If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
Date published: 11/28/2004
WAS JESUS a big winner in the last election? You'd sure think so. If the pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a knockout victory on Nov. 2.
We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.
All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the Gospels.
And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.
The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological sustenance, you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.
Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.
Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing rabble-rouser was known to say.
That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising machine.
Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument dedicated to them in a public place).
Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people are doing with their bodies.
I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.
If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?
Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts? Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to hear?
Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?
Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.
You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge profits.
Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?
I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W. Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt-- to paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.
This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either. The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.
For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.
In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.
The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream culture.
Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.
Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become just another Middle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.
RICK MERCIER is a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star.
Full Version: Religion in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234
Did anyone see Meet the Press this week? They had a group of four people discussing religion in politics.
I hate to say it, but Al Sharpton was the most eloquent, logical one among the bunch. I really don't like Sharpton, but he came across as much more honest and made more sense than Jerry Falwell, that's for sure. That Fawell is a serious whacko. Anyway, I'd recommend reading the transcripts.
Reverend Falwell, let me start with you. You wrote a Falwell Confidential, a newsletter memo out right before the elections, and you said this, "It is a responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew...and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President George Bush."
Why was it a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush?
DR. JERRY FALWELL: Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.
MR. RUSSERT: The Sojourners newspaper took out an ad--the Sojourners magazine took a newspaper ad out, Reverend Wallis, in which this was the headline. "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat. ...leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that Mod has taken a side in this election and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. We believe claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re- election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion."
Explain.
REV. JIM WALLIS: Well, Christians voted both ways in this election. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. That should be obvious. The values question is critical. The question is how narrowly or how broadly we define values. So we say that poverty is a religious and moral value. So is the environment. So is the war in Iraq. These are moral value that require a lot of discussion. I welcome the moral-values conversation. I really do. It's the soul of our politics, the compass of our public life. But how narrowly or how broadly we define the values is the question.
In this election, there were competing values, so a lot of Christians voted both ways because we wanted to vote all of our values, not just one or two. I think the Democrats are often uncomfortable talking about faith values, when it's even about their agenda. The Republicans want to narrow, though, or restrict values to one or two issues--important ones, but one or two. I think the Democrats have to recover their heart and soul; Republicans need a broader and deeper agenda about values.
MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Land, The Washington Post reported this: "`I believe God wants me to be president,'" the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted George Bush as saying."
When did George Bush tell you that?
DR. RICHARD LAND: Well, he told me that--he told a group of us that the day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor of the state in 1999. But once again, like people in The Washington Post often do, they truncated the quote. What he said was--and it was right after he came back from that service at the Methodist Church where the Methodist pastor had been preaching about God's call on your life. And he said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, that's OK. I'm loved at home, and that's more important. I've seen the presidency up close and personal, and I know it's a sacrifice, not a reward. And I don't need it for personal gratification."
And that posture, it seems to me, is very much like Lincoln's posture when Lincoln said, you know, "In this war that we've been in, both sides think God's on their side. Both sides can't be right. Both sides may be wrong. This may be a judgment on the whole country because of slavery. But with malice toward none, with charity for all, we're going to go forward seeking to do the right as God gives us the light to see the right." The president believed that God wanted him to be president, but he was open to the possibility that wouldn't be true. How many people of religious faith who ever ran for president didn't think God wanted them to be president? Jimmy Carter certainly did.
MR. RUSSERT: But as Abraham Lincoln said, "The key, however, is make sure that we're on God's side, not claim that God is on our side."
DR. LAND: That's right. That's right. That's right. And I think that's what the president was doing. The president's posture--I know the president. The president's posture is he wants to do right as he believes God gives him the light to see the right.
MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think of all this?
REV. AL SHARPTON: I think that what is critical is what you just said that Lincoln said. All of us are talking about whether God is on our side. Are we really on God's side? And are we willing to allow people to make decisions where God gave people the right to make decisions? I may agree with Reverend Falwell on many issues. Where I disagree is whether we have the right to impose that agreement on other people.
And I think that where a lot of the misinformation and a lot of the debate went awry--and we're not talking about whether or not we don't share values. We're talking about whether we have the right to impose what we believe on people that may disagree with us. Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. We don't have a right to tell people we're going to force them to live in a way that we want them to live and, therefore, they're going to heaven. That's where I disagree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6601018/
I hate to say it, but Al Sharpton was the most eloquent, logical one among the bunch. I really don't like Sharpton, but he came across as much more honest and made more sense than Jerry Falwell, that's for sure. That Fawell is a serious whacko. Anyway, I'd recommend reading the transcripts.
Reverend Falwell, let me start with you. You wrote a Falwell Confidential, a newsletter memo out right before the elections, and you said this, "It is a responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew...and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President George Bush."
Why was it a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush?
DR. JERRY FALWELL: Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.
MR. RUSSERT: The Sojourners newspaper took out an ad--the Sojourners magazine took a newspaper ad out, Reverend Wallis, in which this was the headline. "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat. ...leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that Mod has taken a side in this election and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. We believe claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re- election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion."
