Bravo, Linda Gibbons
Linda Gibbons is a Canadian who has stood for Life, no matter what it has cost her. Read her story and be renewed in your own purpose…
Who Wears the Pants
In most American homes, it is the woman.
“Across all decision-making realms, it tilts to the woman,” noted Rich Morin, the Pew study’s lead author. “I was surprised by the percentage of men who made none of the decisions in any of the areas. A significant percentage were just bystanders.” Not surprisingly, one reason men say they are willing to acquiesce in their spouses’ wishes is that their wives usually have greater knowledge of the day-to-day activities and needs of the home than they do. They trust their wives’ choices the way they would any specialist’s. But what is rather unexpected is the deeper (and much sweeter) reason men have for giving in to their wives: They want them to be happy, or at least they don’t want to be responsible for making them unhappy.
The general consensus of sociologists is that, whereas a woman’s marital satisfaction is dependent on a combination of economic, emotional and psychological realities, a man’s marital satisfaction is most determined by one factor: how happy his wife is. When she is happy, he is. Working within this framework, most husbands are unwilling to dig in their heels on any issue unless they have a tremendous incentive to do so.
Abstinence Promotes Childhood Sex
I am both amused and bothered when I catch “news” stories that make a causal connection between rising childhood/teen sexual conduct and “abstinence” education. There are no reliable studies that demonstrate that abstinence education is any less effective than other sex-ed options.
It also matters how you define “abstinence education.” Some programs are abstinence-only, others emphasize a preference for abstinence, others include honest discussions of abstinence with other sex-ed information. Often, reporters unquestioningly include anti-abstinence quotes with no context or definition.
Take a recent example from FOXNews: STDs Run Rampant at Pa. School District, CDC Steps In
It’s estimated that 10 percent of the 3,000 middle and high school students in the Delaware Valley School District in Milford, P.A., are infected with an STD — including one confirmed case of HIV, Times Herald Record reported Friday.
A non-profit health clinic in Milford said they estimate more than 300 students contracted a sexually transmitted disease in the past year. Officials also told the paper students as young as 12 years old reported being sexually active.
Kristen Bruce, a nurse practitioner with the Milford clinic, said most of the cases were the human papillomavirus (HPV).
Bruce told the paper she wasn’t surprised by the numbers, citing a recent CDC study that found at least one in four teenage girls nationwide, between the ages of 14 and 19, has a sexually transmitted disease.
First of all, some basic math. If 1 in 4 teen girls have an STD, then that is 25%. If only 10% of all Delaware Valley students (male and female) have an STD, then the school district is doing something very, very right in their sex-ed department.
But that is not the way Delaware Valley school officials see it:
The Board of Education is currently revising the health curriculum, which places heavy emphasis on abstinence.
Why change what is clearly working? Can we at least have a one-sentence explanation as to how the health curriculum emphasizes abstinence, and why it is relevant to the STD rates? Do the planned changes to the curriculum include eliminating the abstinence portion or will they strengthen the emphasis on abstinence? Aren’t reporters supposed to ask questions and determine facts?
One reason the DV Board of Ed is not patting themselves on the back for a job well done perhaps is because they know the CDC STD Study results are bogus. Seriously, is one out of four teenage girls you know suffering from an STD? In every homeroom of every grade in your local middle- and high-school, there are 5 girls with an STD. During every softball game at your local ballpark, six players are suffering from a sexually transmitted infection. Is this believable? Maybe so in some areas - but nation-wide? Wouldn’t you like some follow-up on how this statistic was calculated? Wouldn’t you like to know why the CDC identified this school district as high-risk at 10% if they really believed 26% of all female teenagers have an STD?
In a nutshell, researchers looked at the data of 600 girls from other sexual infection studies. They lumped everything they could under the category “STD” and did not differentiate between 14-year old freshmen and 19-year old barmaids. Viola! Every girl in junior high is in imminent danger. But there is no background or factual evaluation of the study cited. It is part of a “citation” by a health “official” and thus is simply allowed to stand as factual.
