Christians Show Their Love By Promoting Bullying

Jesus spoke of peace, love, sharing, helping those in need, and, of course, beating the shit out of gay people. At least, that's what Mat Staver with (Lack of) Liberty Counsel thinks.

Today's piece comes from OneNeuronNow (a little insult I have to thank Ron B. for!). It's entitled "It's okay to speak up on 'Day of Silence'" and is written by Pete Chagnon. The "Day of Silence" is a project of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. It's designed as a protest against the unfair treatment of gays and transgendered students by their ignorant redneck classmates. Which means, it has absolutely jack all to do with anything other than preventing bullying. It does not promote homosexuality or gay groups' political agenda, unless you think there's something seedy and sinister about preventing bullying. Which, of course, the fundies do, unless they're the victims.

The annual "Day of Silence" will be observed today (April 17) in schools across the nation, but a legal organization says individuals have the right to speak up.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's what the First Amendment is for. You have the right to participate or not participate in any event, movement, agenda, or group you feel like, and nobody can stop you. Nobody ever implied they wanted to.

The Day of Silence is an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Participants are encouraged to remain silent throughout the day as a show of solidarity to their homosexual peers whom they believe are being bullied and silenced on campus.

Wouldn't you know it? The fundies got something right. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.

Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal organization, contends that school officials have overstepped their bounds in punishing or threatening students who refuse to participate in the Day of Silence.

Yes, they probably have. Or at least, they would have if that ever happened. But I'm sure a citation will be coming any day now. Stay tuned!

According to a press release, a school principal in Florida told a father that if his son skipped school on the Day of Silence, then the child would fail the school year.

What press release? Where? Who wrote it? What newspaper is it in? When did this happen? What school? Who is the principal? Do you have a quote?

No, of course not, because this is One-Sided News Now. "We report (whatever we feel like)! You decide (that we're right)!"

For the record, I'm not in favor of failing a student for an entire school year for missing one day, for any reason. I do, however, think the kid should get an unexcused absence for that day.

In Indiana, parents were told that it was against the law to cancel the Day of Silence.

What do you mean "to cancel the Day of Silence?" Who wanted to cancel it, the school or the parents? How were they going to "cancel" it?

In South Dakota, a student was told that if she did not attend school on the Day of Silence she had to write a paper explaining her absence.

And that's a problem why? Do other students have to write papers for missing days as well?

And in Oklahoma, a student was told that if the Day of Silence was not permitted then the school could not permit Christian clubs.

GAHH! The student "was told?" By whom? In what context? Why? I can't even refute most of this bullshit, because it's so light on facts I don't even know what's going on. That is, if I had any reason to believe these things happened at all. Where did Pete Chagnon get his journalism degree? Clown college?

In response, Liberty Counsel has released a legal memorandum that explains student rights concerning the Day of Silence.

I wouldn't trust Liberty Counsel with a speeding ticket. My only advice for people thinking about reading that "legal memorandum" is to tread very, very carefully.

According to Liberty Counsel, students who interfere with or disrupt school activities are not protected under the First Amendment --

I'll say it again: No shit, Sherlock.

-- and if a teacher asks a question during class, students do not have the right to remain silent.

So, does that mean that if a teacher asks a question, and a student answers it, all the other students in the class have committed a crime?

Yes, yes, I know what the fundies are trying to say. Luckily, GLSEN has that covered.

Some schools ask students to speak as they normally would during class and remain silent during breaks and at lunch. There is no single way to participate, and students are encouraged to take part in the way that is the most positive and uplifting for their school.

Anyway, let's get back to the fundies:

Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, says when it comes to the Day of Silence, silence is not an option.

Yeah, I know. You just said that.

"Students have the right not to remain silent," he adds. "Students can refuse to attend school. They may mount a counter-protest in support of purity and the traditional family.

Yeah, or they could just go about their business and not participate (if the idea of not abusing people is really that offensive to them...)

Staver argues that while schools may be required to allow clubs on campus, they do not have to promote the Day of Silence. And he says they do "not have to recognize clubs that promote sexual promiscuity."

I agree. In fact, I think schools should NOT recognize clubs that promote promiscuity. Now, if only someone were trying to start one!

Oh yes, let's run down a few comments from the peanut gallery, shall we?

I hope that there many students with the courage to speak out in truth today. There is way too much misinformation being spread about this so-called "life style" choice.

Ya got that right! Too bad it's people like you who are the ones spreading the misinformation.

"And in Oklahoma, a student was told that if the Day of Silence was not permitted then the school could not permit Christian clubs." - How do the two compare?? A day for promoting bad bedroom practices vs a religious club? Just not seeing the correlation here. Unless the person was trying to say that these bad bedroom practices are actually a religion... But, on another note: Why does one need a day to promote their weird/bad bedroom practices? How about one to celebrate normal bedroom practices?

