a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by thenewgreen
thenewgreen  ·  4324 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work
    "Have you ever seen a three legged calf?"
-No, I haven't because they aren't that common. Unwanted pregnancies are quite common though.

    to then say "abstinence" or traditional" values should be done away with or discouraged in our schools
-I never suggested they be "done away with", just that they don't work for everyone. If studies are showing that they are more effective then previously thought, why not have a comprehensive approach of abstinence and protection?

You use the word "traditional" a lot in your response. In your previous comment you said,

    "How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more?"
-Let's be honest here, marriage has changed a LOT over the past 8000 years.

This article states this well

    "Christian marriage has not always been between “one man and one woman.” For most of recorded biblical history, polygamy was seen as normative. For example, the patriarch Jacob had at least three wives (Genesis 30), King David had at least eight, and his son Solomon had 700 (1 Kings 11:1-3)—not to mention 300 concubines!

    Even during the early centuries AD when the books of the New Testament were being written and compiled, polygamous marriages were common. In several of his epistles, Paul specified that those in positions of leadership in the early church should be the “husband of but one wife” (see Titus 1:6, 1 Tim. 3:2).

    Marriage in the early church bore little resemblance to the institution we know today. It was primarily an institution of the state. Once a Christian couple had been legally married, they would attend liturgy, received the Eucharist together, and be blessed by the local bishop. The features we recognize as typical of a wedding ceremony—the use of a simple white veil and the symbolic joining of the couple’s hands—did not begin to appear until the time of Augustine (354-430)".

We know there are two things that work to prevent unwanted pregnancies; 1. Abstinence 2. Contraception. We should be promoting both and if the government can lower unwanted pregnancies (especially amongst the poor) then I'm all for it. If it's a matter of needing more tax revenue, then let's tax the churches.

I'd love to go on, but I have to go to work.





hootsbox  ·  4313 days ago  ·  link  ·  
But remember that Jesus said, "It was not that way from the beginning", but due to the "hardness of your hearts" Moses allowed divorce (and polygamy I might add). I do agree with both abstinence and contraception (the rhythm method seems to produce a pregnancy more often than not). If one's heart intention is not "hard" then he, or she, will give their lives unabashedly and fully, to their one mate with the intention of making their, not our, lives more fulfilling and enjoyable, and thus, enjoy their lives more. As Zig Ziglar said, "If you help enough other people get what they want in life, you will get what you want"! Truer words, especially in a monogamous marriage relationship, were never spoken. I have read it said, "If the grass seems greener on the other side of the fence, then you are not fertilizing the grass on your side of the fence"! I agree wholeheartedly, we can make it work. True "Christian" and most other religions I might add, do adhere to "one man and one woman" tenants. It is better that way, and I, as a hippie with "many love interests" that only lasted as long as I, selfishly, was enthralled with the state of the "relationship" (and it accompanying shallowness of relationship without true commitment), and, if it didn't accomplish that selfish goal, it ended. The commitment was only, "skin deep" so to speak! For thousands of years as well, monogamy and "being the husband of ONE wife" prevailed, and produced a more healthy macro-economic and "emotional" state than the alternative!
hootsbox  ·  4320 days ago  ·  link  ·  
To get back to what I would do to prevent unwanted pregnancies from your earlier question, I would suggest these on a conceptual basis. It is also good to remember that we got here over 50+ years, so whoever is in charge, it will take a longer, concerted effort with permanent changes in policy design and policies. So, I would:

1. Redesign the welfare system to encourage more "workfare". We have that now in states (thanks to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 signed by Clinton and proposed by Republican legislatures), however, I would:

a. Limit welfare benefits to a maximum of five years under normal circumstances, and extend to 7 years if the recipient was enrolled in a school program or job training program. However, we should discourage "generational" welfare or welfare as a "lifestyle" as it has become in historical perspective. b. We would have to provide assistance for child care during this period of education for the recipient. However, after a decade or two, we may not need this assistance because the family structure would be "restored" or repaired. c. We should "stair step" the benefits as the recipient earns more money. Once able to achieve "self-sufficiency", they will be able to provide for themselves. I believe most welfare recipients DO want to do this. d. We should begin to teach "generic morals" in primary schools and encourage waiting until marriage to have sex. Is this going to "cure" sexual promiscuity? No, but it could have a positive effect in reducing the number of unwed pregnancies. I do believe we can also teach the positive effects of using birth control has. The parents can also be invited to become involved or provide "mentors" from both secular and religious organizations to help educate the kids and parents. The "abstinence" education and other "sex education" together; they are NOT mutually exclusive. e. We should allow marriage while on welfare, and then encourage both to become self-sufficient. Again keeping the overall benefit timeframe is good. To cut off all or most benefits because a guy marries his "knocked up" girlfriend is not in the long term interest of the nation.

2. Redesign the Department of Education by reducing its size and influence. We can achieve this by attrition and redefining the responsibility and scope of the department. The department encourages more "elitist" theories than old fashioned "three R's". They should be more of a "clearing house" of ideas that bubble up from local and state initiatives that are proven to be successful and quit "dictating" the educational platform for local and state boards. In fact, I believe we should combine the departments of HHR, HUD, and the Department of Education into one department - the Department of Internal Affairs and reduce the entire staff by a third of one half of their current size. We have become more a nation of the "rule of oligarchy" than a constitutional republic. We are ruled by bureaucratic "elites" instead of ruled by congressional legislative processes. The OWS folks should be demonstrating about this as well as the "1%". Political elites are as dangerous as the "wealthy few"!

b_b  ·  4319 days ago  ·  link  ·  
We can agree that the Dept of Ed is a tyrannical organization, and that we would be better served if they were in the business of support for local school districts than in the business of dictating curricula. We actually have W to thank for a lot of that, with the advent of No Child Left Behind, the biggest federal takeover of local schools in US history. BO has certainly done nothing but amp it up.

On the first point, I would argue that teaching about waiting to have sex until marriage is far from a generic moral; it is a religious ideal, and it has no place in most modern people's lives. To call it generic moral is so far from reality, as to be pure fantasy. To me, generic morals are essentially that which infringes on the freedom of others; i.e. don't murder, steal, etc. Anything to do with sex is a personal choice, and personal morality. Its not for any school to be teaching religious norms.

hootsbox  ·  4313 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Or...one could argue, and overwhelmingly I might add, that the opposite is also an infringement on the freedom of others, others that, by the way, are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that they also, don't get "marginalized" and pushed as an irrelevant "minority", when, in reality, are the majority and made the majority of the citizens in the founding of our nation. One can look at STDs, growth in the crime rate, poverty levels, high school dropout rates, and other like indicators, and see that teaching "generic" morality based on the actual results of NOT following monogamy and abstinence from a statistical point of view (see the Statistical Abstract of the United States).

Also, to say that the modern Western "rule of law" has no basis in religious "ten commandments" or, universally, the "big eight” which are shared by all world religions, is historically incorrect, un-factual, and is not grounded in "correct history" (only in revisionist history of the "progressives" post 1947) which is mostly what is taught in our "institutions of higher learning". Starting with Lord Blackstone, and the Magna Carta, most of the concepts of "freedom" are based in the Judeo/Christian ethic and rule of law! If you say that, for instance, stealing is wrong, but it is not based on the “ten commandment” mandates is to fly in the face of reason.