Explain.
REV. JIM WALLIS: Well, Christians voted both ways in this election. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. That should be obvious. The values question is critical. The question is how narrowly or how broadly we define values. So we say that poverty is a religious and moral value. So is the environment. So is the war in Iraq. These are moral value that require a lot of discussion. I welcome the moral-values conversation. I really do. It's the soul of our politics, the compass of our public life. But how narrowly or how broadly we define the values is the question.
In this election, there were competing values, so a lot of Christians voted both ways because we wanted to vote all of our values, not just one or two. I think the Democrats are often uncomfortable talking about faith values, when it's even about their agenda. The Republicans want to narrow, though, or restrict values to one or two issues--important ones, but one or two. I think the Democrats have to recover their heart and soul; Republicans need a broader and deeper agenda about values.
MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Land, The Washington Post reported this: "`I believe God wants me to be president,'" the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted George Bush as saying."
When did George Bush tell you that?
DR. RICHARD LAND: Well, he told me that--he told a group of us that the day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor of the state in 1999. But once again, like people in The Washington Post often do, they truncated the quote. What he said was--and it was right after he came back from that service at the Methodist Church where the Methodist pastor had been preaching about God's call on your life. And he said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, that's OK. I'm loved at home, and that's more important. I've seen the presidency up close and personal, and I know it's a sacrifice, not a reward. And I don't need it for personal gratification."
And that posture, it seems to me, is very much like Lincoln's posture when Lincoln said, you know, "In this war that we've been in, both sides think God's on their side. Both sides can't be right. Both sides may be wrong. This may be a judgment on the whole country because of slavery. But with malice toward none, with charity for all, we're going to go forward seeking to do the right as God gives us the light to see the right." The president believed that God wanted him to be president, but he was open to the possibility that wouldn't be true. How many people of religious faith who ever ran for president didn't think God wanted them to be president? Jimmy Carter certainly did.
MR. RUSSERT: But as Abraham Lincoln said, "The key, however, is make sure that we're on God's side, not claim that God is on our side."
DR. LAND: That's right. That's right. That's right. And I think that's what the president was doing. The president's posture--I know the president. The president's posture is he wants to do right as he believes God gives him the light to see the right.
MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think of all this?
REV. AL SHARPTON: I think that what is critical is what you just said that Lincoln said. All of us are talking about whether God is on our side. Are we really on God's side? And are we willing to allow people to make decisions where God gave people the right to make decisions? I may agree with Reverend Falwell on many issues. Where I disagree is whether we have the right to impose that agreement on other people.
And I think that where a lot of the misinformation and a lot of the debate went awry--and we're not talking about whether or not we don't share values. We're talking about whether we have the right to impose what we believe on people that may disagree with us. Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. We don't have a right to tell people we're going to force them to live in a way that we want them to live and, therefore, they're going to heaven. That's where I disagree.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6601018/
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 29 2004, 06:15 AM)
If you read the Gospels, the Religious Right is most often wrong
Date published: 11/28/2004
WAS JESUS a big winner in the last election? You'd sure think so. If the pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a knockout victory on Nov. 2.
We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.
All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the Gospels.
And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.
The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological sustenance, you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.
Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.
Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing rabble-rouser was known to say.
That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising machine.
Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument dedicated to them in a public place).
Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people are doing with their bodies.
I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.
If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?
Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts? Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to hear?
Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?
Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.
You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge profits.
Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?
I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W. Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt-- to paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.
This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either. The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.
For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.
In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.
The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream culture.
Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.
Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become just another Middle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.
RICK MERCIER is a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star.
Date published: 11/28/2004
WAS JESUS a big winner in the last election? You'd sure think so. If the pundits and Religious Right zealots are correct, the Son of God scored a knockout victory on Nov. 2.
We've had it drilled into our heads that something known as "moral values" was decisive in the election. Some worked-up commentators have even said we're on the brink of a second Great Awakening.
All this hype about the God talk swirling around in our culture prompted me to do a little research (a big departure from how I usually prepare for writing a column). I cracked open my Bible and started rereading the Gospels.
And you know what? I can't see what all this sanctimonious values rhetoric has to do with Jesus. I've compared what I read in Gospels with what I've been hearing from the Religious Right, and I've concluded that the holier-than-thous must have traded in their red-letter editions of the Good Book for red-state versions that omit most of Jesus' teachings.
The truth is, if you depend on the Christian right for your theological sustenance, you probably won't recognize the Jesus of the Gospels.
Jesus was quite a troublemaker. In fact, I'm thinking the Bush administration would have a special place for Jesus were the swarthy Nazarene to take up his ministry today in the U.S. of A.--in a cell with other Middle Eastern men awaiting deportation.
Let's recall what the Jesus of the Gospels espoused. "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you," the sandal-wearing rabble-rouser was known to say.
That sounds pretty good, but it makes you realize that JC would never have reached "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status in the Bush fund-raising machine.
