America really is going down the drain, fast. Between Christian fundamentalism, denying darwinism, pre-emptive wars, torture, corruption etc etc.

This moneygrabbing cretin would not advise his 16 year old daughter to use a condom if she decides to become sexually active, because he believes condoms don't offer protection - or more likely, in order to get his fed funding he'll say anything to fit the bill.

So perhaps if she wants to get a Harley, she shouldn't wear a helmet on the freeway. After all, if she is in a crash the helmet might not completely protect her.

Promoting ignorant dangerous opinions like this are the direct cause that millions are dying in Africa from HIV. The Catholic church has brainwashed their congregation not to use condoms.

Sexual abstinence is a freakish warped code to impose on anyone.

Jesus, this will have the opposite effect, more girls will get preggy and diseases will be spread.

About the drinking and driveing, you DON'T risk killing innocent people by haveing sex. But if you drink and drive you might do! What a fucking idiot one must be to say something like that!

It makes me wonder if the real goal is population reduction. Maybe my foil hat is on too tight.

go back and watch the clip again, listening closely for where the weirdo preacher guy says "...the Norm rather than the exception..." Word of your vids is getting around!

What psychos! Captain Black, it is their foil hats which are on too tight. "Silver Ring Thing"? Did I hear right in there that eighty some percent "relapse" after taking their vow?

Further, what are the implications of taking a vow for a purpose obviously much more insidious than just simple abstinence? When they showed the pictures of all those girls slipping trendy thumbrings around their thumbs and the guys doing the same with the traditional ringfinger, what are they truly taking a vow to or of? My vote is a cult-like mentality that has very. very little to do with the adolescent's health. What we saw was more like the control of their minds through their most natural outlet of achieving full adulthood -- sex.

"Silver Ring Thing" looks to be some serious moonie influenced shit.

My mission for the day is to use the word 'fornicatrix' in conversation.

love the rant. keep up the good fight.

Gee!!!... I remember when me and my friends were kids in the 70/80’s, and used to think that the US was the motor that pushed change forward in this world... what happened to you guys? How do you allow those bigots to drive only in reverse... Hopefully there is a god, because those people needs serious help...

man, you really reallly have to move to Canada, its almost funny watching america self detruct from here in the uk... if it wasnt so freaky/wierd/scary/why do they vote for bush! aaaAAAAA

I'm sorry if I offend any reasonable Americans here, but WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN YOUR COUNTRY!? :/

these people are obviously zealots. i'm an atheist and as a teenager i was straight-edge. i didn't need a ring or god to know abstinence was a good idea.

That was truly sad to watch.. the last part in the classroom made me want to vomit. The USA is truly going to hell in a handbasket. This is what happens when you have a dumbed down electorate. Good luck.

Oh There is plenty of room up here in Canada for you blue staters.

/good job on the site Norm

Christian fundamentalists and republicans are sending the USA to the wall.

"There is plenty of room up here in Canada for you blue staters."

It would be nice to think so, but if that were really the case I think your country would offer sanctuary to those US service men who have tried to get out.

BTW ya know, I have wet dreams about living in a blue state, I'm in Kansas. Why would a liberal thinking person want to leave a blue state? Oh yeah, the feds.

C.

Im in the middle of reading "what's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank.

I feel for ya Captain Black

Thanks. I really appreciate your site.

What a horrid analogy. If using a seat belt meant that your brain was suddenly cognitively unfogged from the alcohol, then it would be a good analogy - and you would probably not get in an accident!

Love to move to Canada - it was my understanding right after the election that no one wanted U.S. citizens unless they were physicians etc. Has that changed? I don't blame other countries for not wanting us. How do they know we aren't just trying to move in and take over, like in Palestine? Tin hat a little too tight, perhaps, but it's possible that we'd try it - apparently we will try anything even if it has a dismal success rate.

Encouraging abstinence can only be a good thing. I think it is admirable that these organisations are active and funded. STD/venereal diseases are rampant in our high schools and college campuses. I can't remember the exact statistics but gonnorea, herpes and clamydia are at epidemic levels throughout the US amongst young females.

Unless someone takes action to clean up this sleaze, we are going to see more lethal diseases spreading on the back of the current freeflow.

There are many commenting, in typical 'disagree without considering' liberal manner, that these organisations are outrageaous.

But consider that we are talking about our teenagers, OUR CHILDREN! This isn't some SF Free Love Zone. They are just kids. They need to be protected, bot just from risks of lethal disease but also from the huge slide in recent years in the moral fibre of our nation.

Man, thank God I went to school when you know, sex was cool

Texas you may have a point, many American girls I have known have had highly questionable standards of hygiene and self-morality. Perhaps it is a good thing that the authorities should clamp down on their activities before it has life threatening consequences.

You're forgetting that some of these organisations is trying to force Christian religious morals down upon people through the government, something that is fundamentally WRONG in a modern western nation.

But, who knows, perhaps you are indeed heading towards a theocracy, it sure as hell looks like it from a European point of view.

Sorry, only lasted 15 seconds for me. On to Pat Buchanan.

Moving to Canada to become a full-time resident and citizen isn't as easy as driving across the border:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/assess/Education.asp

I'd need to earn a doctorate and become fluent in French before they'd let me in.

Kinda funny that they chose to attractive youngsters to focus the piece on. Would have been more fun if they took ugly obese kids covered in acne (perhaps cousins in live from West Virginia) and had them eulogise about their moral decision to fight their lust and keep out of each others pants until marriage.

Save the gene pool.

"But consider that we are talking about our teenagers, OUR CHILDREN! This isn't some SF Free Love Zone. They are just kids. They need to be protected, bot just from risks of lethal disease but also from the huge slide in recent years in the moral fibre of our nation."

Here's a really neat idea: protect our kids. Not "protect our kids from what my Christian upbringing tells me is wrong" but protect them, period. Telling a teenager not to use a condom is the most irresponsible and offensive thing I have read in ages.

There is nothing wrong with the moral fiber of this country except for people trying to force their ideology on a country founded on religious freedom. If you don't want to have sex, great. If you want to lie to your kid that condoms don't work because you want to scare them into not having sex (which doesn't work), you get down with your bad self. But to take that message riddled with lies to the masses in schools because you think this country is on a downward moral slope is unconscionable.