"Bad bedroom practices?" What? This is a day to speak out against bullies. Who's talking about "bad bedroom practices?"

I wonder how much money GLSEN has given to 'public schools' to push this agenda?

What are you talking about, you idiot? Schools aren't for sale! And the Day of Silence isn't being sponsored by any school!

What would happen if Muslims or Mexicans or red-headed step children wanted a day specifically for them? Guaranteed they would be shunned!!!

That's not how the argument works. You're trying to point out hypocrisy, but all you've done is list two groups that liberals traditionally support, plus one that just doesn't make any sense. You're supposed to say something like, "What if Christians wanted a day!?!?!?!11oneoneeleventy"

Just more of 'special interest' pushing their values down "every one's throat." And no, it's not "just the Christians" complaining; it's Americans!!!!

You're an idiot.

Praying at the flag pole before school is not the same as refusing to speak all day. And it is especially sad if you have teachers doing the same. They're not doing their job then.

Whoever said teachers were silent?

And the examples given in the article show that some students would be bullied for choosing to speak, which is actually kind of ironic. I am so thankful to live in a conservative area where my kids don't have to deal with this stuff.

Deal with what "stuff?" Mean, nasty liberals trying to tell them they can't pick on the gays? "Willie, please! The students want to pick on someone their OWN size!"

Why are political agendas being promoted in public schools, paid for by all taxpayers?

Paid for by taxpayers? What the hell are you talking about? Why do you idiots insist on bringing up taxes every time something happens you don't like?

And really, what is it you think all those taxes are going to? Does it cost a lot of money to shut up? Because in your case, I'm willing to dig.

It's appalling to bring our children into this debate. Parents should be taking their children out of school today. This is an issued between parents and children and not to be relegated by educators. This day of silence should not be allowed in our public schools particularly in view of the policies regarding prayer, moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance being banned.

Wow, you make even less sense than the last guy. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Would it kill you to take a few seconds to read over your pithy little diatribes before you post them? Because really--you sound like a dumbass.

Finally, one more quote, this time from a reader who seems to have his/her head screwed on straight.

Of course students don't have to remain silent. Nobody is trying to say that they do. And the Day of Silence is not a school sponsored event, it is a CLUB sponsored event. Skipping school under any circumstances is never acceptable, so no - students won't be excused from classes simply because they disagree with the message some students are sharing. They don't have to do anything at all, other than abstain from harrassing those who do choose to remain silent. As a Christian, I think it is ridiculous to throw a fit over the Day of Silence. I would be extremely angry if students starting skipping school in protest of my son's private choice to pray at the flag pole each morning. We shouldn't allow our children to skip school because some students are choosing to observe this silence.

You, sir, are NOT a fundie.

Right-Wing Lunatic Andy Schlafly and his Midterm Exams

Somewhere, somehow, Andy Schlafly got it into his head that he should be a teacher. Not just any teacher, but a teacher of children. (Certainly not of college students...wouldn't want to risk developing some professor values!)

So, as part of his goal to indoctrinate young minds (while simultaneously accusing liberals of indoctrination), Andy has started posting World History lectures on Conservapedia. This means--and folks, it twists my stomach into knots to say this--there are students actually studying under Andy and his deranged tutelage.

Now, Andy is very proud of his big classes, and even wrote an essay on how great they are. A really shitty one, mind you, but it's there. And yet he opposes public schools, which, I can only guess, aren't overcrowded enough for him.

So what kinds of things is the Assfly teaching in his lectures? To find out, let's check out some of the questions on the World History Midterm Exam!

1. The person who lived almost precisely between Abraham and us today (on a timeline) was: (a) Moses (b) David (c) Jesus (d) Constantine (e) William the Conqueror

What kind of a stupid question is that? Who cares? And how can you prove the answer is correct? (The answer is Jesus, if you're interested, which I doubt you are.)

10. This person may have done more unintentionally to prepare the world for the spread of Christianity than any other single person:

(a) Paul of Taurus
(b) Alexander the Great
(c) Attila the Hun
(d) Constantine
(e) Hannibal

The answer Andy is looking for is Attila the Hun. Apparently leading a barbarian invasion against Christian Rome is really good for Christians. Even better than the guy who made Christianity the official religion of Rome. Although Constantine didn't do it "unintentionally," it's an obviously leading question.

And really, how do you answer the question of who "may have" done something the most?