Then, of course, there's Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler who said he was a righteous man because he'd followed the Ten Commandments since his youth (though he gave no indication that he'd ever erected a monument dedicated to them in a public place).
Jesus told the ruler: "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
When the ruler started looking glum, Jesus responded with his famous kicker: "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Holy class warfare! No wonder Republicans have switched out the Jesus of the Gospels for a low-rent moralizer preoccupied with what other people are doing with their bodies.
I've no intention of turning this column into a Sunday school lesson, so I'll ease up on the Bible quotes. But go ahead and read the Gospels for yourself, and see if you can reconcile the Jesus you encounter in those texts with the Jesus the Religious Right wields as a battle-ax.
If you're a thoughtful, independent-minded person, I'll bet you read the Gospels and wonder: Where in America does this Jesus dwell?
Where in America is the Jesus who sides with the poor and the outcasts? Where in America is the Jesus who disdains those who wear their piousness on their sleeves? Where in America is the the Jesus with the prophetic voice, the radical who dares to tell the powerful what they don't want to hear?
Is he in the pews that fill every Sunday morning with the smug and complacent? Is he in a political party that fights for tax cuts for the rich while neglecting the needs of decent, hard-working Americans? Is he among the "God-and-country" demagogues who push an idolatrous nationalism and who see military service as the supreme form of sacrifice?
Your questions might not end there. You may observe that other things are missing from our fashionable "moral values" rhetoric.
You may, for example, notice the absence of any critique of an economic system that turns Jesus' birthday into an opportunity to jump-start consumer spending. Or any critique of corporate control of the public's airwaves, which helps ensure the culture is saturated with sexuality and violence that appeal to the lowest common denominator but generate huge profits.
Where is the righteous conservative Christian politician who makes these things campaign issues, who talks about them as moral issues?
I have no doubt that the Christian right and their leader, George W. Bush, are sincere about their faith. But I also have no doubt-- to paraphrase one of America's pre-eminent theologians, Stanley Hauerwas--that sincerity has precious little to do with Christianity.
This "moral values" talk doesn't do much to sustain Christianity, either. The phrase is as banal as the hacks (of both the political and journalistic variety) who are busy fetishizing it.
For political operatives, the phrase's beauty lies in its meaningless. It can be made to mean anything, and, in a culture with no meaningful moral narratives, it can be turned into a cudgel that's useful for political ends but has nothing to do with any coherent religious tradition.
In the spiritual vacuum that exists in this country, the Christian right is well-positioned to argue that its menagerie of fears and chauvinisms--piled into a box labeled "moral values"--constitutes a serious moral narrative. It doesn't, but the Religious Right's contribution to the denigration of Christianity will continue unabated until other Christian communities come up with a compelling alternative.
The trouble is, our society seems to lack the kind of exemplars who could build that alternative. What we need are the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther King Jr. and Dorothy Day, people who are willing to endure the enmity and scorn of the political establishment and mainstream culture.
Maybe those people are out there, but I don't see them. That's why I'm not optimistic about the survival of the Christian tradition in our culture. What many view as a great spiritual revival looks a lot to me like another stage of rot in American Christianity's corpse.
Can the cadaver rise up? It doesn't seem hopeful. In contemporary America, the Jewish Palestinian whom many call their messiah has become just another Middle Easterner to be ignored or reviled.
RICK MERCIER is a writer and editor for The Free Lance-Star.
Nice piece. But the religious non-right has never had the interest or drive to keep this ball in the air or in play. I will not listen to either Jerry Falwell or Al Sharpton on religion, however; I regard them strictly as political players and primarily self-interested power-driven ones at that.
[Rant]
I always find it curious that news organs seek out such a limited number of people (and usually only those few annointed by them as "leaders" and passed around amongst them as grist for their mills) to be the spokespersons for immensely larger groups of people. E. g., neither Falwell, nor Dobson, nor that bloke from the 700 Club have ever asked for my permission to speak for me, yet when the newsies wnat to "get" the "Christian perspective" that' who they go to.
Hey, newsies, here's a news flash for ya!
I, and I only, speak for me, as a rightward-leaning Christian. These media manufactured "leaders" do not consult with me, nor I, them, on any matters whatsoever of either common or oppositional interest. So please refer to them only as leaders of any organization they may head, but do not presume to profess they speak for the rest of us - they don't. You want MY views you come ask Me; I may or may not give you the time of day, depends on my needs at the moment.
[/Rant]
I always find it curious that news organs seek out such a limited number of people (and usually only those few annointed by them as "leaders" and passed around amongst them as grist for their mills) to be the spokespersons for immensely larger groups of people. E. g., neither Falwell, nor Dobson, nor that bloke from the 700 Club have ever asked for my permission to speak for me, yet when the newsies wnat to "get" the "Christian perspective" that' who they go to.
Hey, newsies, here's a news flash for ya!
I, and I only, speak for me, as a rightward-leaning Christian. These media manufactured "leaders" do not consult with me, nor I, them, on any matters whatsoever of either common or oppositional interest. So please refer to them only as leaders of any organization they may head, but do not presume to profess they speak for the rest of us - they don't. You want MY views you come ask Me; I may or may not give you the time of day, depends on my needs at the moment.