The big problem here is that this program is getting funded with our tax dollars, when it clearly represents a right-wing religious viewpoint.

Well, that and the anti-condom message. Hello, AIDS resurgence.

Well with these type of Christian Values...

Who wouldn't feel the need for some abstinence.

Make something taboo and kids are on it like fireants on a half eaten donut.

The sooner political opposition disappears, the press are legislated against and America can attain its true puritan right-wing desting, the sooner we will have established our own Taleban utopia.

I vote Bill O'Reilly to be our first prophet.

That born-again virgin BS seems to be pretty popular these days. One girl I know was dating a guy who said he was saving himself for marriage, as she is. What she found out later was that their definitions were different: he didn't start saving himself till he started dating her. He'd banged 20-some chicks before that.

Abstinence seems to have done Catholic priests no harm.

Have you ever thought that perhaps that ring would be a challenge to some? Think about it. Have you ever seen Cruel intentions? The guy makes a bet that he can get reese witherspoon to have sex with him, even though she publicly vowed to wait til marriage?

Not to mention what another said... there's nothing kids love more than something forbidden. I think kids having respect for themselves is the best deterrent. But apparently some forget that we don't all come from stellar families. Some girls and boys are from abusive homes... might have been sexually abused... might have been taught that they are worthless... It's ridiculous to expect everyone to have the same reality as you do... or I do...

Yes, I would rather my daughter not go having sex. But I expect her to be informed and understand what is going on. And if she decides that she can't wait... I will be sad and disappointed, but Iwill make sure that she is protected.

Here is something interesting on a side note. My boyfriend was raised in a home with parents that did drugs.... drank... and sex was visible everywhere... I remember going over there and they had Adam and Eve catalog sitting right on the table. It was apparent that Bob had access to porn regularly. And his father was very open about he and his wife's sexual habits (as if I wanted to hear about it!) Yet Bob was a virgin. I was 24 and he was 23 when we got together. I was his first... he was mine. His experience tells me that access does not ensure someone will do something!

I was raised in a catholic home. went to catholic school. and i can say that it is probable that i could have lost my virginity quite easily. in fact there were a couple of times i can recall where I was very lucky to have not gone through with something. Nobody told me about sex. Growing up I always thought there was something bad about it. It was bad. And that haunts me to this day. So that tells me plenty. The fact that I didn't know about it put me in situations I might otherwise have avoided.

Listen, Texas,

You might find that these programs are helping the kids evading pregnancy and STDs. They are not. They. Are. Not.

Hey, right, this is a liberal speaking and, gosh, he's just telling you that these programs are bogus and dangerous, this arrogant bastard! But he is right. Unless (there's always hope) nobody listens to these condom lies, ten years from now we will have a generation of STD-sick pregnant 13-year-olds that won't even now why they're bleading monthly and why their bellies are growing.

We are de-educating our children. And that will reap havoc on them. That's just a fact. And while you may deny evolution and the big bang and nothing will come from that - denying sexual education will have consequences.

Unless the Rapture strikens, of course. But I don't now if the Lord will be kind to the ones who are harming their children. Do you...?

Thank you for posting this!

I caught the show, but wanted some friends to see it. It really frightened me--even more so since I'm from Fort Myers, FL. I can't tell you how angry it makes me that they have to speak of failure rates only, and that they can't tell the kids that condom use is nearly 100% effective when used correctly. If they'd just show the kids how to use them, we wouldn't have an 86% effective rate.

The comment by the Silver Ring Thing leader about his hypothetical daughter was also disturbing. Plus the comment by the teacher that all premarital sex leads to emotional problems. If that couple got married right now just so they could have sex (as many young Christians unfortunately do), they would have even more emotional problems, I'm willing to bet.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this topic for days but I won't. Thank you for the clip!

its VERY scary.

As a gay american, not discuss safer sex as well as alternative lifestyles is very damaging to everyone.

How did we get here? Easy. Corporate TV has led to Corporate Government.

I've tuned the former out completly... wish I could do the same with the latter

Well said Norm,

Certain people really have their priorities completely mixed up.

This just increases my nervousness about the religious right's hedgemony and its consequences for the media, and the consequences of that for what people think and know. There are loads and loads of people and data to suggest the benefits to individuals and to society of education on sex and birth control. But these folks are not on TV. Scary, scary.

Also whatever happenned to individual freedom?

celery, the time at the bottome of the entry after posted by is a permanent link to the entry you can send them that url

I know it seems like this country is going to hell. I try to remember all the sh** my parents went through...Vietnam, assasination of the Kennedys, King, MacCarthyism, Nixon, Civil rights etc... I mean they must have thought the same things! This site is great...I just don't thing that blogs will have the same impact if we don't pound the pavement a little like our parents did. By the way, alot of my friends did not get married until their thirties, I mean this whole abstinence thing is ludicrous. Hey...my husband is French and has a Phd., does that mean we can come up North?

Who let the 8 year old use her parent's computer? I see Winner must be learning to form sentences. I am hoping she might have more to say than just cut paste text with a sarcastic remark from her.

Now, Winner, ask mommy before you get on the computer next time :)

Norm, am I imagining things???

Wasn't there an assclown named Winner posting idiotic remarks a moment ago? Sorry if my last post seemed odd, but I was responding to that.

Oooooops!

There was, but sometimes when commentors have such a fraigle hold on reality they tumble into the bit bucket.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence promoting programs - when you speak out against them universally, you lose credibility and encourage people to write off your opinion as being discriminatory against people of faith.

However, the idea that abstinence promoting programs should ever be used to replace sex education & promoting condoms is about the dumbest thing. This moron suggesting he would not tell his daughter to use a condom if he knew she was going to have sex demonstrates a complete inability to deal with anything outside his little religious worldview.

The idea that our government funds this type of 'education' with the conditions that things like condom use can not be taught is morally reprehensible.

Good God, where have all the moderates gone?

What's the success rate for teaching basic grammar and literacy? Do these born again virgins learn when it is appropriate to use "your" and "you're"? Have they mastered the use of "there", "their" and "they're"? Have you no pride, man? Have you no access to spell-checking and grammar-checking software? This is your voice on the internet and you apparently have decided that you wish to sound uneducated. What is the point of trying to make a reasoned and impassioned argument if it is lost in semi-literate babble? Master the language you are trying to communicate in and perhaps some of us will take you a little more seriously. Until then, all I can do is mock you.