11. Christianity is different from other major religions in which respects?

(a) its use of logic
(b) its emphasis on love
(c) its emphasis on faith
(d) numerous miracles were performed by its founder
(e) all of the above

(f) The fact that it has a wacked-out online pseudo-encyclopedia treating it as if it were fact? Naturally, (e) is the answer Andy says is the "correct" one, because apparently there are no other religions that emphasize faith. Or love, which means the Muslim wedding I attended last summer was a figment of my imagination. And I'm sure an objective reading of any religion would turn up no one who believes that miracles were performed or their beliefs are logical.

Why don't you just go ahead and say it, Andy: "I believe Christianity is the only true religion, and if you don't, I'll mark off points!"

16. Which of these South American civilizations is compared most to the ancient Greek civilization in terms of achievement?

(a) Moche
(b) Maya
(c) Inca
(d) Aztec
(e) Toltec

Andy thinks it's the Mayans, but he doesn't say who's doing the comparing. Probably not anyone with any sense, because those people know that the Mayans weren't a South American civilization.

19. Which was the most successful Crusade?

(a) the Children’s Crusade
(b) Number 1
(c) Number 2
(d) Number 3
(e) Number 4

The Children's Crusade? I'd never heard of that one, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently, the crusade was when a two kids led two different bands of wanderers across Europe. Neither of them got to Jerusalem and most of them disbanded when the "Crusaders" all died or went home. That's what Andy thinks is the "most successful Crusade."

22. Which of the following best describes the greatest commandment of Islam?

(a) Love each other
(b) Love Allah
(c) Submit to Allah
(d) Believe in reincarnation
(e) Avoid prayer

Submit to Allah is the correct answer. Hmm, where have I heard that before? No, no indoctrination going on here, right kids? It's just a simple question with a simple answer, and absolutely no ulterior motives!

24. Once might say that President Lyndon Johnson did not know much world history when he unsuccessfully involved the United States heavily in the Vietnam War. Why might one say that?

(a) Because the Vietnamese treated women much better than the Chinese did.
(b) Because the Vietnamese treated women much worse than the Chinese did.
(c) Because the Vietnamese were the only people able to defeat the Chinese.
(d) Because the Vietnamese defeated three attempts by the Mongols to conquer Hanoi.
(e) Because Vietnam is a very small country.

Andy is looking for answer choice (d). Okay, the answer is kind of logical, based on both the outcome of the Vietnam War and the inference drawn here (if you ignore all the changes the world went through between the Mongol invasion and ours!). But the way it's worded makes it painfully obvious that isn't so much a world history question as it is a slap at President Johnson.

35. Who said the following (translated into English): “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”:

(a) Dante
(b) David Hume
(c) John Wycliffe
(d) Buddha
(e) Machiavelli

The answer is Dante, but yet again, we have a question that's really just an Andy Talking Point. In this case, the fact that Dante said it is really secondary to the fact that Andy really just wants everybody to know how much he hates people being neutral on moral issues. Which is odd considering how much scorn he heaps on liberals versus how little he says about people who have no opinions about things. Curse those neutral bastards, always not shoving their opinions in people's faces and not harassing people who disagree with them!

41. “God is defined as perfection; existence is part of perfection; therefore God must exist.” That argument is similar to:

(a) Martin Luther’s proof of the existence of God.
(b) Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God
(c) Anselm’s cosmological proof of the existence of God
(d) Thomas Aquinas’s ontological proof of the existence of God
(e) Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological proof of the existence of God

(f) A steaming pile of horse shit?

Andy thinks the correct answer is (d). I don't know how Aquinas' ontological proof of God goes, but I sure hope it's better than Andy's!

And then of course, we have the ho-ho fun extra credit questions, separated by gender! (At least this time, they didn't segregate the whole damn test.)

(Girls only) An example of modern chivalry for girls would be all of the following EXCEPT:

(a) protecting a young child whose parent is distracted by something else
(b) thanking a boy who offers to help carry something
(c) lightening the stress on boys and men, who live on average 7 years less than girls and women
(d) insisting on participating in an all-boy activity like tackle football
(e) welcoming a boy when he might feel awkward

Well, gee, Andy, I have no idea! I'm sure I wouldn't notice your ludicrously over-the-top signposting that it's answer choice (d), could it?

Do any of the women reading this blog think they could probably whip Andy and his pansy ass good in an "all-boy activity like tackle football?" Too bad you'll never find out, because you need to stop "insisting" that you be allowed to play and get back in the kitchen!

(Boys only) An example of modern chivalry for boys would be all of the following EXCEPT:

(a) protecting a girl from danger that you recognize but she does not
(b) showing good sportsmanship after winning or losing an athletic contest
(c) thanking a girl for making chocolate brownies that you enjoyed
(d) showing initiative and welcoming a girl when she enters a room
(e) making a joke at the expense of people having physical handicaps

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "protect a girl from danger" if I'm too insecure in my masculinity to even let her join my football game. So I'll just go ahead and pick (e). Too bad for Andy, I'm still allowed to make fun of people with mental handicaps!