Speaking of officials qualified to dispense medical knowledge related to public policy - do no physicians work for the health clinic? Why is this nurse practitioner especially qualified to serve as a reliable source for questionable CDC information?
The reporter did find one physician who was willing to go on record:
Dr. Joseph Rahimian, an infectious disease specialist at St. Vincent’s Hospital in New York City…
[Rahimian said,] “There’s no study that abstinence is a highly effective form of prevention for any of these infections.”
(Interesting to note that there are no physicians in all of Pennsylvania. Perhaps that is why nurse practitioners carry so much authority there.)
Taking what we have, where did Dr. Rahimian go to medical school to learn that not having sex was anything other than a “highly effective form of prevention” for sexually transmitted diseases? I admit, I have not been to medical school, so perhaps there is a study that shows that people who don’t engage in sexual activity have equally high rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those people who do engage in sexual activity. For most of us laity, something about this claim just doesn’t add up. Does the reporter not understand the illogic of the good doctor’s statement?
The idea that STDs are rampant because there is just too much abstinence is madness to the Nth degree. This type of unquestioning, uncritical reporting is lunacy in print. Reprinting the unsupported claim that STDs are rampant because of “abstinence education” is shoddy, negligent reporting that (considering the ease with which our present report could have been clarified) borders on outright bias and advocacy journalism.
The real sadness is that so many readers uncritically accept it all as somehow true.
Journalistic Communion
GetReligion has a thoughtful post related to journalists and the religious observances they cover…
There are facts that matter here. Facts about history, doctrine and courtesy. Facts matter when you are covering religion news and trends. Facts matter when you are interviewing religious people — left and right, members of major world religions and members of lesser known bodies that some would be tempted to call “fringe.” Facts and doctrine matter to religious people, even to people who are very specific and highly creedal about the doctrines that they reject. I have interviewed many an atheist who had more doctrines in his anti-creed than I recite in the Nicene Creed.
This isn’t about emotions and feelings. It’s about getting the facts right and showing respect for the people for whom those facts, doctrines and rituals are a matter of eternal life and death. Facts matter in journalism, religion and journalism about religion. Amen.
and Amen.
Planned Racism
A few months ago, a student newspaper made a minor flap by calling Planned Parenthood offices and gathering information supporting the thesis that the organization targets black women. I read a few pieces about journalistic ethics or something, but nothing really became of the story.
The ERLC has a transcript of one of the conversations. Read it. You will not believe it.
Shadow Whispers, Pregnant Cheerleaders, and the Loss of Right
From First Things:
Even though Church Day was voluntary, and those who declined to attend suffered no penalty on or off the field, the ACLU urged the university president to end the practice of Coach Bowden taking his team to church. This practice of legal intimidation, directed at both individuals and organizations who affirm traditional values, we label as SLAPP, for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The ACLU ploy is not new; it invokes the requirement of pluralism to secure submission to the doctrine of a secular, naked public square. Anything religious, especially if it is associated with the religion with which nine of ten Americans identify, must be denied public salience. The free exercise of religion becomes synonymous with theocracy, and its practice declared to be a threat to democracy and the public order.
The Constitution and God’s Standards
A few night’s ago, at a Michigan campaign stop, Mike Huckabee said the following:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Perhaps I am late to the party, or perhaps the MSM just hasn’t picked it up yet, but several liberal types on the internet seem to be making a big deal about this statement - recognizing in it a plea for a “theocracy.” This seems to be a ridiculous and un-thought-out assertion, betraying an ignorance of mainstream conservative evangelical thought.
It should come as no surprise that religious conservative and conservative voters are upset with gay “marriage” and abortion - or at least the judicial usurpation of these issues. It should further be recognized that one reason (a big reason) for some voter’s opposition to these practices is based on their interpretation of religious writings they receive as authoritative. It was just a matter of time before one of these people became a candidate and spoke the language of these voters.