[/Rant]
Whether you like it or not Russ, until genuine, honest religious folks speak out, or at least make themselves more visible, the face of Christianity will be the political opportunists and power brokers.
They are a combination of snake oil salesman, televangelists and carnies. These guys know how to market themselves, to use certain words and phrases to trigger an extreme emotional response to get what they want. It's big business advertising techniques combined with parts, only parts, of Christian theology.
I saw Meet the Press had a group of religious folks in a discussion and so did This Week.
The phonies had a tough time defending the Republicans one sided favoring of the rich.
They are a combination of snake oil salesman, televangelists and carnies. These guys know how to market themselves, to use certain words and phrases to trigger an extreme emotional response to get what they want. It's big business advertising techniques combined with parts, only parts, of Christian theology.
I saw Meet the Press had a group of religious folks in a discussion and so did This Week.
The phonies had a tough time defending the Republicans one sided favoring of the rich.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 29 2004, 10:28 AM)
Whether you like it or not Russ, until genuine, honest religious folks speak out, or at least make themselves more visible, the face of Christianity will be the political opportunists and power brokers.
You might be correct to point out that the religious/political leaders are suspect, but you are surely on the wrong track to assume that those that supported Bush aren't genuine or honest. Misguided, maybe. But the same can be said about the liberal religious folks. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....." And all that other biblical jazz.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 29 2004, 08:42 AM)
[i]Did anyone see Meet the Press this week? They had a group of four people discussing religion in politics.
I hate to say it, but Al Sharpton was the most eloquent, logical one among the bunch. I really don't like Sharpton, but he came across as much more honest and made more sense than Jerry Falwell, that's for sure. That Fawell is a serious whacko. Anyway, I'd recommend reading the transcripts
I hate to say it, but Al Sharpton was the most eloquent, logical one among the bunch. I really don't like Sharpton, but he came across as much more honest and made more sense than Jerry Falwell, that's for sure. That Fawell is a serious whacko. Anyway, I'd recommend reading the transcripts
Good transcript. Sounds like it would have been fun to watch.
"...MR. RUSSERT: What about people in this country who don't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior?
REV. SHARPTON: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: There are now more Muslims and Jews in the United States. Where is their place?
REV. WALLIS: Well, there is no--people who are religious, need I make very clear that we don't think religious people have a monopoly on morality. There are people in this country who have deeply held moral values who aren't affiliated in any religion. What we need is a serious moral conversation about things like Iraq, a moral discussion. What would Jesus do is a fair question for all of us. But other citizens have other compasses that they use. But let's have a moral conversation, talk about the soul of politics.
DR. FALWELL: Jim, I'm old enough to remember how much you fought--you and Sojourners, fought Ronald Reagan and his peace through strength initiative and had you been successful, the Soviet communism of the world would still be prevalent and existing. You fought Ronald Reagan.
REV. SHARPTON: But we could argue all morning on that.
DR. FALWELL: You're just anti-America...."
Sounds familiar, yes?
QUOTE
Sounds familiar, yes?
Which came first, the parrots or the squawks?
QUOTE
You might be correct to point out that the religious/political leaders are suspect, but you are surely on the wrong track to assume that those that supported Bush aren't genuine or honest. Misguided, maybe. But the same can be said about the liberal religious folks. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....." And all that other biblical jazz.
You are absolutely correct. I know folks who did missionary work in Africa. What an experience. How compassionate is that? That's more than I'd do.
My point is the politicos use religion as just another tool.
As long as the religious/political leaders say they are pro-life and anti-gay marriage (and a few other issues) they are allowed, by their supporters, to commit any number of financial crimes at will. Bribery is not a value.
Tom DeLay has as much credibility as the televangelist Jim Baker. Except he's worse because he can affect millions of US citizens with his policies.
Spewing the word "Values!!" in front of a camera at the top of their voice then going behind closed doors to orchestrate yet another way to enrich themselves and their allies is hardly ethical and has absolutely nothing to do with "values".
.
QUOTE
Which came first, the parrots or the squawks?
SQUAAAAAK!!!!!
QUOTE (Russ Logan @ Nov 29 2004, 10:16 AM)
[Rant]
I always find it curious that news organs seek out such a limited number of people (and usually only those few annointed by them as "leaders" and passed around amongst them as grist for their mills) to be the spokespersons for immensely larger groups of people. E. g., neither Falwell, nor Dobson, nor that bloke from the 700 Club have ever asked for my permission to speak for me, yet when the newsies wnat to "get" the "Christian perspective" that' who they go to.
Hey, newsies, here's a news flash for ya!
I, and I only, speak for me, as a rightward-leaning Christian. These media manufactured "leaders" do not consult with me, nor I, them, on any matters whatsoever of either common or oppositional interest. So please refer to them only as leaders of any organization they may head, but do not presume to profess they speak for the rest of us - they don't. You want MY views you come ask Me; I may or may not give you the time of day, depends on my needs at the moment.