Anti-Choice Movement Cranks Up the Lying Spin Machine

Isn't there a commandment about "thou shalt not bear false witness" or something? Doesn't that mean fundies aren't supposed to lie? If so, why do they lie all the time?

It's most egregious in regard to abortion. Fundies will lie, cheat, and break the law if it means their precious undifferentiated clumps of cell matter won't be plucked out. (Too bad they don't care as much about full-grown human beings as they do about fetuses; we'd have a lot fewer wars.) Do the fundies get as steamed up every time a woman has her period?

Pastor Walter Hoye has spent a week in a California jail on charges related to his ministry at a Berkeley abortion clinic.

Oh really? His "ministry?" Is that what they're calling it these days? Cuz somehow, I doubt it has much to do with "ministry."

Hoye was ordered to serve 30 days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine after refusing the court's offer of probation. Catie Short of the Life Legal Defense Foundation explains that Hoye declined probation because the court ordered him not to help women.

Really? The court "ordered him not to help women?" Yeah. I bet.

Or maybe that's another lie, and the court ordered him to stay the hell away from the abortion clinic and stop harassing the women who went in.

While we're at it, let's unpack that bit about him refusing the probation offer--which, by the way, was the prosecutor's offer, not the court's. Courts don't make "offers" because courts don't deal with defendants.

The minister could have walked away with three years probation, and refused to take it. In other words, he's a sanctimonious prick who wanted to martyr himself. He's a minister with a Jesus complex.

Here's a first-hand account of what went on at sentencing, written in painful, melodramatic prose. I don't know why you'd want to read it, but I've posted it in case you want to exercise your eyeballs by rolling them a lot (or if you want some details).

"He told the court that he would do his best to comply with the law," says Short. "It's not like he's saying, 'I'm going to go out there and violate the law.'"

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY what he's saying. According to the Oakland Tribune article I linked above, it's illegal for anyone to get within 8 feet of a woman entering an abortion clinic. Pastor Hoye did that, willfully. How is he not guilty? How do you figure he's not specifically trying to violate this law?

"'But in the meantime, I want to be able to go and offer alternatives to women who are considering abortion.'"

BULLSHIT.

Stop lying, you shameless, disgusting fundie. You're a liar, and you're lying right now.

STOP. FUCKING. LYING.

You don't give a flying shit about "offering alternatives" to women. They're not "considering abortion," they're heading in to have one. They've already considered abortion, and they've considered your alternatives. They made their choice, and now you and your awful, shameless ilk are trying to guilt them into changing their minds.

If you really wanted to just "go and offer alternatives" you wouldn't walk up to women at the door of a clinic. You wouldn't stand around all day carrying a sign that says "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!" And you sure as hell wouldn't break the law, then make a big show of what a hero you are.

You're a sick fuck, Pastor Hoye.

The judge ordered him to stay 100 yards away from the abortion clinic, which Short calls a severe restriction on free speech. She has also filed suit in federal court asking that the ordinance Hoye violated be declared unconstitutional.

Which will be promptly tossed out of court because Catie Short is an idiot who didn't study her constitutional law. It is firmly held that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech are well within the government's powers, and that there are solid constitutional foundations for restricting protests in front of abortion clinics.

"We are filing motions for summary judgment May 1, and they'll be heard on June 5, and we are very optimistic the court will find the law to be unconstitutional," she adds.

And you feel this way because you're either a moron or deluded or both.

For those who don't know, a motion for summary judgment asks the court to rule that there is no triable issue of fact for a court to decide, and that because of this, the lawsuit should be decided right now in my favor. Here, the issue is whether a restriction on clinic protesting is constitutional. Caitlin Short is arguing that the answer is so blindingly obvious that a judge should just rule and be done with it.

On that issue, at least, I agree with her. The judge should rule against her in short order and send her packing (which is a perfectly legal thing to do, even when she's the one who filed for summary judgment!).

According to Short, Hoye is spending his time behind bars talking to inmates about Jesus -- just as he did at the abortion clinics.

That should open up a new area of practice for the good reverend's ministry: overcoming his homosexuality. Because if he keeps annoying inmates, he's going to end up as somebody's bitch.

Spring Break Is More Fun When You Bring Your Parents!

I wish I could party with Rebecca Hagelin. She's a real barrel of laughs, that one. Maybe one day, if I'm really lucky, I'll be able to go on Spring Break with my parents too! What am I talking about? Read Christian Worldview Network's Why Have "Girls Gone Wild?" and see for yourself!