Part of the democratic process is hearing the voices of the electorate and evaluating their claims. It is not a “theocracy” for conservative religious people to share their views on abortion any more than it is an imposition of theology for liberal religious speakers to preach against war or advocate an increase in welfare entitlements. Would Huckabee’s detractors deny him access to the public square to make his case before the populace? Such seems patently un-American.
You may not agree with Huckabee’s positions on gay “marriage” or abortion, but amending the Constitution with specific policy statements would make them constitutional laws, not religious laws. The candidate is not speaking of the establishment of a particular national church. The candidate is not advocating the alteration of the Constitution to privilege a certain faith. He is advocating public policy decisions to be considered by the American public. His own personal basis for recommending these changes may stem in part from religious motivations, but the policies and process themselves are entirely secular.
An amendment to the Constitution that privileges the dignity of human life would be a statement that a Constitutionally controlled people made the democratic decision to set a standard for how the country should operate. It would not create a theocracy any more than the 13th amendment, widely supported by religious abolitionists, created a theocracy.
The cries of “theocracy” and “theo-con” and etc. are nothing more than political spin attempts to discredit the policy positions with which the critics disagree. Where any fear actually exists, it is the result of paranoia. Of course, the true danger to a Constitutional way of life for our country is not from Huckabee’s statements or those who oppose them for political reasons, but from those who oppose his views specifically because they have some basis in religious thought. Rabid secularists would seek to squelch the protected speech of religious citizens, bar certain candidates of faith from public office, and silence the voice of certain of America’s citizens. This is anti-religious bigotry in its worst form and undermines the most cherished of American guarantees - a voice.
It is not immoral to be a moral person who cares about others and the welfare of our country. It is not un-American to participate in the great debate. It is both to promote falsehood and fear an effort to deny citizens their political and religious rights.
More Stem-Cell Reflection
Bush may not be closed-minded idiot after all
Here is another post - adult-derived -pluripotent-stem-cells consideration of the balanced approach President Bush took to the “stem-cell issue.” Written by Jay Lefkowitz, former Bush domestic-policy advisor responsible for primary White House research on the subject, the article offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the principle was reached and the decision was made.
We do not know enough yet to say whether, or to what degree, Bushs refusal to allow federal funding to create new embryonic stem-cell lines played a role in compelling scientists to find a different approach to the issue. We do know that, in the aftermath of last Novembers announcement, several leading scientists have suddenly testified in public to having harbored the very same moral doubts that led Bush to his 2001 decision. James Thomson, the foremost stem-cell researcher in the United States, put it plainly: If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.
This was not, to put it mildly, a view openly expressed by the scientific community in the years between Bushs decision and the discovery of the new method. But remarks like Thomsons, and the fact that a scientific advance unthinkable in 2001 has rendered one of the ugliest controversies of the decade all but moot, suggest that it is time to revisit Bushs decision to see what lessons can be drawn from it.
Other articles reviewing Bush’s decision are referenced here. Lefkowitz’s article gives some background information regarding the political status of stem-cell research prior to Bush’s decision that, if had been known and more widely reported, would have altered the knee-jerk-self-righteous opinion of many.
It is en vogue these days to hate President Bush and point out all of his perceived flaws and bad decisions. I do not claim to have a comprehensive grasp of all that he has done, but as more information about more decisions during his tenure come to light it is clear that in many ways for many issues Bush was the right man at the right time for the job.
Ethical Science Wins
Pro-life ethicists have been riding the wave of success lately with the proof of pluripotency from adult (not embryonic) stem-cells. In spite of several Hollywood types’ vigorous endorsements of destroying embryonic human life in a hoped-for attempt to save other full-grown human lives, researchers have found a more immediately useful and ethically better potential for medical solutions in these adult stem cells.
