Re: The only word to describe the "religious right" -- IGNORANT

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:09:43 -0500, "Joe S." <anon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

IGNORANT. Completely, totally, irreversibly IGNORANT. That's the only way
to describe the "religious right."

All two of them? Aren't they the ones you "blame" for Bush
getting in in 2004, as if you had the right to "blame" anyone for
voting for who they wanted to vote for? What's even worse is that the
only reason you do so is because you can't bring yourself to admit
that it was mostly non-religious Americans who voted against Kerry in
droves because they despise leftists and their politics.


When it comes to teen sex, all parents hope and pray that their children
make wise choices.

Not true. Planned Parenthood thinks they should have sex as
often as they think they "need" to, with as many people as they think
they "need" to, and have abortions on demand.

Children as young as 12 or 13 weigh decisions with
consequences that could impact the rest of their lives in a dramatic way.

I remember being 13. Maybe you're so old you don't, but I do,
and I didn't think I needed sex, because I barely knew what it was. As
far as I was concerned, my mini-me was for peeing out of. That's the
fact of how it is for most kids who didn't live near 3 mile island
too, and the attempt to sexualize children by the political left
doesn't stop at 12 year olds - it goes right to Kindergarten, as
Jocelyn Elders (Clinton's surgeon general, in case you forgot) so
eloquently put it when she said she thought grade-schoolers should be
taught to masturbate.
13 is a good time to have "the talk", but let's not pretend
that there are many 13 year old kids out there having sex because they
just decided to. The movies, the culture, etc, are what make 13 year
olds think it's time.

At
this point in the conversation our teenage children roll their eyes, but
parents know the risks to be real.

Parental anxiety therefore is unavoidable, all the more so because they
realize that the ultimate choices their teens make about sex are beyond
their control. That begs a question: If a child violates the moral code that
parents set, are those parents willing to put their child's life in mortal
danger? Tragically, some Christians are willing to answer, "Yes."


A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck
and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical
trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in
fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The
pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates
want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for
other high-risk viruses.



The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to
halt any such national inoculation program. Their resistance is driven by
fear more than common sense. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates
cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with
others. So as long as an individual does not engage in sexual intercourse,
he or she should be shielded from the virus. The Religious Right bloc
concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of
sexual abstinence for adolescents.


That's insanity, but it doesn't make any other forms of it
more acceptable. For instance, it doesn't make the fact of the left's
attempts to sexualize children right down to grade school level
A-okay.



In that spirit, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told
Fortune magazine that he would not allow his 13-year-old daughter to be
inoculated. "It sends the wrong message," Perkins said. "Our concern is that
this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be
getting a message about abstinence."

He's nuts. I think he has a leftist cousin who posts to Usenet
under the name Joe S. however.



Globally, cervical cancer kills more than 270,000 women each year - roughly
80% of them in developing countries. The Centers for Disease Control reports
that as many as 3,700 women in the U.S. died of cervical cancer last year,
and tens of thousands more had their lives completely transformed by a
radical treatment regimen for the disease. The majority of those women are
African-American or Hispanic, and poor.


Religious Right groups are not seeking to ban the drug. They simply do not
want the vaccine to be slotted as an inoculation that every child receives
as they presently do for polio and smallpox.


Because these groups link cervical cancer so intimately with illicit sexual
activity, a mandated vaccination feels to them like a family values choice
would be imposed upon them by the state.


We abide by public health standards for the sake of the common good, of
course. In the U.S., we require motorists to wear seat belts and children to
be inoculated. It would be equally shortsighted to oppose a vaccine for HIV
if one existed. So the question here is whether the transmission of HPV is a
universal public health risk. The question of state imposition is a straw
man argument.


But more importantly, the Religious Right is wrong to so closely tie
cervical cancer to promiscuity. A woman might be chaste her entire life,
then marry and pick up the virus from her husband. It also is more than a
bit naïve to believe that a child will abandon abstinence once they have
received a vaccine. If a teen's only deterrent for engaging in sexual
activity is a fear of communicable diseases, they are likely to turn to sex
with protective devices.


I would go a step further and challenge the Religious Right to temper their
moral commitments with grace. It is the right and duty for parents to set a
moral path for their children. It pains me that so many parents abdicate
that responsibility. But we also offer protection and mercy for lapses in
judgment.

Well said. Much better than any comments I'm sure you'll be
making.



It is a daring journey raising children. It is our role to guide, model, and
protect. Parents teach values, but kids make the decisions. I would hope
that love and grace await our children at each destination.

IGNORANT. Well, okay, let's toss in STUPID, FUCKING STUPID, DUMB AS DIRT,
TOO DAMN DUMB TO WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME.


Yeah, but then on the other (left) side of the fence, there's
you, and you're just as bad in your own way. I think you should leave
the comment making to the sensible people quoted above.







.