You are no better or smarter than the bible thumping idiots. You are, in fact, far lazier and less productive. They are out mobilizing people for what they believe in. You are busy writing poorly on the internet. Who is going to be more effective in the long run?

Listen Macgyver, there is no one here saying there is anything wrong with promoting abstinence. It is promoting abstinence as the only acceptable solution. Sex doesn't make you feel bad about yourself. The consequences of unprotected sex before you choose to have a family make you feel bad.

Anon,

Why don't you take a moment and think about what you posted. Take a moment and notice that people make grammatical errors, but the message still gets through. On blogs, it's better to look at content some times as opposed to critiquing the grammar. Like the content of your post was weak and insolent, but the grammar was great!

Why don't you compare IQs in the Red and Blue States you Grammar Nazi.

I see we have a grammar nazi (anon@10:54) on this blog too. Dew we regale over it’s style or weather it has substance?

/sarcasm.off (if I can borrow from contributor: history)

backslash sarcasm dot off...is that like a nerd joke? jk

What amazes me not about the video, but about the comments is that there is clearly a hatred for anything that is packaged in the name of Christ. If they were handing out a Masons Bible or a Wicka Bible, the comments would be, well at least their giving kids a chance to not hurt themselves in the long run. Yet because a man comes in no other name but of Christanity, each of you have exploded with anger. What has Christanity ever done to hurt you? We always talk about how the goverment has oppressed the black man and how they have oppressed the poor man as well. Yet, if there is ever a people that has been oppressed by the goverment it is the Christan. The govermant has put up more road blocks against Christ than any other people, or race. We have been burned, we have been crucified, we have been eaten by lions and boiled in pots of oil. We have been hung from trees and burned at the stake. I say to the black man and to the white man and to the rich man and the poor man, don't speak to me as if I know nothing of being oppressed, because my people has faced your day way before you ever had a day.

Whenever I hear this discussion, I think about what I experienced as an exchange student in Denmark 15 years ago. One of my friends lived with a family that had a poster in their daughter's bathroom with condoms with smiley faces on them saying "don't forget me when you go out". My family's daughter had her boyfriend spend the night regularly. People in general seemed calm, rational, and logical about sex. My Danish parents felt that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what, and they much preferred their daughter to bring her boyfriends home and be in the safety of their own home using protection, rather than in the backseat of a car somewhere, with some guy they didn't know. It took a while to get used to (as I had been raised in an abstinence-only religious background) but I really learn to appreciate the wisdom and pragmatism of that approach.

Now, I have a daughter, and I do hope that she waits until she is mature and grown-up to become sexually active. I also hope that she will have sex in a relationship with someone who loves her and treats her well. However, I would never encourage her to wait until marriage. I have seen many couples rush into marriage (after 6 months or so of dating!) because they couldn't wait to have sex, and end up unhappily married or quickly divorced. I would so much rather have my daughter have sex with more than one person and end up happily married based on all of the relationship knowledge she has gained, than married to a number of people because she rushed into marriage each time.

Don't the statistics show remarkable progress in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies due to condom use? Ironic that these people who also oppose abortion want to remove one of the most effective abortion preventers.

Thanks for this website - I really enjoy it!

My boyfriend and I are a mere three years apart in age difference--I went through high school when Clinton was still in office, while he did most of HS during Bush's first term. Neither of us had sex during our high school years. When we got around to doing the deed, what he didn't know about sex ed was astounding. You don't turn 18 and suddenly know everything there is to know about sex. I don't think that high school kids should be having sex--but I do know that they do have sex, and many of those who don't go on to do so in their college years/early adulthood. Sex education isn't necessarily an 'invitation,' or 'permission' for minors to have sex but it is a necessary educational and health investment that is ultimately beneficial to the greater community. We can save a lot of lives and a lot of money just by teaching safe sex.

"where have all the moderates gone?"

This selling of the centrist/moderate ideal is one of the great victories of the right.

It basically teaches that all strongly held beliefs are equally bad--

strongly opposing the Bush Regime is the moral equivalent of strongly supporting it,

opposing bigotry too stridently is the same as being a bigot,

vigorously defending human rights is no better than shamelessly violating them,

Michael Moore = Ann Coulter,

Mike Malloy = Rush Limbaugh.

Unfortunately, many liberals have blindly bought into this paradigm because of an apparent logic, though that logic doesn't hold up under even the slightest scrutiny.

Patmos,

It's been a while since there has been rampant Christian feedings to lions hasn't it? Perhaps you need to fastforward your settings on your time-machine to the present.

You might try reading: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522

"This selling of the centrist/moderate ideal is one of the great victories of the right."

So considering issues based on the issues themselves, and not on rhetoric alone, is wrong?

Patmos,

Have you not seen the discrimination that has come from the Fundamentalist Christians in this country? Intolerance of homosexuals and/or alternative lifestyles, the labeling of anyone liberal or differing viewpoint as a “fanatic”, “baby murderer” What happened to the Christian tenant of not judging others?

Then look at the well known leaders like Pat Robertson, Falwell, Angley, and those freak shows on TBN. Their message is not one of a true Christian. “Call our prayer line, make a donation, and you will feel better.” If Jesus came back today, many of these judgmental pricks would be cast into the same fire that they claim all of the Jews will be cast into. Funny, they are so Pro Judaism and Pro Israel…has anyone ever thought to ask why this is.

Take a look at the 5th paragraph

Some good Christian tolerance

when did this ever turn into a Christian tolerance test. This is not about tolerance, this is about the FACT!!! That Christianity has faced it's day of opposition. Some say, that the Christanity opposition was in a different day, well so was slavery, but we still tolerate the excuses, the Indians we still feel as if we owe them something and it was years ago that both of these things took place. The point is this, if Bill Clinton would have come out and said... Abstinence is the answer to the worlds problems we would have crowned him and made him King!!! Dont tell me different because I know alot of people that said... You know he is right, oral sex is really not sex with an intern, why, Bill Clinton you are a god!! and then just as you are doing now, you blamed the "Jesus lovers" for all Bill's sorrow. It is amazing to see how we are so easily persuaded by a topic with in whom we call President.

oh, and by the way Anon, I wish I could tell you of how many homosexual individuals that I have talked with, that would turn that sign around and wish the very same thing upon the church. So your point is respected, yet the homosexual's have their own agenda as well. It is pretty much what the "good" book tells us about the speck and the beam.