These discoveries should serve as an abrupt warning and highly visible illustration that ethical does not equal anti-science. Ryan T. Anderson writes a Weekly Standard opinion piece commending the bravery and vision of President Bush on this issue. Discovery News also reports that sickle-cell mice have already been cured by this technology using stem-cells derived from their own tails. Not a single therapeutic method has been developed or is in trial from embryonic stem cells.
Bioethics is a frightening field in an age of such advanced technology. We are beyond making better tomato plants - we are now discussing making “better” people. It is time more of those who consider themselves the cultural elite begin listening to the cautious voices who, while not trying to impede progress, nonetheless caution, “Just because we can do something, does not mean that we should do something.” The result of the “stem-cell wars” demonstrates that we can still conduct ethical scientific inquiry. We can both enjoy progress and honor the dignity of all human life.
Thanksgiving Proclamation
It is the duty of nations as well as people to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sin and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scripture and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord!
We have been the recipients of the choicest of bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.
I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father Who dwells in the heavens.
Abraham Lincoln,1863
Homosexual Conversion Rates
A long term study following nearly 100 homosexual men and women who pursued therapy designed to help them leave the homosexual lifestyle found that genuine conversions do occur and the therapy itself has no harmful psychological effects.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–In what some are calling groundbreaking research, a new four-year study concludes it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and become heterosexual through the help of Christian ministries.
The data was released Sept. 13 at a news conference in Nashville, Tenn., and will be published in the forthcoming book, “Ex-Gays?” (InterVarsity Press) by psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse. Thirty-eight percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. In another significant finding, Jones and Yarhouse said attempts at conversions do not appear to be psychologically harmful.
Truth Wins Out, a gay advocacy group, has been lobbying news organizations to discredit the study. Their main contention seems to be that MRIs were not used to measure physical responses to lying and truth-telling to ensure that those who described themselves as successfully leaving the gay lifestyle were not lying to researchers.
Any ex-gay study that does not include physical components that measure truth are [sic] essentially meaningless, said Truth Wins Outs Executive Director Wayne Besen.
It seems that ex-gays would rather mislead and practice skullduggery than get behind the skull, said Mr. Besen.
I think the MRI might be a good idea for a future study, but does not in any way invalidate the research of Jones and Yarhouse. Truth Wins Out could stand a measure of its own criticism.
Brian Shrugged
Kay Hymowitz describes why, though sympathetic, I am ultimately uncomfortable with libertarianism in her article, Freedom Fetishists.
On the one hand, libertarians make a fetish of freedom; it is their totalizing goal. On the other hand, libertarians depend on the family–an institution that, in crucial respects, is unfree–to produce the sort of people best suited to life in a free-market system (not to mention future members of their own movement). The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital–that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.
Children do not come into the world respecting private property. They do not emerge from the womb ready to navigate the economic and moral complexities of an “age of abundance.” The only way they learn such things is through a long process of intensive socialization–a process that we now know, thanks to the failed experiments begun by the [left-wing] Aquarians and implicitly supported by libertarians, usually requires intact families and decent schools.
There is more to a successful, stable society - more to sustainable growth - than “everybody do what you please, just try not to hurt anybody.”
Absolute freedom does not maximize actual freedom.
Search
Recent Posts
- The Problem with Joel Osteen
- Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence
- Bravo, Linda Gibbons
- Who Wears the Pants
- Not Catholic, Not Eastern Orthodox
- Pray for Orissa
- All the Best Commentaries
- My King - Do You Know Him
- Martin Luther on Preaching
Categories
- Church Life (52)
- Culture (67)
- Daily Life (39)
- Doctrine (66)
- Family (17)
- Funny Pages (4)
- Gospel (1)
- Illustration (43)
- Links (24)
- Ministry (47)
- News (23)
- Online (32)
- Politics (21)
- Quotes (13)
- Review (31)
- Science (7)
- Tech (14)
- Uncategorized (12)
Be sure to visit
BestCommentaries.com
BestCommentaries.com