Today has been a slow and marginally productive day. We went to a couple of stores to look at stuff for the house and two were closed after noon on Saturdays. I guess that tells you how often we do that kind of shopping on the weekend.
*****
Facebook weirdness continues. I had lunch with a non-facebooking friend this week--one who knows some of my Facebook friends. He relayed that one of them had expressed surprise to him that my profile listed my religion as "Christian." She was sure I was an atheist. Where that came from, I have no idea.
****
In the news, some really half-funny and also sad items. Sad in the "I just can't quite believe this is where we are" sad. Item 1, as Tony reminded me, is a big "duh" moment when Bristol Palin agreed that abstinence only was not realistic. Well, she also says that kids should abstain. I really feel for this young woman. Through no fault of her own, she was thrust into the national spotlight by a celebrity seeking mother who was quite willing to use her kids as political fodder, even when she knew that Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock. None of this should really matter to the rest of us, but her mother's insistence on abstinence only public policy made it a national issue. And given Sarah Palin's popularity nationwide, her grasp on such public health issues continues to make me scratch my head and wonder where in the hell the Republican party is headed.
Speaking of that, this story made me scratch my head. One Republican Congressman promised that if the Republicans win the House back in 2010, they will cancel the stimulus bill.
Hmm. Let me get this straight. People actually like the stimulus bill. They may not love it, but they like it. And they don't like Republicans in Congress. Yes, even less than the Democrats in Congress, and way less than Obama. So the Republicans are promising that if you will give them back the majority, they will promise to gut everything you like.
That seems like a winning ticket. It is just a mystery why Republicans are in the minority right now.
16 comments:
Abstinence is damned if you do, damned if you don't. To promote or counsel something other than abstinence makes you less of a Christian. To foist abstinence on everyone or anything that moves is not grounded in reality.
It makes it an especially incorrigible issue for pastors, especially pastors who give a rip about their kids. Because if a kid is caught having sex or God forbid ends up pregnant, then "See? If you had only taught abstinence!"
Bristol seems to have a good support group around her so caring for the baby isn't as hard as if say, she was black and her mom was not governor and didn't bring home six figures. But hey, let's be realistic, why don't we?
She was sure I was an atheist. Man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing on that one! A liberal AND an atheist; what a gargantuan two-headed monster you are becoming!!!
;-)
I was thinking this week about how much the abstinence proponents who get any airtime at all tend to talk about sex as a drug like crack or heroin, when the reality is that its main attraction is that it's a powerful way to connect with someone else. People who marry young tend to forget this, but sexual activity of varying degrees is where most young people do their most useful learning about how to relate intimately to themselves and to others. Parents who are cowardly enough not to deal with their teens growing up are in effect teaching their children not to have good relationships.
This helps me makes sense of what a client of ours was saying last week, that sane, honest and genuinely good people tend to last longer in federal law enforcement than in ministry. With all the waste, corruption and ethical minefields you run into in both fields, at least federal cops don't pretend that what they do is inherently righteous.
I am finding Facebook to be a very weird experience. I haven't run into many people that are surprised by me, but I have been surprised by some of them.
None of this should really matter to the rest of us, but her mother's insistence on abstinence only public policy made it a national issue.
This is not accurate. Though I am not comfortable with the role of defending Palin, I still find myself pointing out myths. IIRC, both the LA Times and Time Magazine had Palin stating that while she supported abstinence being taught, she thought it was also necessary to teach the use of contraceptives. I have no idea of what she taught at home.
So the Republicans are promising that if you will give them back the majority, they will promise to gut everything you like.
This does seem incredibly short-sighted. I have some problems with the stimulus package and it is clear from polling data that many people have problems with some aspect of the package. That being said, most people agree that something should be done, so to say you will eliminate the whole thing is just stupid.
Smart Republicans would continue their opposition to the parts they don't think are productive and support the ones that they think will help. Then they should wait and see what happens.
Leighton, at first glance I thought you were saying that people only developed good relationship skills if they were having sex, but then I see that I was wrong. I agree that parents that don't have meaningful and frank discussions with their children on sex aren't doing them any favors.
at least federal cops don't pretend that what they do is inherently righteous.
I beg to differ, but I don't want to drag this OT.
A liberal AND an atheist; what a gargantuan two-headed monster you are becoming!!!
Heh. It takes some practice, mind you.
Leighton, I agree, and think you have a great point about forming good relationships.
Steve, I remember reading that Palin responded on her gubernatorial questionnaire that she did not support explicit sex education, and she also cut funding for teen moms. She may not be a hardline abstinence only person, but her background here is not exactly impressive, in my opinion.