Would Jesus use a tank to spread the gospel?

http://tinyurl.com/eyxj6

So I ask again-- is there any way, any way at all, that the right-wing, war-whoring "Christian" hate-mongers who have taken over our country embody the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Nailing him to a cross was a far lesser crime than pissing on his name and his teachings as Bush "Christians" do over and over and over again.

I’m constantly amazed how so-called “Christians” claim to be persecuted when it clearly is the other way around. Take, for example, the FMA.

It’s silly to think the Federal Marriage Amendment is nothing short of blatant discrimination against a segment of society. It echoes the early 20th-century when Germany’s SS convinced the newspapers the Jews were at fault for: Crystal Night/Kristallnacht/Reichsprogromnacht. Have we forgotten this episode in history?

A good example of evangelical Christians playing the semantics game in the media: You’ll note the anti-gay marriage amendment is called by two names: Federal Marriage Amendment or the Marriage Protection Amendment. Slick twisting of the words but the fact remains: it’s an anti-gay-equality amendment. Don’t let the evangelical members of congress confuse you.

Kali, what I don't understand, is that every man, woman, and child can point the finger at Christanity and judge it by what a handful of people do. If I did this in the Muslim world or the African Society or the Hispanic Society I would be accused of a hate crime. Yet, you let, 8 "christian" people say a negative thing about another culture or lifestyle, then everyone of us is apart of some hate club.

Why is it!!! That the Muslim community, the Gay community, the Lesbian community stand on the street corner with a picket sign and we say that they have a right to do that, and 3 cheers for them. Yet you let a Christian hold a sign that gives their opinion, and we are the evil ones.

What we need to come too, is the realization that with in the heart of man evil is born, not within their race or religion. I have asked more gay people to forgive me for something that I have never done, yet they label me as one that hates them. I have asked Muslims to forgive me for what someone did in the name of the goverment or church, which I had no part in. My question is... When will the other side come to me and say, I am sorry, forgive me.

"what I don't understand, is that every man, woman, and child can point the finger at Christanity and judge it by what a handful of people do."

Was I pointing a finger at all Christians?

Read my post again.

Kali.... yeah... you used the word"Christians!!" You did not point out if it was the Baptist, Methodist, Charasmatic, Pentecostals. You lumped us all together in one word.

Well, if you are a "right-wing Christian" or a "Bush Christian," then consider yourself lumped.

And just to follow up!!! It has been a very long time sense I have had a debate, and I am just itching with excitement.....

So Kali, sense Bush is a methodist, what you are saying, is that all methodist are this crazy renegade people?

Oh…for clarification Potmus…if you don’t get any responses from this on-line debate it doesn’t mean you’ve won. It just means we have all gone through this ad nauseam. It gets to the point where it becomes pointless. (sigh)

first of all.... Yes, I was looking to recieve some type of gold ribbon maybe with the big #1 on it!!! Do you think Cowboy you could work something up for me?!?

who do you think you are leaving a message too, some 3rd grade debating over creamy or chunky peanut butter!!!

I am insulted!! :)

I don't think anyone is dissing Christianity - Christianity is a beautiful religion and philosophy of life and if anyone were teaching it, that would be great. Charity, tolerance, love --- that would be nice to hear. But there are many other problems here - should the government be funding programs pushing a religious agenda (what if it weren't Christianity - would you feel the same? Or, let's just say it were Catholicism v. Methodist? Baptist v. Christian Science v. Jehovah's Witnesses --- are you for your child being taught a different form of the Christian religion by the government....) America is supposed to be a place where all religions can practice their beliefs (or practice no religion) openly outside of government - not have it foisted on us BY the government.

I am curious where these people get off with this type of approach to sex education. 88% failure rate - which means 88% will not be not be protecting themselves. I'm sure to be prepared to use a condom would be too much of an acknowledgement of the preparation to break their vows.... Before, the approach had been, a girl would not have sex with a guy who was not prepared to protect her sexual health and be responsible towards birth control. Teach self-respect, by all means but when EVER in history has abstinence worked?

And, are they teaching against oral and anal sex? What's the take on that since that doesn't take away their "virginity." What happened to teaching children not to do something before they are ready - that might not be until marriage, that might not be until they're 20.

And, what makes them think forcing teens to get married before they have sex is a good idea? Won't that just lead to a lot of divorces and bad marriages? My friend is a Jehovah's Witness and this is a very strong belief of theirs so, she ran off to Vegas to marry a guy she HAD to have sex with. She now has two (very wonderful) kids with a deadbeat dad who hit her a few times before she left him. She probably wouldn't have married him if she's had sex with him first because he changed pretty quickly after - married or not.

And - then, yes, abstinence for priests doesn't work but which of these religious figures hasn't had his own downfall....

There are so many reasons this is frightening, short-sided and non-productive.

I have a USDA Prime Choice stamp somewhere I could use, Patmos. I would stamp myself somewhere you could kiss it. :-) Need I get more specific for a 3rd Grade[r]?

Patmos,

You need to re-attach yourself to the planet and understand that Christians, fundamentalist ones specifically, have been using their influence to discriminate.

As far as Bill Clinton preaching abstinence, HELL NO! Only an idiot would preach that crap and expect kids to buy it - think about it, most kids are like an old roll of tape - they can't stick to shit! So, you have a kid who makes a promise, so by making that promise, they don't feel the need to carry a condom, so they are out on a date, and we know teens have so much self control, they get to fooling around and they decide to break that promise (I know, hard to believe) What will happen when they decide to have sex? There most likely will not be protection around, so the risk of disease or pregnancy is increased immensely. Where is the logic in trying to tell kids to abstain; that is like having an addict guard a pharmacy.

Patmos, religious zealots of any denomination are dangerous. The problem is, we have a minority of those zealots spreading their message to people and packaging it mislabeling it as "family/moral values" in an attempt to use it to impose their values and belief system on people...people who don't believe like them. Religion is a deeply personal issue, and you should not be in such a hurry to impose your religion and values on others, which is what many misguided Christians are doing today. It's almost as if they are attempting to convert and save because they feel that there is safety in numbers and like minded people will not hurt them.

