Dobson's Warning

[mojeaux131]

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.

[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.

[CDeb]

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.

[west20th]

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.

[millennica]

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

[mojeaux131]

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.

[CDeb]

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.

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.

[sevfiv]

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....)

[CDeb]

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.

[mojeaux131]

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

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.

[bachanon]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[CDeb]

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.

[mojeaux131]

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.

[mojeaux131]

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.

[millennica]

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.