Spring break is in full swing for many college students across the country. And believe me, when I say "full swing," I mean full-rockin', rollin' party-hearty swinging!

Awesome! Now where's my Speedo? I want in!

But given that nearly all of these students' lifestyles are still funded by their parents, and that nearly all are still under the legal drinking age, it makes me wonder: What are their parents thinking?

I don't know, maybe that the drinking age is an unnecessarily restrictive, arbitrary number considering you can buy cigarettes, porn, and lottery tickets and go to war at age 18? Maybe that their teenagers know how to safely approach alcohol consumption, like they do in most every other country in the world? Or, on that same topic, that the drinking age in Mexico is 18 so there's nothing illegal going on at all? Or maybe it's just that Rebecca Hagelin doesn't have the right to tell them how to raise their own kids!?

As a mom of two college men I actually find it fairly easy to boldly proclaim: "If you are livin' on my dime, then you are livin' by my rules."

That's fair. Of course, what's also fair is that "your rules" make sense. Oh yes, and let's make sure the inverse is true here too, Beckers. Does that mean that if your kids AREN'T "livin' off your dime," that you'll shut up and allow them to live their lives as they see fit? Even if you disagree with it?

My rules for them as adults are actually filled with freedom, coupled with the principle of "self government." They were raised with this consistent theme, and they understand that my husband and I practice the "abuse and lose" approach. (I.e., they have both freedom and our full support as long as they follow basic rules that provide for their safety, moral development, and future.)

Oh yes, I'm sure the lives of a fundie's kid are "filled with freedom." Freedom to pray five times a day. Freedom to not have sex. Freedom to not drink. Freedom to watch all kinds of educational programming on TV...

Of course, I can hear the naysayers now: "But they're adults. You can't tell adult children what to do." To this I simply answer, "BALONEY!"

I am a much-older adult, and I understand that an employer can impose certain codes and expectations for my behavior on me. That's the deal in life -- you work for someone, you have to play by their rules. (Of course I know they can't trample your basic rights, deny civil liberties, etc. So don't go there. You know what I'm talking about.)

No, I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm fine with you setting the rules when you're paying the bills, but of course, the uncomfortable flip side to that is, again, that when you're not paying, you back the hell off.

Further, home life does not equal a job. Bosses don't get to restrict employees' freedom because they're paying, they get to restrict employees' freedom because employees are expected to do their work, and do it for the employer. But when you clock out, you're on your own. Hagelin's idea ignores the fact that if you start running your kids lives at home (simply on the grounds that you hold the purse strings), that leaves nowhere for them to go to simply be left to their own devices.

I'm not arguing that a parent doesn't have the right to set some reasonable boundaries for their own house, just that "I can do it because their boss can!" is a false analogy.

The young college men in my life -- of whom I am so very proud and blessed to be called their "mom" -- also know that my husband and I are fully committed to them as individuals and will provide plenty of opportunities for good, safe fun.

Yeah, that sounds riotous. I bet their lives are just one screaming orgasm.

Let's get back to Spring Break as an example. Instead of shrugging our shoulders and letting them go off to some distant beach where mayhem, alcohol and "Girls Gone Wild" abound, I booked a house at our favorite beach, which is located on a barrier island on Florida's Gulf Coast. With no bridge (you have to get here by boat) and no bars, this break is a lot safer and a lot more meaningful than what many are experiencing.

That sounds like me when I was in college. My boyz and I were all sitting around planning where we were going that year, trying to come up with the most "meaningful" Spring Break we could come up with. We realized the most "meaningful" Spring Break we could have should be spent hunkered down at a single-sex retreat with our dads memorizing Bible passages! The Lord was totally with us that week! What a great time! I had a hard-on for Jesus!

One of my dear friends has a house nearby and her daughter, also on Spring Break, has brought about nine of her "best friends" too. So, there's plenty of social activity, fun and friendship without the nonsense.

Yeah, I bet those kids were all begging to pile on that party bus. "Mom!" they cried. "Why can't you chaperone us this year? We want a trip that doesn't have any of that 'nonsense!' Like beer, hot chicks, and fun!"

The kids go back and forth between our houses, so my friend and I both get to spend time with them and listen to their entertaining -- and interesting -- chatter.

Last night the gang was at my friend's house and the main topic of conversation proved an-eye-opening, mind-numbing experience for her.

She discovered they made pants for women too?

Most of the girls on this trip are freshmen, and somehow the conversation led to a shared humiliating experience now common at most college campuses: the mandatory co-ed, sex-ed course they all attended during their first few weeks on campus. They described the graphic nature of the class, and how embarrassed and outraged they were when they were shown how to put a condom on a banana.

