Letter to the Editor
It was not long after the 60 Minutes segment on abstinence aired that I read this letter to the editor in my local paper the Salt Lake Tribune. I couldn't resist, I simply had to respond.
Salt Lake Tribune
Why is it no surprise at all that the ACLU has filed a lawsuit over skits called the Silver Ring Thing, which promote premarital abstinence among teens?
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, alleges that the Silver Ring Thing, an offshoot from Guest Evangelistic Team, crosses the line by using federal money to encourage young people to commit themselves to Jesus Christ.
Promoting abstinence is not promoting a religion, but is only encouraging good habits, decency and righteousness that help to lead to happiness for a better life. When are the ACLU followers going to admit the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land, and that the ACLU and others have reinterpreted and ignored the true words and meaning of the First Amendment to fit their own worldly desires and to destroy our religious freedom?
For years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been taking this country down the road to destruction where they have no jurisdiction. Only Congress has authority to make laws, not the courts, not the ACLU. More important, even "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
We can't help wondering, when Jesus Christ comes again in His Glory, what will the ACLU say then? Will they hide or file a lawsuit?
Rodney and Norma Sorensen
Bountiful
Field the whole team
Salt Lake Tribune
It is true that promoting abstinence only is not promoting religion, but had Rodney and Norma Sorensen (Forum, May 29) watched the “60 Minutes” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2005/05/20/60minutes/main 696975.shtml) segment on the subject they'd know that the Silver Ring Thing does promote religion. It passes out Bibles and tells the participants that they don't think they can succeed without belief in and prayer to God, and it uses our tax dollars to do it.
The fact is the program does support establishment of religion. That is why the ACLU is suing, and it's right. It is also clear that promoting abstinence only is shortsighted. It is like a baseball team that is so confident in its pitcher (abstinence) that it doesn't field the rest of the team, certainly a recipe for disaster.
The “60 Minutes” program pointed out that the abstinence-only program fails 88 percent of the time. That's not good enough and, as in baseball, we need to adopt a team approach if we hope to succeed in solving the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
A team approach means encouraging abstinence, but backing it up with realistic sex education, including instruction on the use of condoms.
Norm Jenson
Sandy
Comments
Rodney and Norma,
OK folks, here's a little tip for you. When you write a letter criticizing the ACLU's efforts to stop our government from sponsoring a program which has an overtly religious message...you MIGHT NOT want to sign it with... "We can't help wondering, when Jesus Christ comes again in His Glory..."
Ugh. These people just don't get it.
-MS Card-carrying ACLU member since before I could vote!
Posted by: Matthew Sinclair | June 6, 2005 2:31 AM | Reply to this comment
Ah, the SLC Tribune. Always good for a laugh.
Posted by: Dagfari | June 6, 2005 6:56 AM | Reply to this comment
"That's not good enough and, as in baseball, we need to adopt a team approach if we hope to succeed in solving the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies."
Ah yes, but see people like the Sorensons don't actually want to stop the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies -- all they care about is preventing premarital sex, which apparently is worse than all ten Commandments combined (funny, the issue of premarital sex doesn't come up in the Commandments). :)
Posted by: birdman | June 6, 2005 7:19 AM | Reply to this comment
Besides, abstinence from sex is not 'good habits' by definition, any more than practicing sex is. But sadly, it's the classic easy (and silly) way out: Stop STD and teen pregnancies by promoting abstinence, stop people from stealing food to survive by giving them long prison sentences, stop killings of unarmed people by giving everyone a gun - fight the effects with all you have to avoid ever having to look at the causes... Love, Trixie "No need to fear the wind if you wear nice panties"
Posted by: Trixie | June 6, 2005 7:22 AM | Reply to this comment
The two most dangerous pieces of propaganda that the right wing radicals have been successfully using are evident here:
And
The administration fosters this because it wants to do payback for the evangelical base and the courts have stopped them from many abuses of power such as the rulings regarding torture and unlawful detentions.
The real target of both groups is the destruction of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and their checks and balances. The Patriot act in its new and improved form does that by shredding the Fourth amendment rights of unlawful search and seizure and requirements for judicial oversight and the establishment of "just cause" for such actions on the part of law enforcement.
So the implications of this go much further than simple the "separation of church and state."
Posted by: anon | June 6, 2005 8:37 AM | Reply to this comment
Amazing how the fundamentalists fall into lock-step with their leaders. Now the courts are the enemy. Yet, when they rant the usual discourse on "founding fathers" and the country being established on "Christian principles", they forget that the founding fathers fled state-sponsored religion in England, specifically and with great design empowered the courts, wrote the establishment clause, and very intentionally left Jesus Christ out of the Constitution. No one is suggesting that Barbie and Ken Sorenson not worship their silly myths, but not with my tax payments.
Posted by: bc68251 | June 6, 2005 8:38 AM | Reply to this comment
Ah, ah, ah, Norm! The delightful, avuncular Sorenson clan did have one valid point. If, errr, when, Jesus DOES come back, we're all gonna be sorry. I really hope if the pipe-dream pulls through that he's black too. It would be a treat if geographically the dark horse pulls through. Because I can just sense how much the Sorensons in particular would enjoy it.
Posted by: bjmf | June 6, 2005 8:51 AM | Reply to this comment
Dagfari,
You may be confusing the Salt Lake Tribune with the Deseret News.
Oh…wait…maybe not. You probably know the history behind the new owners of the Trib and their cozy relationship with The Church.
I’m just hoping a few high-schoolers in Utah will read Norm’s letter and ask: “What is a condom?”
Posted by: cowboy | June 6, 2005 9:38 AM | Reply to this comment
bjmf... you raise a good point... what if Jesus comes back as a black, lesbian woman, liberal! Geeze the Dobson would conver to Satanism!
Posted by: anon | June 6, 2005 10:07 AM | Reply to this comment
Nice one, Norm! I love the baseball metaphor. It comes replete with allusions to "scoring," "past balls," and, of course, "getting to first base." ;-)
Posted by: limerick savant | June 6, 2005 10:34 AM | Reply to this comment
Norm,
That was total Ownage!
nice!
Posted by: rduke | June 6, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply to this comment
"For years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been taking this country down the road to destruction where they have no jurisdiction"... they really should have finished this sentence with "that serves God's will"...
Posted by: i like mine medium | June 7, 2005 6:52 PM | Reply to this comment
I'm a bi (so, obviously, liberal) Christian in the south. If I'm around when Jesus comes back, I'll be glad. Personally, I think the people who claim to speak for God but promote their own agendas will not be so pleased, however.
Posted by: anon | June 7, 2005 10:31 PM | Reply to this comment
Yeah...it's hard to visualize Jesus would ever carry a sign: "GOD HATES FAGS"
Posted by: cowboy | June 8, 2005 10:42 AM | Reply to this comment