Religion is a good thing when you are not using to condemn others while living the most depraved lifestyle under your deity’s watchful eye. Don't tell me this does not happen, because you know it's true. Non-Christians aren't the only hypocrites.

Just look at Louisiana this past weekend.

One last thought - I am going to lower the discourse for a brief moment...

Who in their right mind is going to settle down with someone who has not had experience? I know I wouldn't - it is similar to why we test drive cars. If I am committed to someone, I am consumating that relationship, wedding vows or not. I am not taking a chance on getting a dud. That is EXACTLY what happened to me...I married my first steady action, I had no idea what good sex was until I was divorced from her. Too bad it happens to so many still.

What about those out there who didn't come anywhere close to hitting the pick six in the genetic lotto, what if they never get lucky enough to even date? How the hell are they ever going to have sex if they make that absurd "promise"? This promise crap sounds just like the rubbish I use to hear in Sunday school in my Southern Baptist Church. They would attempt to scare you with stories of emotional trauma if you have sex too early. I started at 16 and I am enjoying the hell out of it with no regrets - SEX in my currently single life has kept me sane.

OK, we can elevate the discourse. Sorry, had to get that off of my chest :)

Patmos,

"the Indians we still feel as if we owe them something and it was years ago that both of these things took place."

Christianity was one of the biggest forces that crushed the Native American people's culture after we had settled/Bogarted this nation, you might want to dust off your history books and read it again.

Ok, NOW I will shut my yapper for a few minutes :)

Am I the only person who thinks the correct analogy is: "I dont want you to have sex, but if you do, please wear a condom, because I love you and dont want you to die a painful death of aids." is relatively similar to: "I dont want you to drink alcohol, but if you do, please, whatever you do, dont drive, because I love you and dont want you to hurt yourself and other people."

Tell me how those arent similar, and how a responsible parent wouldnt tell their children to call them if they ever get drunk and need a ride home.

I’m going back to Ricky’s analogy to buying a car.

Is there a difference in buying..err…having sex with a new (virginal) car or are there a different set of rules for buying…err…having premarital sex with a previously owned vehicle.

A new car has that new car smell.

According to some christians, virginity is extra-super special, and if you lose it before marriage, you're an unclean bastard who deserves to burn in hell.

Of course, that goes double for homosexuals.

Personally, I'm a Christian, but I believe none of the things I've just said. Except that new car smell thing. Mmm-mmm... chemicals.

And there are a different set of rules for new vehicles and used vehicles. Generally, you need a ownership history, and odometer readings on the used vehicle.

I was shocked when I saw this, whatever happened to reason and science? What happened to the separation of church and state?

Also does anyone else think it presumptious to say you're doing God's work, or justifying spreading intolerance, hate and ignorance because of one line in the Bible. Incidentally the Bible was written around 2000 years ago, has been translated from ancient dead languages and been interpretated many times, is it at all possible that some changes have accidentally occurred?

Dagfar - "Personally, I'm a Christian, but I believe none of the things I've just said"

This is typical of the new Christianity a la carte mentality.

You can't be a catholic or a christian if you are just going to make u your own rules. Religions are defined by their morality code; not by people who want to cut corners or wear the t-shirt but not the responsibility.

Grow-up and show some back-bone.

[This is typical of the new Christianity a la carte mentality.]

Sorry, but no.

[Religions are defined by their morality code]

True, and my morals tell me that excluding people from congregations based on sexual orientation, rather than accepting them as sinners. (as we all are)

Didn't Jesus come for the sick and the sinful, and not for the well and the righteous?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040605B.shtml

"The Man" does seem to want us to forget seperation of church and state. Same as he/they/it wants us to forget the real meaning of freedom. I think they are closer to doing both than most of us want to believe.

C.

They are your morals, not the morals of the church.

Your golf club doesn't allow members to wear spiked shoes in the restaurant; but you personally feel comfortable in spikes. Does that mean you can ignore the rules and just make up your own?

If you want to call yourself a member of something, you need to accept the rules. Otherwise, why do you call yourself a member? You do, after all, differentiate yourself from the other members by writing your own personal custom rule book and cherrypicking the bits you want. Religion and faith is not a buffet.

One of the biggest issues that this generation is poisoning its fabric with is the notion that everyone has a valid opinion and lifestyle and anyone who disagrees with it and suggests that discipline needs to be returned to society is either a "facist" or "far right wing".

Perhaps something similar was happening as Rome declined. People got fat and arrogant and made up their own rules; eventually a strong society disintegrated.

"Perhaps something similar was happening as Rome declined. People got fat and arrogant and made up their own rules; eventually a strong society disintegrated."

Rome was subjected to generations of lead poisoning. Whats in the water used to make the koolaid youre drinking?

[They are your morals, not the morals of the church.]

How are they not the morals of the church?

[Mark 2:16-17 : When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."]

[Romans 3:23-24 : All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.]

Doesn't that sound pretty much exactly what I just said?

It sounds like you are selectively combing through the Bible and twisting scripture to suit a decadent lifestyle.

You can't plan a sinful future because you think there are loopholes.

Forgiveness is retrospective; you can't plan to sin and hope to rely on that forgiveness.

Otherwise we are all free to commit whatever sinful deeds we please, comfortable in the belief that they'll all be forgiven anyway. There are limits, God is not a fool.

who said dagfari planned on sinning?

your reading of the holy word of god is imperfect, because you are imperfect.

so is his.

it is extremely insolent to believe that you know for sure the mind of god. You, Mr Hutchence, have a god complex.

[It sounds like you are selectively combing through the Bible and twisting scripture to suit a decadent lifestyle.]

Twisting scripture? Have you even read it?

[You can't plan a sinful future because you think there are loopholes.]

That isn't the point at all. The point is that anyone who believes can be saved. Would you disagree? If someone truly believes, they'll be sorry for any sins they have committed. Belief doesn't instantly make someone incapable of doing wrong.

[There are limits, God is not a fool.]

I agree that God is anything but a fool, but where are these limits found? Defend your argument. I'd really like to see you try to.