Pffff...BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, my God, kid! Oh, I needed that! That's fucking rich! Oh, boy. (wipes tear away)

Kid, if watching someone clam dam a piece of fruit makes you "embarrased and outraged," you're gonna have one hell of a miserable life!

But then it got worse -- they were all encouraged to do the condom/banana exercise, too. The girls spoke of how a couple of their fellow students seemed to take great pride at their skill in demonstrating what seemed an all-too-familiar maneuver. However, my young friends said they were mortified and left the course feeling "trashy" and belittled by administration officials who expect them to all behave like wild animals in heat.

Uh, last I checked, "wild animals in heat" don't take the time lay out the bone blanket before they get to it. Maybe the fact that you all felt "trashy" is because you grew up in a sexually repressed environment that brainwashed you to think sex was some kind of dark, dirty secret that you should be ashamed of (and that spending Spring Break chaperoned by your mom is somehow fun!).

"They seemed to be encouraging us to be sexually active," one member of the volley ball team said. "I was insulted and offended by the entire experience."

Yeah, we know. You keep saying it.

This particular young co-ed had gone to a private Christian high school, so she had managed to escape the low expectations that many educators bring to today's youth. She and her mom weren't aware that in today's public schools, millions of boys and girls are now, indeed, treated as if they are going to be sex-crazed creatures and, therefore, are actually encouraged to engage in risky behavior.

Encouraged, are they? Either something has radically changed since I was in public school, or the fundies have a warped view of reality. (I'll let you figure this one out!)

And what's this about "low expectations?" I presume this means that schools don't expect kids to remain abstinent. Well, I'm not sure how "low" an expectation that is, considering how many teens are having sex.

Face it: When an adult in authority stands in front of the classroom and directs graphic discussions of sex in every form, forces boys and girls to sit by each other throughout the humiliating lectures, and then further violates the child's natural tendencies to be private or modest, then you end up with kids who follow what they've been taught. On the other hand, when kids are treated with dignity, taught the value of abstinence...

Really? That's great. So all we have to do is stop all the sex ed classes that have no abstinence component. That shouldn't take long, since no such classes exist.

...and how to avoid placing themselves in compromising situations in the first place, the research shows that more of them do, indeed, respond by adopting a lifestyle of self-control and more responsible behavior than those drowning in "sex ed".

"The research" shows absolutely nothing of the sort. It shows that abstinence-only programs are a colossal, embarrassing failure. It shows that the highest rate of teen pregnancy is in the Bible Belt, where Rebecca Hagelin's reactionary shaming is the strongest.

Or perhaps the stats she's quoting only apply to people who are "drowning" in sex ed. If that's the case, well, sorry, I don't have stats for places where people "drown" in sex ed.

Also critical to the delayed on-set of sexual activity is parental involvement. I can not overstate the influence that loving, connected parents have on their teens and young adult children. You'll find loads of data and research on both points at www.abstinenceclearninghouse.com and www.familyfacts.org.

You won't, however, find any of those stats on sites that don't have a far-right religious agenda to push.

Which, once again, brings me back to the plethora of wild Spring Break "pah-tays" going on around the country as you read this. I wonder: if more public junior high and high schools joined hands with more parents in teaching abstinence education, the concepts of self-worth and basic morality, wouldn't our nation's kids have a higher view of themselves and rise to meet the expectations?

Only if having fun is somehow rooted in feeling sorry for yourself. Did it ever occur to you that college kids go to wild parties just because they want to?

Oh, sure, it would be nice if we could pin excuses for our kids behavior on things. "They're depressed, so they drink. They don't value themselves, so they have sex." Unfortunately, in the real world, people do things Rebecca Hagelin disapproves of, and there's no other reason than because they want to. Sorry, Beck, that's just the way it is.

And if colleges and parents expected better of our kids, wouldn't more of them choose the higher ground? If more parents took the effort to provide safer -- but still "way fun" -- supervised beach trips and other options for college kids, would more of them opt for something other than the drunken orgies that many Spring Break trips have become? In short, are older adults getting exactly the type of behavior from young adults that we expect?

Granted, my personal "focus group" is small. But the data, my experience, and the e-mails I receive from thousands of people tell me this: Young adults are still malleable, still looking for direction, and still crave to rise above the status quo. But they need help and encouragement. They need to be told that they can be self-controlled people of strong character, and they need to be provided with opportunities to thrive, have fun, and become men and women they can be proud of.

No. Because none of that sounds fun. And frankly, telling your kids that it is won't make it so.

