WTF, people. I do not and have not ever accused you of trying to destroy America. I know you're not, and I know that you think you're doing what's best for this country. You're wrong, but at least I give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not actively trying to to destroy everything we hold dear.
So why then, do fundies keep insisting that Secular Progressives (Bill O'Reilly's derisive term, but I'll adopt it) are trying to destroy America? Do you think we're so stupid or evil that we, for whatever reason don't want a better nation? Why can't you at least agree that we have the same goals but different means of achieving them?
Case in point: the fundies' stance on abstinence-only sex ed, as seen in this Family News article, by Steve Jordahl.
This year they picked on three curriculums, calling them “fearful, shame-based and inaccurate.”Well, if the shoe fits...
And isn't the plural of "curriculum" "curricula?" Sheesh, no wonder fundie education is innacurate.
The National Education Association and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States provided some examples of the “inaccuracies.” Heritage Keepers tells kids, “Inside the bounds of marriage, sex is a great thing. Outside of marriage, sex can be dangerous.” Instead of defending such an obvious statement...Oh, of course! It's an "obvious" statement! Well, duh, everybody knows that when you put a ring on your finger, any dangers associated with sex automatically disappear! Just be quiet, don't ask why!
...Anne Badgley prefers to tout their success.Yeah, she should tout their failures instead. Like you guys. Oh, wait:
“We do have some evaluations that show over a year’s period that we’re reducing the initiation of sexual activity among adolescents by 50-percent.”Yeah? Like what? Do you have any cites? Cuz I have one. It shows that a school with an abstinence-only sex ed program still had 13% of its female population pregnant in one year. But no, abstinence-only sex ed is just fine and dandy, isn't it?
The duo also took on programs...Wait, what "duo?" Are you talking about the NEA and the Sexuality Information and Education Council (SIEC)? Why is it every time I review a Family News in Focus article, it's so poorly-written that I can't follow what they're trying to say? Anyway...
The duo also took on programs called Why kNOw, and Wait Training, even though they never contacted any of the programs and evaluated out of date curriculum.So Why kNOw and Wait Training have out of date curricula? And this "duo" isn't "reviewing" it? How do you know what they're doing? Just because they never contacted the programs doesn't mean they're not reviewing it.
Do you really think that the NEA and the SIEC are attacking programs they know nothing about? And if that's the case, can you offer some evidence? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot what article I was reading.
Wait Training’s Joneen Mackenzie says she prefers a more positive approach."More positive" than what?
“I don’t want kids to equate sex with disease. I want them to equate sex with love and tenderness and long term romance, and all those yummy things that the heart longs for.Well damn, woman, so do I! You don't seriously think that comprehensive sex-ed programs are going around telling kids "Yay! Go have sex! All you want, whenever, with whoever! Nothing bad ever comes of it!" do you? If that's what you think, YOU'RE the one who hasn't done her homework.
Wait training seeks to change behavior, not consequences. Teen pregnancy’s not the problem, teen sex is the problem.It is? Why? If teens use protection and avoid disease (in other words, practice what they're taught in sex-ed class!), there shouldn't be any problems.
Christina Espenscheid of the Abstinence Clearinghouse is puzzled by the criticism.You can't figure it out? Maybe cuz you're not thinking hard enough (which, for a fundie, isn't all that much of a leap.)
“I can’t figure out why they’d be against this message. The message is healthy. It’s positive. It promotes healthy living and healthy lifestyles.”
How is this message "healthy" or "positive?" Better words would be "repressive" or "fear-mongering." In case you haven't noticed, the human body is a sexual thing. It desires both sex and companionship. Your program basically teaches that all these things don't exist--but disease and pregnancy do--until that magical, mystical thing known as "marriage," which somehow makes everything bad just disappear.
News flash, fundies: "Marriage" does not change anything, but waiting for the right kind of relationship--the kind of person you may want to marry--does. So why don't you tell kids that? That when you're in a safe, healthy, stable, long-term relationship, you'll know enough about your partner to trust that she's on her pill. Or that he doesn't have disease.
Oh, I know why! Because "abstinence until marriage" is ordained in the Bible! Oh, you silly, silly person, Christina Espenscheid! Why don't you tell people that part? And why don't you also tell them that you want your Christian ideals taught to public schoolchildren? Hm?
She suspects it’s about the money. This year the federal government will give 176-million dollars in abstinence education grants.Which is why we need this fundie-loving administration out of office IMMEDIATELY. Oh, right, Christina. I understand. It's just those baby-killing liberals who want money. You guys couldn't possibly be interested in some government funding, right?