[who said dagfari planned on sinning?...]

Finally, some sense.

If you believe, you demonstrate that by following the code of the church.

Otherwise you are saying you believe but*

If you consciously decide to tailor things so as your own desires and temptations, whatever they may be, can be permitted. That renders your defining yourself as Christian invalid.

If you prefer, go start your own religion with your designer rulebook. What do you do if some of your flock decide they want to introduce polygamy as a way of life for your religion, for example? Do you throw them out, or do you permit it?

Im no expert on christianity, but isnt the point of the whole religion: that all of the old moral codes, though good and righteous, arent the important part? The truely important thing is that god loves you, and if you acknowledge this and love him back, you will be forgiven for your trespasses?

So, theologically, if someone truely believes in, and is thankful for, gods grace (and his sacrifice of his own son) and tries to bring glory to god, if they are a homosexual, does that matter?

The current Pope and his predescessor make the rules on matters like abstinence, contraception, abortion and homosexuality PERFECTLY and UNQUESTIONABLY clear and consistent.

I don't understand what the debate here is.

It makes me angry that people are so determined to water down the Church's teachings. If you don't like them, then go and pursue some other religion. Why chose one that doesn't suit your lifestyle and preferred morality?

Dagfari "Defend your argument. I'd really like to see you try to." It is very arrogant for you to take this approach. I am not the one you need to ask for justification. Consult your bible and your priest if you need more information.

"It makes me angry that people are so determined to water down the Church's teachings. If you don't like them, then go and pursue some other religion. Why chose one that doesn't suit your lifestyle and preferred morality?"

didnt a bunch of people do that in the 1600's? following some dude named luther? I dunno, Im shaky on my history.

How do protestants fit in to your world view? they still follow christ, but they ditched the pope and some other theology.

Whats wrong with that? They arent catholic, but how are they not christian?

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I am talking only about Catholicism. People are free to believe in whatever they like. My point is I am against those who purport to be Catholic yet have a hidden agenda of personalised "adjustments" to the teachings of the Catholic church so as to suit their lifestyle. You accept the rules and strive to live your life by them. Otherwise, if you are taking a buffet appoach, you should seek your future elsewhere with a religion that better matches your lifestyle.

So anon, regarding protestants, I would fully support people taking a similar move today and setting up their own new branch of the church if they want to re-write the rules regarding abortion, contraception, homosexuality, abstinence, women priests ... or whatever current sticking points that people want to change.

If they support a different set of values to that of Catholics, then it is best that they abandon Catholicism and form their own religion that defines their values more appropriately.

but dagfari never said he was a catholic.

So? I wasn't personalising this in any way. I know nothing about Dagfari and have zero to comment on him/her. Has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[What do you do if some of your flock decide they want to introduce polygamy as a way of life for your religion, for example? Do you throw them out, or do you permit it?]

I'd permit them to stay in the church. Why should I throw them out, just because they are sinful?

[The current Pope and his predescessor make the rules on matters like abstinence, contraception, abortion and homosexuality PERFECTLY and UNQUESTIONABLY clear and consistent.]

Yes. I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a sin. As I've said before, I'm saying that everyone is equally sinful and undeserving of God's love, including the pope. God gives his love freely to us, in our sinful state.

The only point that Dagfari made thay I take issue with is this idea that "sinners" have a special exemption status from the clear expectations of the church.

If you are a "sinner" ... as we all are, forgiveness is extended to you so long as you recognise your sins and try your utmost to change your ways and clense yourself. But if you recognise your sins but have no intention to change your ways, and are happy to go on sinning, then certainly the Catholic church is no place for you. Other religions may find it acceptable though.

" Dagfar - "Personally, I'm a Christian, but I believe none of the things I've just said"

This is typical of the new Christianity a la carte mentality.

You can't be a catholic or a christian if you are just going to make u your own rules. Religions are defined by their morality code; not by people who want to cut corners or wear the t-shirt but not the responsibility.

Grow-up and show some back-bone."

How is that not an explict commentary on Dagfari's religion? How is that not personal?

??????????????????

anon, discuss the topic. don't personalise it. If you want a flaming bitching match, go find another forum

I can see you are gumming for some confrontation here.

How about offering your opinion on the topic instead?

I wasnt trying to make a flaming bitch match. I was simply taking issue with something that you said, and providing evidence to the contrary of your claim. That is the essence of argument.

But my opinion remains with dagfari, that we are all sinners and that as long as we acknowledge our sin, recognize god's love and ask for forgivness, even if we do not know our sins, that god will forgive.

To give you more of an idea where I am coming from ...

I had a strict Catholic upbringing, but drifted away from it in my late teens. I regret that now, and realise that the strict adherance of the new Pope to the tradition of the Catholic church is a wonderful thing. Thank God he did not adopt a popularist approach and dilute Catholic values to suit the lax morals that are threatening modern society.

I now feel strongly drawn to a Church with solid clear values that challenge one to meet a high moral standard for living. The new Pope has inspired me to recommit myself to the true values I grew up with but subsequently abandoned because it didn't suit my urges for self-indulgence.

Laissez faire worship is available elsewhere for those that prefer an easier ride.

Knowing right from wrong is not difficult; it is one capability that humans are universally capable of.

If you proclaim yourself to be of a certain Religion then you must also understand what that Religion means. Otherwise you are not in a position to follow it if you do not understand what you are following. That is simple and obvious.

If you recognise your sins and seek forgiveness, the first step is to repent. If you cannot do that, forgiveness is not available.

Repenting means ceasing to commit the sins that you are aware you are committing and know are wrong.

I respect that, and I think you've made a good case as to why the catholic church is a good place for people who think like you and believe the things that you do (not a value judgement at all, just people with your beliefs go well with catholic doctrine)

Cool :-) Believe me I am not a biblebasher. Nor do I have a problem with people who do not like Catholic rules. No one has any right to chastise anyone else over reasonable lifestyle choices like homosexuality, abortion or whatever else. I sympathise greatly with those who find their life has dealt them cards that they would not have wished for. But similarly, those who feel compelled to include such things in their lives are not, by definition, Catholics.

[The only point that Dagfari made thay I take issue with is this idea that "sinners" have a special exemption status from the clear expectations of the church.]