[/Rant]
I always find it curious that news organs seek out such a limited number of people (and usually only those few annointed by them as "leaders" and passed around amongst them as grist for their mills) to be the spokespersons for immensely larger groups of people. E. g., neither Falwell, nor Dobson, nor that bloke from the 700 Club have ever asked for my permission to speak for me, yet when the newsies wnat to "get" the "Christian perspective" that' who they go to.
Hey, newsies, here's a news flash for ya!
I, and I only, speak for me, as a rightward-leaning Christian. These media manufactured "leaders" do not consult with me, nor I, them, on any matters whatsoever of either common or oppositional interest. So please refer to them only as leaders of any organization they may head, but do not presume to profess they speak for the rest of us - they don't. You want MY views you come ask Me; I may or may not give you the time of day, depends on my needs at the moment.
[/Rant]
Nice rant, thanks. (respectful clapping in background)
Religion in politics...politics in religion.
Nope, just humans trying to one up each other. My God is greater than your God! Is not!
Is so!
Oh yeah? Well my leaders are greater than yours! And my God is greater too!
And so and so and so.
People, believe in SOMETHING. That at least is a start. Something greater than yourself, not the other guys' God, just greater than yourSELF.
Then know that other people believe too. Not in your God, but in God none the less.
Then know that God guides the people that believe.
And that is far better than having no faith. Having no faith and nothing to guide us we become hippies and spread v.d. like it has no meaning.
Nope, just humans trying to one up each other. My God is greater than your God! Is not!
Is so!
Oh yeah? Well my leaders are greater than yours! And my God is greater too!
And so and so and so.
People, believe in SOMETHING. That at least is a start. Something greater than yourself, not the other guys' God, just greater than yourSELF.
Then know that other people believe too. Not in your God, but in God none the less.
Then know that God guides the people that believe.
And that is far better than having no faith. Having no faith and nothing to guide us we become hippies and spread v.d. like it has no meaning.
QUOTE (Catharsis @ Nov 29 2004, 10:35 PM)
Religion in politics...politics in religion.
People, believe in SOMETHING. That at least is a start. Something greater than yourself, not the other guys' God, just greater than yourSELF.
People, believe in SOMETHING. That at least is a start. Something greater than yourself, not the other guys' God, just greater than yourSELF.
Like a politician or something?
QUOTE
Who Is John Stott?
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 30, 2004
Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.
Inviting these two bozos onto "Meet the Press" to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school.
This is why so many people are so misinformed about evangelical Christians. There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them. Falwell and Pat
Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored.
It could be that you have never heard of John Stott. I don't blame you. As far as I can tell, Stott has never appeared on an important American news program. A computer search suggests that Stott's name hasn't appeared in this newspaper since April 10, 1956, and it's never appeared in many other important publications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/opinion/...l?oref=login&hp
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 30, 2004
Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.
Inviting these two bozos onto "Meet the Press" to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D. H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school.
This is why so many people are so misinformed about evangelical Christians. There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them. Falwell and Pat
Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored.
It could be that you have never heard of John Stott. I don't blame you. As far as I can tell, Stott has never appeared on an important American news program. A computer search suggests that Stott's name hasn't appeared in this newspaper since April 10, 1956, and it's never appeared in many other important publications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/opinion/...l?oref=login&hp
Several folks made comments to the above effect yesterday on these boards.
QUOTE
And that is far better than having no faith. Having no faith and nothing to guide us we become hippies and spread v.d. like it has no meaning.
Bwahahahahahaha!!
Damn. Knew I should have cut muh har and wore a Jimmy cap.
Must have been the dope or the "White Rabbit".
You crack me up.
Having "faith" doesn't amount to much IMO, if you lose the ability to think for yourself, or to admit when you are wrong.
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Nov 30 2004, 12:07 PM)
Several folks made comments to the above effect yesterday on these boards.
Pleasant reading in the TImes...good find.
As soon as the election was over the secular press was trying to make the election a victory of fundamentalism, but I didn't see a huge change from the last election. Kerry was a bad candidate. Another case of everybody's second choice. A bit like Bush, but without the good timing. In peace time Kerry might well have won.(though I wouldn't have voted for him)
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 30 2004, 08:04 AM)
In peace time Kerry might well have won.(though I wouldn't have voted for him)
By "in peace time" do you reference the WOT, the War in Iraq, or both?
If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, I'd have to say Bush would have been stronger.
If you are referring to the WOT, I'd have to say the economy would have been stronger.
Guess what I would say if you were referring to both?
ooooh, a closet ninja.
Now I suppose you'll retort that 'I'm out of the closet', eh Davis?
QUOTE (Human Ills @ Nov 30 2004, 09:11 AM)
By "in peace time" do you reference the WOT, the War in Iraq, or both?
If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, I'd have to say Bush would have been stronger.
If you are referring to the WOT, I'd have to say the economy would have been stronger.
Guess what I would say if you were referring to both?
If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, I'd have to say Bush would have been stronger.