Whether kids are or are not "looking for direction," the fact remains that they're not going to swallow whatever load of horseshit you happen to serve them. And sometimes, no matter what activity parents can put together, kids won't enjoy, simply because it came from their parents. These are facts of life, Rebecca, and much as you'd like to raise smiling little Stepford children, you won't. And you can't. And if you continue f0rce your stifling moralizing down their throats, you're going to lose them forever.

Young adults rise or fall to the expectation levels set for them. Will you help raise the bar?

Now who's treating kids like animals?

Adjusting the Blog List

I've had to do some unfortunate tweaking of the blog list lately. Unfortunate that is, because I've had to make some cuts. I don't like removing people from my links, so if you're a blogger who used to be there, and you're wondering why you've been dumped, I've attempted to provide my best reasons for why I did it.

Creationist Lies: This was an easy one; it's a dead blog. There are only seven posts and the last one was dated May 4, 2008.

What Is Going On?: This is actually a pretty good blog. I like the visual layout, and the articles always tend to be fairly clear, detailed, and well-researched. The problem is, I almost NEVER agree with the author, and I don't see a lot of connection between my writings and hers. What Is Going On? is a libertarian, anti-authority, anti-government blog, and I'm more just anti-annoying moralism. The author, swfreedomlover, and I originally thought there would be a lot of overlap between the two subjects, but it seems we almost never do. You're certainly welcome to keep reading her if that's your thing, but I really don't see much in the way of our readership cross-pollinating.

Evolved and Rat/i/onal: This blog, while frequently about religion, doesn't have much in common with mine either. ER promotes atheism and is viciously anti-religion and anti-religious people, which I am most definitely not. What's more, the blog has moved away from tackling religious subjects and has more moved into basically writing about whatever is on the author's mind at the moment, leading me to feel like it's less written for readers and more written for the blogger's own benefit. Most posts now promote hacker culture, software piracy, and those painful-to-read insult fights in the comments. I really don't want to be associated with any of that, especially the parts that brush up against (or cross) the line of legality.

On the positive side, I've added a new blog, Morgan's Fun Ranting Corner. It's hard to tell exactly how this one will fit in, but it looks good for now. I recommend you check it out when you get the time.

The Conservative Wunderkind

There's been some press this week about Jonathan Krohn, the 13-year-old boy genius who delivered a speech at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) last week.

A political prodigy? The future of the GOP? I'm not so sure. If you want to see the video, here's a link from Huffington Post.

And now, my two cents. These are also posted on the new FSTDT message boards at www.fstdt.net. Please note the new URL (because I'm too lazy to change it).

The minimum age to be President is 35, so he'll be able to run in 22 years. Still long enough for me to forget everything I just saw in that video.

Because frankly--and I say this not just to be an asshole, but because I speak from experience--that speech sucks. The substance (of which there isn't any), the rhetorical flow, the attempts at humor...it's all terrible. Yes, I said the flow. Even though the kid is getting high praise for his delivery, even that was weak. Not the worst part, and he does pretty well with it, but he had his problems with that too.

Here's a few highlights, as I have it on in my other tab.

Well, I am, uh, very glad to be here today, and, um, I'd like to talk a little bit about the principles of conservatism...

When your first word is "well" and your fourth word is "uh," you're off to a shitty start.

...and, um, I only got two minutes, so I'd better make it quick.

I'll leave the grammar alone. At this point, Krohn pauses, presumably expecting this line to draw some polite laughs. When he hears none, he looks slightly flustered, but continues.

In the book, I deci--first of all, let me start where I decided to write this book.

Don't stop and shift gears in mid sentence, it sounds like you're lost. Especially if you do it and land right back where you started.

During the election, I noticed that there were so many throwing around the word "conservative" and "liberal" and "socialism," and um, I decided that there were too many people who threw the term "conservative" around who didn't realize what they were talking about.

Oh you "decided" that, did you? You, a thirteen-year-old kid, have thus ruled that the pundits on TV don't know what they're talking about when they say "conservative," and now you presume to stand up in front of those same people and tell them how wrong they are? Yeah, that should go over well. (And yet, he gets applause for it?)

He then gets on kind of a roll, drawing scattered applause a few more times, but this line stood out to me.

Conservatism is not about the party, cuz the party is merely the shell. It's the inside, it's the filling, that really means something, so...

Wait, what? It's the party that's the shell, but "it's" the inside? Which is it? What "it" are we talking about? I know from listening to him over and over again what he means, but it's not clear on the first run-through.

I believe that conservatism is based on four categories of principle: respect for the Constitution,

So then you believe when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech that means "no law." Ever. Under any circumstances.