So: I made the point that the pope is sinful, and you have no issue against it. Catholic church doctrine states that the pope is infallible, and therefore, by your own arguments, you cannot be catholic.

You're just trying to be a smart ass now

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

* what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
* the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
* infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

      o The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
      o Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
      o Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
      o Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

The dogma of the infallibility of the Pope refers, not to his character or holiness (he is a sinner like the rest of us) but to the miraculous protection whereby his office is guarded from promulgating error as the apostolic doctrine).

Bradley could have also posed the hypothetical "But if you told a teenager not to jump out of airplanes, but if you do, be sure to wear a parachute, wouldn't that be good, sensible advise?"

Bradley could have also posed the hypothetical "But if you told a teenager not to jump out of airplanes, but if you do, be sure to wear a parachute, wouldn't that be good, sensible advise?"

... I think the anti-condom logic is that there have been some rare cases where a parachute has failed to open, or the skydiver didn't land skillfully and twisted their ankle: therefore it would be better if you ban parachutes altogether and spread misinformation about their reliability so people will stop jumping out of planes in the first place. Thus faulty parachute related injuries and deaths will be reduced from 0.01% to 0.0%.

Many more people have sex than jump out of airplanes. Then again, there's always a small percentage of people who have sex while jumping out of airplanes, and most of them use both a condom and a parachute.

Albeit ludicrous that the father of the 16 year old girl in this film clip would not advise his daughter to use a parachute if she is considering jumping out of airplanes - the poor analogy here Roberto is that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is radically more dangerous than having a bareback shag.

I agree with your message, and get that you were likely upset when you typed it, but, my friend, punctuation is your friend. (Your message was obscured in its hard read.)

I highly suggest "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"

:)

hutchence sure can type fast. I mean, look at what he typed in just 4 minutes. (from 8:08 to 8:12)

wow.

To be fair, sex is something most teenagers get into without being ready for any of the consequences. Sex is good fun, but unless you are emotionally prepared for getting pregnant, you're getting yourself into trouble. Few things fuck up a relationship more thoroughly than an unwanted pregnancy.

Teenagers are emotionally immature and don't account for risks. Condoms aren't foolproof, and you can pretty much bet on a condom breaking during the one of the first times you have sex. I've had a condom break twice, and though the success rate has been good, I can tell you that the morning after pills are no fun at all. At least with condoms you know when they fail. You don't have that luxury with the pill.

The effectiveness of both the pill and condoms are restricted mainly by education. The more knowledge and training people have, the more effective they are going to me. Of course, sex education should only be in part about contraception.

I had the good luck to have a good sex ed teacher, who told us plenty about fetishes, sexual development, sexual orientation etc. Education and knowledge begets tolerance - ignorance begets bigotry.

Abstinence will work for some people: more power to them. I know it probably would not have worked for me. People should be allowed to make their own informed choices about when they start having sex, and not have state-sanctioned views thrust upon them. Informed choice being the imperative word here.

Lack of good sex ed is just as bad as lack of good drug ed, which is another pet peeve of mine. By playing down the pleasure associates with drugs and exaggerating the risks, people will be more skeptical about drug education, and when they find out about drugs from other sources, they feel misled and reject the education.

A parallell can be drawn to sex education. Bad sex education, such as abstinence pledges et al. will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more STDs.

I've got to say this is one of the most infuriating religious propaganda drives this administration has unleashed on our society. Call me crazy but any government that promotes guns as a safety measure and a way of life but condemns condoms as unsafe and corrupting is totally unbelievable.

I'm gonna go and bang my head against the wall to try and forget about this for now - otherwise I may have to take their advice and instead of using condoms to bring pleasure and relief into my life I may just start using a damn gun.

Whether you're drunk or not you should always wear a seat belt when in a moving car. But I guess some people still believe seat belts are more of a danger... As for abstinence, has anyone ever considered biology? Sex is a natural urge that is programmed into our drive for survival, it is something our bodies were designed for and the concept of marriage is strictly about security. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do about security - security for the family, for support and companionship. Why can't couples stay together on their own free will without having church and state legitimize it? Monogamy is a construct but not a biological code.

All that aside, preaching faith-based propaganda in the context of public health is sick. Federal tax dollars supporting this corrupt practice is wrong. If the church is going to start receiving the benefits of American tax dollars it should start paying into it as well. Does anyone remember that the church is one of the wealthiest conglomerations in the world. If is wasn't for pedophile (I mean abstinent) priests the churches would be swimming in cash. Yet now faith-based institutions are being funded not just through their congregations but by those of us who do not believe or desire to hear their interpretations of existence.

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan, David Koresh and any other ego-driven, self-appointed religious leader are business men and their practices should be monitored, legislated funded and taxed the same way. As for their followers? God apparently gave us free-will, believe what you want but when the after life comes I hope your religious lottery pick was right. Personally, I prefer to beleive in a God who loves all his creations over one who choses a team to root for.

If two of those silver rings ever touch, imagine the sparks that would be produced. Hell, I feel that walking down the street. So much contrivance. Those two kids were like PDA or is it Public Display of Moral Superiority. I prefer real people to moral fluff.

It is interesting to view the comments here and attempt to understand the ideas represented. So, I guess the idea that abstinence from sex for children is a bad idea?

I mean really, so sex is fine for adolescents as long as they use condoms? Is this the message we want to send? I certainly am not saying that we shouldn't teach that condom use is a preventative measure, but it is certainly LESS effective than total abstinence!

Would you agree?

I don't think that anyone is saying that abstinence is necessarily bad. If people choose it for themselves, fine.

But I think it is not realistic. Is there is a time in history when all young people successfully remained celibate until marriage? Anywhere? Anytime? I would be curious to hear about such a time if it exists. Even when the social pressure to remain celibate until marriage was intense (ie the 40s and 50s in the US), and birth control was not easily (or not at all available) many, many people still had sex before marriage (and got married due to unexpected pregnancy!) Perhaps the only time when adolescents avoided sex outside of marriage was when girls were cloistered until marriage and then married off to someone their families chose for them, when they were 14! (ie medieval Europe) And even then the boys had sex, with prostitutes.