Leighton, Streak,
I may be misunderstanding and if so, I will gladly retract. I am a parent and a pastor, plus I take a stand much different from many of my peers where sex education is concerned. I try to ground it in reality in an environment where most kids were screwed up, are screwed up, or will be screwed up and not just in relationships. Yes, I do teach abstinence, but I also teach grace and forgiveness, and encourage safe sex in less than ideal situations.
The fact is most kids don't understand the dynamics of good, positive relationships, and I would disagree that sexual exploration is a viable means to establish and mature relationships. As a matter of fact, I would contend the opposite. Kids who spend themselves with anyone, having multiple sexual encounters before marriage, only serve to jeopardize their future relationship with their spouses.
There are some courageous parents out there who are willing to teach their kids that abstinence is the best way but we are all capable of screwing up. When they do, parents should be there for them, not treat them as anathema.
Finally, Leighton, and I don't mean to be obstinate, but your last sentence is a biased generalization. I realize you come from a much different background than I and I certainly respect that; your objection is grounded in ministry done poorly than ministry overall, I think.
Tony,
I will let Leighton speak for himself, but I can completely understand your view here. And I think we agree, as well. I think that a lot of young kids turn toward sexual activity without having either the emotional maturity or tools to deal with it, and it becomes perhaps an easier way to relate than in an in depth way. But the abstinence only seems to only want to shut the sexual part down, without really addressing A) the importance and legitimacy of a person's own sexual identity, or B) developing healthy ways of relating to other people. The result, it seems to me, is often teaching (unintentionally) denial and repression as ways to approach the ways they respond to other people.
I am not suggesting that young kids should be more sexual. But I think that there are aspects there that are just being denied in some pretense of public moral policy.
Yes - you are right, too. The abstinence only position does simply seem to be a way to avoid dealing with teaching mature sexuality. I have seen it used as a means to avoid talking about sex altogether and to address it is subChristian, because you know, good Christians abstain, even the married ones!
I didn't think you were suggesting greater levels of sexual activity and I may have misread Leighton; his comment, ...sexual activity of varying degrees is where most young people do their most useful learning about how to relate intimately to themselves and to others, certainly sounds like "sex without love" to quote Sammy Hagar. :)
And we certainly agree that abstinence as public policy is not ideal; Sarah Palin and her daughter and grandson are good examples. To me, abstinence always seems to work...until it doesn't. I think you get my drift.
Steve, I remember reading that Palin responded on her gubernatorial questionnaire that she did not support explicit sex education, and she also cut funding for teen moms. She may not be a hardline abstinence only person, but her background here is not exactly impressive, in my opinion.
This article does a good job explaining why the cuts may not be cuts. There was another site where they explain it better, but I would have to dig pretty deep to find it.
I don't have an opinion on Alaska's sex ed. I was just pointing out that saying Palin supported abstinence only was not true then, nor is it true now. For some reason, many still seem to believe it.
Wow, let me say that that site was not terribly impressive. Calling Andrew Sullivan a "left-blogger" then complaining about hatred of Republicans doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
I am perfectly willing to concede that this blogger (though not terribly even handed) is correct about this particular part of Palin's governance. But that does not take away from her less than bright answers on her gubernatorial questionnaire.
What is more, I must say, (though I understand you are not intending to be the big Palin apologist) but I don't think her politics are actually that well thought out. In other words, I am not trying to be mean here, but she does not seem that deep, nor does she demonstrate that she has really thought through a philosophy of how government should work.
BTW, I love the blogger you cited in his attack on us on the left wing (including Sullivan who voted for Bush in 2000, I might add) for it being us who made Palin's family part of the news cycle. That begs credulity, given Palin's own willingness to use her kids as proof of her family values bona fides.
Tony,
I'm sure there are places and contexts where abusive sexual relationships are not just common, but encouraged; I think that purposefully declining to participate would be best in these circumstances, much like parishes in 19th century Ireland urged abstinence from alcohol. I've been assuming that this isn't the societal norm, since my youth group and a handful of public schools that made the news are the only environments like that I've ever seen. Maybe it's more common than I think, or depends on the region, or whatever. I don't know.
But absent social or peer pressure to damage each other, I'm not so sure that abstinence, as a principle, is helpful. By all means, people should wait until they're ready and know what they're doing; and even then, only do what they're very comfortable with. But I think that teaching solid relationships will directly imply sexual health as a corollary, whereas teaching specifically sexual abstinence tends not to touch much on relationships, which is the topic that people who treat sex as nothing more than a drug or a form of dominance really need to learn about. It seems that when people do screw up (and everyone does, not necessarily in the sexual realm, but somewhere), the more helpful message is "Yeah, that's bad, but it doesn't have to be that way" rather than "See what happens when you don't do what we say and abstain?" A lot of environments (not just churches) treat education about morals less as a way to rear responsible adults, and more like a planting party for psychological mines and booby traps.