Let's lay it out on the table, folks. The fundies want money for the same reason we do: to teach our version of sex-ed.
I mean, seriously, what the hell do they think we want the money for? Taking a cruise? You just attach this "It's about the money" crack, thinking you can demonize liberals. "Liberals just want the money!" Sigh. What she doesn't say is that we "just want the money" for the same reason she does. What an asshole.
Now, all of this being said, I'm not a big fan of teenage sex, either. There are emotional consequences that no condom or pill can ever prevent; the idea that the one you thought loved you may eventually not. The idea that you gave up your virginity to someone who wasn't "the one."
But how obnoxious would I be if I insisted that simply by being a teen, you're automatically not ready to deal with these things? Kids need to be equipped to recognize what they're feeling and what to do about it.
And guess what? Comprehensive sex ed covers that too. Being able to discuss things--both emotional and physical--and planning for how you're going to deal with them when the time comes is a whole lot better than setting some arbitrary date when you're now allowed to "do it." Good lord, sex is heavy, and you fundies distilling it down to "No! Bad! Wait for marriage!" does a disservice to everyone who has the misfortune of listening to your idiotic logic.
9 comments:
I recently discovered your blog from snopes.com. So true, I am a Christian and am deeply offended by what so many other do in my God's name. For a good laugh and possible posting/comment, check this out.
http://www.freeindeedministries.org/autismTestimony.html
sorry bout the link, just add .html after pasting it into your browser.
Trying...to read...but must...suppress...urge to vomit...
And what's with the micro-type? Is 12-point font Satanic also??
You know, I profoundly disagree with abstinence only ed, but never really thought about the fact that government funding of it is really government funding of Christian values on school children, which you mention and which is obviously is. I guess I'm too used to people ignoring or being against separation of church and state. woe is our country.
also, i really want to read this fundie autism testimony mentioned in the comment below but i think they may have removed the article. sneaky sneaky.
It may be sneaky, or it may be that it was just posted a long, long time ago and the article is no longer there.
I'm actually a little embarrassed to have this thing still up there. It's pretty badly written on my part, even though I accuse Family News in Focus of being incomprehensible.
I am a teen parent who has been watching this issue for the past few years and stumbled across WAIT Training while at conference unrelated to teen issues. The WAIT curricula has never been outdated per se, their data was outdated. Not good, but they now have accountability procedures in place via their local health department to keep up to date. Henry Waxman tried to make a federal case out of that but it didn't work. Each tenant of WAIT is backed by three social science studies and is medically accurate which is why mamy health departments can justify using this. Not to mention that they love the program. But, there are no 'Christian Values' just research and medical accuracy. One of the biggest fans of WAIT is Nisa Muhammed of Wedded Bliss in Washington, D.C. She founded Black Marriage Day. Oh, I am not on WAIT's payroll either, but I wanted to add some perspective to the blog.
oops - "many"
Thank you for your personal insights. Being a guy, pregnancy isn't exactly an issue I have to deal with, so it's good to hear from someone who has been there.
However, I'm going to take exception to your interpretation of WAIT Training's facts. As I browse their site, I do see citations. I see evidence that teens' brains are not fully developed yet, and that teen sex has traumatic consequences, even if there are no STDs or pregnancy resulting.
However, what I DON'T see is any evidence that waiting until marriage is better than simply waiting until later.
You assert that Nisa Muhammad is a proponent of WAIT Training, and thus, it's not Christian-based.
You know what? I'll concede. But only in that WAIT Training's message is appealing to all those with a healthy religious fervor. Nisa Muhammad writes for the Final Call, a publication of the Nation of Islam, a radical black Muslim group.
Now, are you inundated with religious dogma, when you attend a WAIT Training session? Undoubtedly not. In fact, I'll be generous here, and I'll even offer that they don't obscure its religious roots for deception, but because founder Joneen Mackenzie believes her methods and lessons are TRUE. She's not trying to hide the religion from you, she actually believes that the science simply supports her religion-based views.
In reality, any qualified therapist will tell you that you're no different a person the day after you get married than the day before. If you get married at 16, you'll still be a 16 year old. And if sex at 16 would be traumatic for you, it will STILL be traumatic for you after you're married.
Now, with all this in consideration, ask yourself: Why are Mackenzie and Muhammad so enamored with the idea of waiting until marriage, when the marriage does nothing at all?
Post a Comment