If you are referring to the WOT, I'd have to say the economy would have been stronger.
Guess what I would say if you were referring to both?
I mean both and all conflict. War is a fairly common occurence, though Clinton didn't seem to admit we were at war with fundamentalist Islamic warriors. My non-too-articulated point was that Kerry wasn't highly electable under most situations. I made my post rather vague for discussion purposes, not as a final word.
I think the Euros, the press, Muslims and most of the US saw Kerry as weaker. Euros and Muslims saw that as a good thing, the US in general as bad. Compromise is a fine thing, if you negotiate from strength. I'm not sure Americans that call for compormise and negotiation understand that.
QUOTE
Now I suppose you'll retort that 'I'm out of the closet', eh Davis?
Nope. Didn't even enter my mind. I was just noticing the smily. chill out.
Actually, I agree with a lot of your post. Kerry may have won in peacetime.
I'll go farther than you did and say if 9/11 wouldn't have happened Republicans would not be in power. 9/11 and the war in Iraq have been used very well by the Republicans as a political tool.
Bush initially said no one should use 9/11 for election purposes, like it shouldn't even be considered out of decency. But it was exploited front and center by the RNC at their convention and in political ads.
It was sickening.
Before 9/11 and Iraq the biggest story in the US was Enron and Republicans cozy relationship with energy corporations.
I was kidding. Just a li'l friendly banter....actually, it would seem to me that you agree with none of my post. Then again, Enron may well have been a front-burner item, but a hot economy would undoubtably bury that story as well.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 30 2004, 08:21 AM)
I think the Euros, the press, Muslims and most of the US saw Kerry as weaker. Euros and Muslims saw that as a good thing, the US in general as bad. Compromise is a fine thing, if you negotiate from strength. I'm not sure Americans that call for compormise and negotiation understand that.
Exactly...even worse, I'm not sure the Americans you describe care.
QUOTE
I was kidding. Just a li'l friendly banter....actually, it would seem to me that you agree with none of my post.
That was arties post wasn't it? Sorry.
QUOTE (Human Ills @ Nov 30 2004, 09:33 AM)
Exactly...even worse, I'm not sure the Americans you describe care.
People may make fun, but I learned a lot about negotiation in microcosm in my days as a doorman/bouncer. People bent on making trouble and with the ability to do so aren't dissuaded by mere talk very often. You have to read their words and actions carefully. If you know of their past actions you have to factor that in. You also have to consider innocent bystanders. Does giving them the possibility of a first blow endanger others?
After making the calculations you have to offer a carrot and stick, and if it's in public they both better be legitimate because you will be setting precedents that bystanders will take into account when they decide how to behave. Whipping up on one problem may well make a lot of lesser problems smaller. Letting one slide may well give even the normally docile powers the idea that it's easy to take liberties.
A lot of people don't care until the trouble gets to their doorstep. But in a world without law AND enforcement it's likely to come around sooner or later.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 30 2004, 05:43 AM)
Having "faith" doesn't amount to much IMO, if you lose the ability to think for yourself, or to admit when you are wrong.
QUOTE
GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.
And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.
But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.
That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, Did you make a mistake going into Iraq? And the answer is, Absolutely not. It was the right decision.
The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.
On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.
Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.
And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.
But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.
That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, Did you make a mistake going into Iraq? And the answer is, Absolutely not. It was the right decision.
The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.
On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.
Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
hey smerf, you got a link for that particular conversation?
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 30 2004, 10:30 AM)
hey smerf, you got a link for that particular conversation?
Isn't it from the "town-hall meeting" style debate? Was that the second one?
Sounds exactly like the last question sucker punch from that CBS guy. But that wasn't Grabel and I think it was before the Duelfer report.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Nov 30 2004, 10:30 AM)
hey smerf, you got a link for that particular conversation?
yeah, just a sec.............
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Nov 30 2004, 10:32 AM)
Isn't it from the "town-hall meeting" style debate? Was that the second one?
yes it is........heh.........
QUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Nov 30 2004, 04:07 AM)
Several folks made comments to the above effect yesterday on these boards.
No wonder I like David Brooks! Dang!
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 30 2004, 12:05 PM)
No wonder I like David Brooks! Dang!
hello lil bart!
how are you today?
QUOTE (smerf @ Nov 30 2004, 11:08 AM)
hello lil bart!
how are you today?
how are you today?
Finer 'n frog's hair, smerfie.
How 'bout you? Catch ya on the upside of the afternoon.
QUOTE (lil bart @ Nov 30 2004, 12:18 PM)
Finer 'n frog's hair, smerfie. How 'bout you? Catch ya on the upside of the afternoon.
How 'bout you? Catch ya on the upside of the afternoon.ahm perty good.
glad to see that you're on.
Abstinence programs present false, misleading information, lawmaker says
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
(12-01) 23:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
Rep. Henry Waxman says federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
A report Wednesday from the California Democrat said 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant Health and Human Services Secretary for population affairs, said the Waxman report took statements out of context to present the programs in the worst possible light.