Or maybe it doesn't. What, exactly, is "respect for the Constitution?" What does it entail? And why do you think liberals don't have it?

respect for life

Unless that life happens to be wearing a turban. You can't say your ideology is based on "respect for life" as one of its founding principles unless you are, in fact, based on respect for life. So regardless of what you think somebody has done to you (or wants to do to you), how do you say you "respect life" if your response is to kill them?

Then he reemphasizes over and over again how key and important to his ideology these principles are. Even though anyone with half a brain can point out times that conservatives don't give a rat's ass about them.

Conservatism is not an ideology of feelings or romanticism as some people like to say.

Oh really? So all that flag-waving, "With us or against us" bullshit, what do you call that?

It is an ideology of protecting the people and the people's rights.

Unless it happens to be a right you don't think they should have. Hey kid, want some porn?

Okay, am I being a little harsh? Yes, especially considering that he's just a kid (which is what you were thinking as you read my comments thus far). But that's really my point; yes he's just a kid, but he wants to play in the big leagues. And if you want to play with the adults, you have to play by their rules. If you want to make speeches on an adult forum, you have to be just as good as the adults, and if you're not, that's just tough. Sorry kid, you lose. Go home.

That's the reason we don't have that many children doing adult things; because they don't measure up (just as Jonathan doesn't). He's good, I'll give him that. But he's not quite good enough. Nothing's stopping him from coming back in a few years, but he's not there yet. And pretending he's some kind of wunderkind when he really isn't all that special isn't doing him a service. I thought Republicans didn't like affirmative action!

Anti-Fundie Mistakes

Well, hopefully, now that my life has settled back down, I can start posting with some regularity again. Today's topic will be "I've Slept With Over 100 Men and I Don't Know Know Which One is the Father!"

No, sorry, that's today's topic on Maury. (No, I'm not kidding.) Anyway, my topic will be mistakes made when arguing with fundies.

Yeah, I know, we gotta stick together in this. I'm not trying to deride anybody, or to be rude, but sometimes...we come off like idiots. I'm talking about the countless posts over at FSTDT wherein the commenters simply have no idea how to argue a point. They fight with the fundies, but don't ever address the actual problem with what the fundie is saying. So I'm going to present a few of the common errors I see, and how I'd correct them.

Yes, I know what you're thinking. "What right does the Watcher have to tell me how to argue? Is he some kind of sanctimonious prick?" The answers are: None, and yes.

But if you don't want to read my post, feel free to go somewhere else.

Fundie Claim: Hitler was an atheist and an evolutionist!
Usual Response: Wrong. Hitler was a Christian and outlawed evolution, and slept on a Bible-shaped bed, and whatever, followed by a million links to proof of all this.
Correct Answer: Irrelevant! It doesn't matter what Hitler believed. We're arguing about whether evolution is true. Hitler's beliefs play absolutely no role in this debate. If you want to prove evolution is false, Hitler's name should never come up, unless you've discovered that he was a scientist who performed research in evolutionary biology and produced some information material to the issue. Otherwise, Hitler has no place in this discussion and any mention of him is a waste of time.

Fundie Claim: Well, yeah but Hitler believed in Darwinism! He thought he was creating a master race!
Usual Response: No, he didn't.
Correct Response: That's false, but even if it were 100% true, and Hitler were the biggest proponent of evolution since Darwin, it wouldn't matter!! Don't conflate the argument of whether evolution is true with whether evolution is moral. No one is arguing that it's moral. In fact, it's probably quite IMMORAL. But that's tough shit, because it's true.

Fundie Claim: Atheists give less to charity than Christians.
Usual Response: No, and here's a bunch of statistics to prove it!
Correct Response: So what? Are we not arguing about whether God exists? Even if you could prove, definitively, that on the whole, Christians were more moral than atheists, it still wouldn't prove God exists. In fact, it wouldn't even be EVIDENCE that God exists. Christians being more moral proves only that Christians are more moral. Good for you, you're moral. But you're no closer to being right than you were five minutes ago.

Fundie Claim: Life has no purpose without God.
Usual Response: That's not true. I make my own purpose in life.
Correct Response: Even if you were correct, you would (again) be no closer to proving that God exists. Look what this argument seems to be saying: "God exists because if He didn't, life would be meaningless." Okay, so? How do you know life is meaningful? Maybe it is meaningless. Prove it has some meaning. Or rather, don't, because even if you did THAT, you'd be no closer to proving that God had a hand in it.

The bottom line is, God would exist if you could prove some characteristic of the universe that wouldn't exist without God. To do that, first you have to define God, then you have to figure out what it is that requires Him to be there. Then you have to prove that said factor wouldn't be if it weren't for God's existence. None of these examples above have anything to do with that; they're purely emotional appeals, and I hope anti-fundies stop getting caught up in them.