self-control with respect to classroom behavior. Look, I never said that schools shouldn't tell kids that abstinence is the only way to guarantee not getting pregnant or an STD. I never said that. HOWEVER, what hacks me off is the lies and the pseudoscience that abstinence-only education propagates. Abstinence should not be the focus of sex education in public schools partly because the prime impetus behind it is RELIGION. Religion does not have a place in school curricula. It should not influence what our schools teach or how they teach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, as Red pointed out, I'm all for people teaching teens how to escape from a fire if in fact they do play with matches.

However, when the people who are really pushing for only teaching kids how to escape from fire are justifying it by saying, "No matter what you do, kids are going to play with matches anyway," you are in fact giving them a license to play with matches and undermining ANY effort you put into trying to teach them not to play with matches.

That is EXACTLY what "people like you" are saying.

And if you honestly don't believe that any form of abstinence education is undermined by the load bleating in every aspect of society "WELL THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, YOU CAN'T STOP THEM!" by opponents of abstinence education, then I'll shut up and you can declare me an idiot.

I don't think you're an idiot, I just don't agree with you. If you read the links that RedScare posted (which you might've already done), you'll see what I mean. It's just not effective. It's wrong that the government should spend so much money on a form of education that doesn't work. Of course abstinence education is undermined by the "bleating" as you call it, but it's also undermined by this thing called human nature, which causes people to want to have sex before they're married. Most of the bleating on this controversy comes from religious sheep who can't reconcile scientific findings with their worldview. I never said there's no place for the teaching of abstinence in sex education. But abstinence should in no way encompass the main message of sex ed. It's just not effective.

---------------------------------------------------

RedScare, thanks for the excellent post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, there are Christian groups out there who do support these principles. They do not get the publicity of demogogues like Dobson, because frankly, Christians who ACT like Christians are not news. It is only the ugly Christians that get the press. I would love to see these groups take people like Dobson out of the spotlight. Thankfully, his power appears to be on the wane. His threat to the Republican candidates does not appear to have caught their attention...at least last night's debate did not indicate so. This can only be a good thing. The vitriol that some Christians believe is aimed at them is in fact aimed at people like Dobson. As he fades from public view, so will the attacks. Then, maybe we can get back to doing things because they work, instead of because some demogogue says so.

The 12 October 2007 issue of TIME Magazine has a brief article that discusses some of the reasons that increasing percentages of Americans have a "bad impression" of present-day Christianity

It used to be, says David Kinnaman, that Christianity was both big and beloved in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...