"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children, abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
The abstinence programs, which have been embraced by President Bush, will receive $170 million in the current government spending year, more than double what the government was spending when Bush took office in 2001. The abstinence curriculum may not include instruction in contraceptive use as a condition of federal funding.
Waxman said, "It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate. The abstinence-only programs reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."
A.C. Green's Game Plan, named for the professional basketball player who said he would not have sex before he was married, raises question about whether condoms can stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Waxman's report said. "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data," the program's teacher's manual says.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other researchers have found that consistent and correct condom use does protect against transmissions of many STDs, the report said.
Other programs asserted as fact sharply contested claims, the report said. The FACTS middle school program, developed by Northwest Family Services, says, "Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
In another instance, the Why kNOw curriculum asserts "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual," the report said. The correct number is 23 each.
Some curriculums also rely on what Waxman called damaging stereotypes about boys and girls, including that girls care less about achievement and their futures.
The Why kNOw curriculum teaches: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2302EST0779.DTL
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
(12-01) 23:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
Rep. Henry Waxman says federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
A report Wednesday from the California Democrat said 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant Health and Human Services Secretary for population affairs, said the Waxman report took statements out of context to present the programs in the worst possible light.
"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children, abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
The abstinence programs, which have been embraced by President Bush, will receive $170 million in the current government spending year, more than double what the government was spending when Bush took office in 2001. The abstinence curriculum may not include instruction in contraceptive use as a condition of federal funding.
Waxman said, "It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate. The abstinence-only programs reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."
A.C. Green's Game Plan, named for the professional basketball player who said he would not have sex before he was married, raises question about whether condoms can stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Waxman's report said. "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data," the program's teacher's manual says.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other researchers have found that consistent and correct condom use does protect against transmissions of many STDs, the report said.
Other programs asserted as fact sharply contested claims, the report said. The FACTS middle school program, developed by Northwest Family Services, says, "Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
In another instance, the Why kNOw curriculum asserts "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual," the report said. The correct number is 23 each.
Some curriculums also rely on what Waxman called damaging stereotypes about boys and girls, including that girls care less about achievement and their futures.
The Why kNOw curriculum teaches: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2302EST0779.DTL
QUOTE (davis像 @ Dec 2 2004, 06:19 AM)
Abstinence programs present false, misleading information, lawmaker says
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
(12-01) 23:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
Rep. Henry Waxman says federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
A report Wednesday from the California Democrat said 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant Health and Human Services Secretary for population affairs, said the Waxman report took statements out of context to present the programs in the worst possible light.
"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children, abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
The abstinence programs, which have been embraced by President Bush, will receive $170 million in the current government spending year, more than double what the government was spending when Bush took office in 2001. The abstinence curriculum may not include instruction in contraceptive use as a condition of federal funding.
Waxman said, "It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate. The abstinence-only programs reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."
A.C. Green's Game Plan, named for the professional basketball player who said he would not have sex before he was married, raises question about whether condoms can stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Waxman's report said. "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data," the program's teacher's manual says.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other researchers have found that consistent and correct condom use does protect against transmissions of many STDs, the report said.
Other programs asserted as fact sharply contested claims, the report said. The FACTS middle school program, developed by Northwest Family Services, says, "Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
In another instance, the Why kNOw curriculum asserts "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual," the report said. The correct number is 23 each.
Some curriculums also rely on what Waxman called damaging stereotypes about boys and girls, including that girls care less about achievement and their futures.
The Why kNOw curriculum teaches: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2302EST0779.DTL
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
(12-01) 23:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
Rep. Henry Waxman says federally funded abstinence education programs that are used in 25 states contain false and misleading information about contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
A report Wednesday from the California Democrat said 11 of the 13 most widely used programs underestimate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease, exaggerate the prevalence of emotional and physical distress following abortion, blur science and religion or get fundamental scientific facts wrong.
Alma Golden, deputy assistant Health and Human Services Secretary for population affairs, said the Waxman report took statements out of context to present the programs in the worst possible light.
"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children, abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."
The abstinence programs, which have been embraced by President Bush, will receive $170 million in the current government spending year, more than double what the government was spending when Bush took office in 2001. The abstinence curriculum may not include instruction in contraceptive use as a condition of federal funding.
Waxman said, "It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate. The abstinence-only programs reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."
A.C. Green's Game Plan, named for the professional basketball player who said he would not have sex before he was married, raises question about whether condoms can stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Waxman's report said. "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data," the program's teacher's manual says.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other researchers have found that consistent and correct condom use does protect against transmissions of many STDs, the report said.
Other programs asserted as fact sharply contested claims, the report said. The FACTS middle school program, developed by Northwest Family Services, says, "Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
In another instance, the Why kNOw curriculum asserts "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual," the report said. The correct number is 23 each.
Some curriculums also rely on what Waxman called damaging stereotypes about boys and girls, including that girls care less about achievement and their futures.