I think the reality is that adolescents DO have sex. Teach them everything they need to know, about birth control, and STDs and pregnancy, and relationships, and let them make informed choices. To me this makes so much more sense than limiting the approach to "don't do it, period". And many young people will choose abstinence for themselves at that point, but if they change their minds, they will know how to prevent unwanted pregnancy and life-changing diseases. What bothers me is this idea of teaching one narrow approach, and trying to keep young people ignorant.

Re: Real People on May 25, 2005 01:24 AM

You're right that kids shouldn't be having sex for many reasons from emotional readiness to the simple fact that no matter how safe you may be, there are always risks. But with a lack of good parenting and education as well as basic biological instincts, kids are going to anyway. Not all but a lot will. So why should we support abstinence programs that don't deal with the reality.

I just don't like the idea of shady ideologies being funded, supported and even promoted through our government and schools. Just like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign - this "just say no to sex" idea is ludicrous and insufficient.

This is from a very interesting website (Advocates for Youth), with some statistics on teen pregnancy and STDs, comparing the situation in the US to the situation in Northern Europe:

Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the U.S.—Why the Difference? Each summer since in 1998, Advocates for Youth and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte sponsor annual study tours to France, Germany, and the Netherlands to explore why adolescent sexual health outcomes are so much more positive in the three European countries than in the U.S. Rights. Respect. Responsibility.® The study tour participants — policy makers, researchers, youthserving professionals, foundation officers, and youth — have found that this trilogy of values underpins a social philosophy regarding adolescent sexual health in these countries. Each of these nations has an unwritten social contract with young people: “We’ll respect your right to act responsibly, giving you the tools you need to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”

I think these "virtuous" youth groups, that are emerging in the US rather than Europe, are more symptomatic of American society's rampant deeitful hypocrisy rather that anything else.

The sweet holier-than-thou doey-eyed angels publicising their participation in the movement are probably up to their ears in porno mags, motel hookers and deviant sexual practices.

Sort of like America's not-in-my-backyard approach to the environment, human rights, trade protectionism, torture, violent illegal unprovoked invasions of other nations, amassing of nuclear weapons.

These kids are the nation's future after all.

Europeans and Scandinavians could teach a lot about sex. They seem to have a much healthier attitude towards sex and the human anatomy.

The U.S. is just going through their Victorian era. It, too, will pass.

This is not just going to pass. We're dealing with a Christian American Taliban and they are not on the decline – they are in the midst of a relentless, ongoing, theocratic power-grab from the top. They have to be resisted.

Why must we all say, "Of course people should abstain...but..." There is nothing inherently damaging about teenagers having sex. Sex should be respectful and mutually consenting and honest and safe. The problem is not sex. The problem is male supremacy and the general commodification of sex and how it is so often used as a means to use, dominate, and abuse others.

I grew up when sex ed consisted of a bunch of bananas a couple of co-eds from highschool coming into my junior high class with condoms and a lot of openness. This, together with positive open non-judgmental discussion of sex in my home and, of course, Salt N Peppa's song "Let's Talk About Sex," helped prepare me to negotiate what situations I wanted to engage with sexually - AND to reject the negative feelings and internalized guilt thrust on women who are forced into sexual situations we don't choose.

I can guarantee that no American reading this actually personally knows any crazy right wing nuts. They don't know anyone who is making oil profits from Iraq. They don't know any creationists. Not at least any that they can truly believe have such genuine deeply held convictions as to pursue the arguments and activities that they do.

The reason?

The bizarre bullshit that has hit the planet in the last few years has rocked every sane reasonable person's sense of logic. It seems the world has been transformed by some force that is of a Hollywood-esque extreme. WTC collapsing, Orewellian Government, presidential speeches about the battle between "good and evil", a global terrorist malevolence that threatens our very existence. And most significantly the emergence of Christian religion as a manipulative weapon to herd the people.

Yet, despite that we read in the media and are touched personally by family members who may now be uniformed and wielding weapons against the dark evil enemy, it all seems surreal and false. We have a sense that there is something extraordinary occuring. But can't quite put a finger on it.

Invisible airliners plunging into the Pentagon without a trace. Novice fanatical pilots hitting very difficult targets in New York, with odd projected reflections of the jets visible against reflective surfaces shown in the few true amateur filming of the event. White flashes and inexplicable fuselage bulges on the jets before they hit the buildings. A cigar shaped object darting across the sky in one film.

3 years ago many of us saw film taken from the space station of intelligent paths being taken by tiny objects across the upper stratosphere.

I'd go on, but the more one cites bizarre events, the more people are programmed to "switch off" and refuse to accept any further information.

In a nutshell, those who first injected life with intelligence on Earth and spawned the human race here have recently returned. They are accellerating a long preconceived plan to unify an intelligent planet, prior to revealing themselves as the benign visitors that they are.

This mishandling of this acceleration however is contributing to a surplus of bizarreness. People are becoming wary of it and suspecting there is something more.

This is not the "rapture" - though many will jump to the conclusion that it is once the first revelation occurs.

It is nothing to fear, except should mishandling of the first revelation cause global panic or violence.

I bet a lot of people --while they don't know the manipulators-- know the manipulated who do very much believe in creationism and abstinence and the rapture. I'm personally related to two people who believe Adam & Eve existed -- and that dinosaurs are a myth. Abstinence's main promoters don't care at all about someone's sexual experience being "honest" and "good" -nevermind enjoyable -- Which is what many claim abstaining until marriage is supposed to get you; love, respect, etc. But these are the same people who spit on gay people. The same people who want to make divorce more difficult - even when abuse occurs. It's all in response to the fact that there is, indeed, a moral crisis in America. But the question is do we enforce traditional morality as a response, or promote one that values women as complete humans? "Lax morals" is a euphemism for fear, silence, self-hatred and chastity belts. I grew up Catholic, too - unfortunately. Rent the Magdeline Sisters if you want to get a real sense of their sexual morality. After all, we are talking about a religion based on a bible that upholds rape, incest, and the stoning of gays. And I'm not saying this to just back-handedly trash religion. But we can't have a morality based on that if we want a world worth living in. And we've got people in power who want that book imposed literally on society. And that would be a total horror.

Adam and Eve did exist, but they were chimps covered in fishscales and could swim under water for long periods while eating bananas.

Apart from that, the Bible is as accurate a historical record as FOX News transcripts.

"You're turn."

And you're misusing English.