I'm puzzled at what in my comment could sound like sex without love. Learning how to be intimate with other people means just that--learning to connect, to commune, to love. But in so doing, you also learn a lot about yourself too (hopefully, anyway). I'm kind of stuck, information-wise, in a situation where nobody from back home older than my generation will say two words about sexuality, and the people my age who are well-adjusted in a relationship threw away everything they were taught (half of which was wrong, half of which was too vague to be of any use) and started over on their own. Maybe I wouldn't be so preoccupied with learning about myself if I had received any kind of useful education on the topic growing up. But I didn't, so I'm doing what I can to catch up for lost time.
Streak,
I didn't reference that blogger out of any desire for even-handedness. For the most part, I don't see blogs as being all that fair and balanced, but rather a place to state an opinion and sometimes engage in dialog. Obviously, some do this better than others. The factual data that is referenced is what I was mainly trying to present. I looked back in my blog to find the sites I used. They were a little less shrill and had references.
Wow, let me say that that site was not terribly impressive. Calling Andrew Sullivan a "left-blogger" then complaining about hatred of Republicans doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Andrew Sullivan is fairly described as "left" on many issues. The author is obviously supportive of Palin, so I am sure that Sullivan's posting stuff on the rumor that Sarah faked her pregnancy and she cut spending for teen mothers probably doesn't sit well with him.
Steve, I am not (obviously) attacking all bloggers, but this one was particularly biased. And his attack on Sullivan actually speaks to the problems we have. Is Sullivan a liberal because he criticized Palin? Or Bush? Is that what constitutes ideological identity? Seems like that is what BB noted a few weeks ago.
Sullivan is a small government conservative who found Palin's willingness to put her family out there for political purposes, yet unwilling to actually put forward any medical records--well, he found that a problem. Nothing in that defines him as a liberal. This blogger seems to see anyone who dislikes Palin as a liberal, and that is really part of our problem.
To be fair, as you know, Palin does not sit well with me. I find her anti-intellectual and poorly prepared and/or interested in policy. I don't think she has thought through her philosophy of government in any meaningful way--and her VP debate revealed much of that. She is a good looking, and charismatic leader, and that appears to be all she brings to the table.
Leighton,
I certainly did not mean to intrude in this area of your personal life, nor did I mean for you to share something that is uncomfortable for you.
We have a fundamental disagreement where abstinence is concerned. I believe abstinence can be misused and even abused though as a personal conviction it is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. As a public policy it is damaging.
Your position seems (to me) to be one of license and I don't see that as helpful or healthy. I find it difficult to believe that encouraging people to have multiple sexual encounters as teaching them to live and love in a constructive and meaningful way. Sex is, in my opinion, a wonderful expression of your love for someone that should by definition be personal, private, and saved--saved for the one you intend to spend the rest of your life loving.
From my point of view, someone can learn to be intimate and loving without having to have sex with someone to discover if they are or are not intimate and loving.
I would like to note though, that my point of view does not preclude the existence of abusive sexual relationships. And further, in my prior return comment, I think you and I find agreement regarding your prior second paragraph.
To give you some kind of context, I am pastoring a second church. I was at the first church for six years and spent considerable time, three years or better, with the young people before the topic of sex was even broached. I laid a foundation of teaching on healthy relationships (with all people, not just the opposite sex for dating purposes) so when we got to healthy sexual expression (not just True Love Waits) it was relegated to the "Well, duh..." file. I wasn't foisting abstinence on them, nor was I teaching it simply because their parents expect that I should. It was out of a genuine conviction that saving sex until marriage is healthy, wise, and lends itself to a meaningful relationship with your spouse where sex is a benefit, mutually enjoyed, and not a right.
I find Sullivan to be confusing and contridictory in some areas. He puts himself out there as a small 'l' Libertarian, though he has backed people like Kerry and Obama. Not that there is anything wrond with those picks, but I don't find either of them to be all that small government.
That being said, I think Sullivan is a good writer and an interesting blogger.
I don't doubt that Sullivan confounds some of our stereotypes about political leanings, but my point was that according to this blogger, the fact that Sullivan couldn't stand Palin defined him as a left winger. Likewise, many conservatives defined anyone who detested Bush as a left winger, even when those people had great conservative bona fides.
It is a problem of definition.
This is totally off topic, but am I the only one who saw Streak at the academy awards last night? Who knew he was so funny?-BB
Post a Comment