The Why kNOw curriculum teaches: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2302EST0779.DTL
AC Green was a classmate of mine -- in a manner. Same school, same year(s). He was in on one of the first tides of religiously-founded social conservatism, and was very (albeit quietly) active within it.
I read only yesterday that in European countries where more sex education is provided, less sex by teenagers is had. That's gotta chap those who think it can best be run & controlled via puritanical Sunday schools.
One wonders if their minds will ever be changed by "facts."
QUOTE
One wonders if their minds will ever be changed by "facts."
Good question. In the case of AIDS in third world countries, preventing condom use is deadly.
On the flip side, how can you convince Muslims in Africa to use a condom?
What a tragedy.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Dec 2 2004, 10:43 AM)
Good question. In the case of AIDS in third world countries, preventing condom use is deadly.
On the flip side, how can you convince Muslims in Africa to use a condom?
What a tragedy.
On the flip side, how can you convince Muslims in Africa to use a condom?
What a tragedy.
Push for women learning how to read and write. I guess in those parts, that might be as hard of a sell, eh?
QUOTE
Push for women learning how to read and write. I guess in those parts, that might be as hard of a sell, eh?
Many Catholics, men and women read and write, they are taught not to use condoms.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Dec 2 2004, 11:08 AM)
Many Catholics, men and women read and write, they are taught not to use condoms.
yes, they are taught to over-populate the world and kill us all.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Dec 2 2004, 11:08 AM)
Many Catholics, men and women read and write, they are taught not to use condoms.
And still, unwanted pregnancies are lower and contraceptive use higher in Catholic countries where women are more empowered and among better-educated groups.
It's a multi-causal, over-determined issue.
Think multiple forces in physics. The final vector is made up of multiple individual force vectors.
QUOTE
Think multiple forces in physics. The final vector is made up of multiple individual force vectors.
Ah yes, but it very difficult to account for all the variables, especially when it comes to issues of faith. Almost impossible to quantify.
QUOTE (davis像 @ Dec 2 2004, 12:46 PM)
Ah yes, but it very difficult to account for all the variables, especially when it comes to issues of faith. Almost impossible to quantify.
Faith is like class. You either have it or you don't.
QUOTE
Dec 2, 2004
PUGHTOWN, Pa. (AP) - A jury made up of United Methodist Church clergy
convicted a lesbian minister Thursday of violating church law by openly
living with her partner in a committed relationship.
The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud could be defrocked as a result of the
ruling, which came on the second day of her church trial. The same
13-member jury was set to meet Thursday afternoon to decide her penalty.
Methodist law bars "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from ministry.
Nine votes were necessary for a conviction and the jury voted 12-1 to
find Stroud guilty.
The last time the 8.3 million-member denomination convicted an openly
gay cleric was in 1987, when a New Hampshire church court defrocked the
Rev. Rose Mary Denman.
Last March, a Methodist court in Washington state acquitted the Rev.
Karen Dammann, who lives with a same-sex partner, citing an ambiguity in
church law that the Methodist supreme court has since eliminated.
Before the jury returned, Stroud, 34, told reporters that whatever the
verdict, "this case has shown how divided we are" over the role of gays
in the church. She had expected to be convicted.
AP-ES-12-02-04 1344EST
PUGHTOWN, Pa. (AP) - A jury made up of United Methodist Church clergy
convicted a lesbian minister Thursday of violating church law by openly
living with her partner in a committed relationship.
The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud could be defrocked as a result of the
ruling, which came on the second day of her church trial. The same
13-member jury was set to meet Thursday afternoon to decide her penalty.
Methodist law bars "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from ministry.
Nine votes were necessary for a conviction and the jury voted 12-1 to
find Stroud guilty.
The last time the 8.3 million-member denomination convicted an openly
gay cleric was in 1987, when a New Hampshire church court defrocked the
Rev. Rose Mary Denman.
Last March, a Methodist court in Washington state acquitted the Rev.
Karen Dammann, who lives with a same-sex partner, citing an ambiguity in
church law that the Methodist supreme court has since eliminated.
Before the jury returned, Stroud, 34, told reporters that whatever the
verdict, "this case has shown how divided we are" over the role of gays
in the church. She had expected to be convicted.
AP-ES-12-02-04 1344EST
QUOTE (lil bart @ Dec 2 2004, 05:27 PM)
AC Green was a classmate of mine -- in a manner. Same school, same year(s). He was in on one of the first tides of religiously-founded social conservatism, and was very (albeit quietly) active within it.
I read only yesterday that in European countries where more sex education is provided, less sex by teenagers is had. That's gotta chap those who think it can best be run & controlled via puritanical Sunday schools.
One wonders if their minds will ever be changed by "facts."
I read only yesterday that in European countries where more sex education is provided, less sex by teenagers is had. That's gotta chap those who think it can best be run & controlled via puritanical Sunday schools.
One wonders if their minds will ever be changed by "facts."
Interesting concepts....mind changes and "facts".
What are the real differences between a young mother-to-be who has an approved abortion and the young mother who tosses her baby into the trash can?
Any thing but a legal concept?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.