The event featured performances by Rihanna, T.I., Paramore, the Jonas Brothers and the comedic styling of the evening’s host, Russell Brand, replete with his oh-so-subtle remarks regarding the purity rings which the Jonas Brothers are notorious for sporting.

Brand understood that these rings were a mark of the Jonas Brothers’ commitment to God and to sexual purity but would “take it a little more seriously if they wore [them] on their genitals.” He also deemed the Brothers ungrateful, failing to understand how they could abstain when they, essentially, could have their choice of the screaming teenage girls who are constantly throwing themselves at them and likened the Brothers to “Superman just deciding not to fly and to go everywhere on a bus.”

As was to be expected, these remarks drew attention to themselves, so much so that, later on in the show, Brand apologized, clarifying that he didn’t mean to “take it lightly” and was “well up for” promise rings but even then finished by saying that a “bit of sex occasionally never hurt anybody.”

These remarks also drew the attention of Martha Brockenbrough, author and humor columnist, who put down her own thoughts in her article, “In Defense of Losing Your Virginity.”

(http://music.msn.com/music/opinion/in-defense-of-losing-your-virginity/?GT1=BUZZ1&silentchk=1&)

If you haven’t already gathered it from the title, Brockenbrough’s article is not exactly purporting abstinence and will never be considered as promotional material for the selling of purity rings. What it is though is an excellent look into a worldview that continuously heralds ideas such as this one, quoted from the article,

“Having sex in a committed relationship does not make a person a slut. It makes a person human.”

Brockenbrough, if having sex in a committed relationship is one of the things on the list that distinguishes me from my cockatiel, I would be more than willing to provide a list of monogamous animals who do the same thing. That’s simply not a good enough defense of the anti-abstinence lifestyle for me. In fact, if this was a debate setting, complete with podiums and microphones and Robert’s Rules of Order, I would counter with this:

The way I see it, the act of abstaining holds more truly human characteristics than the act of sex in a non-married, committed relationship. Some of the greatest characteristics that humans can possess are those of self control, discipline, and, yes, even self denial—and these are the traits that make us distinguishable from the animal kingdom.

But Brockenbrough seems to think that “virginity itself is actually way less important than self respect, self control, and the ability to keep both intact in tough situations. Those are the lessons parents ought to teach. Ultimately, that’s what will keep our kids safer in a big, bad world.”

Does anyone else see what I see here? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it apparently so difficult to see that virginity/abstinence/purity is indistinguishable from these virtues of self control and self respect—the words are practically synonymous!

Throughout the article, Brockenbrough returns to ideas such as the “fixation on virginity,” and “the creepy virginity obsession,” like there is some sort of cultic activity that takes place among virgins worldwide where we don our whitest clothes, polish up our purity rings and dance in a circle around a picture of Jessica Simpson. Brockenbrough even writes that, “taken to the extreme, the creepy virginity obsession is the sort of thing that leads to the inspection of newlyweds’ sheets for telltale blood.” What?! That’s not what abstinence is, or virginity, for that matter. Abstaining until marriage is the only guaranteed way to protect from STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

In fact, I could counter with the equally effective argument that, taken to the extreme, the creepy obsession with exploring human sexuality outside the realm of marriage leads to a 22-year-old auctioning off her virginity to the highest bidder in order to fund her education (http://www.usmagazine.com/news/22-year-old-auctioning-off-her-virginity).

Clearly, this debate will never end. In fact, I’m pretty confident that after an official declaration has been made concerning which came first, the chicken or the egg, this debate will still be going on.

So what to do? Live in such a way that, at the end of the day, you know without a doubt that you did not compromise the things that you held so dear at the beginning of your day.

Dr. Grossman descrbes the tragic and recurring scene in her campus office:  a young woman, broken and in crisis, describes the mistakes that have poisoned her dreams. “The worst part? Many times the crisis was 100 percent preventable.  “If only I’d known….she says, if only someone had told me,” is the cry Dr. Grossman hears over and over.  Ultimately, Dr. Grossman’s message is crystal clear — be informed.  Read the full pamphlet at the following link and get informed.  Pass it on to every young woman you know college age and precollege age.  Let them get informed!

http://www.cblpi.org/senseandsexuality/index.cfm

Hmm…

Do you know that up to 90% of HPV infections actually clear up on their own anyway?  That there have been 18 reported DEATHS of girls who received the vaccine?  Also reports of paralysis, miscarriages and outbreaks of genital warts?!  HELLO!  No Thank you! 

And why are we recommending that we vaccinate girls against a sexually transmitted disease before they are legally allowed to have sex?!  And why are my tax dollars paying for it?

Why is it that people can’t get it through their heads that we are not mindless sex-starved animals looking for the next thing to jump in bed with?  Why can’t parents realize that if they EXPECT thier children not to have sex, they probably won’t. 

This political season, the Democratic primary quickly turned into a lightning rod for discussing sexism, the “glass ceiling” and the good ol’ boys club. The usual suspects, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro and Patricia Schroeder, were leading the way in making these claims. They were supported, however, by a vocal cadre of women from academia. The well-organized attacks launched by these professors caught many people off-guard because most people do not realize that this is exactly what these professors are trained to do—to lead social revolutions.

In the classic college environment, history professors are hired to research and teach students the history of a specific subject, such as a time period, country or war. Science professors are hired to research and teach students how things work in this world, such as what happens when you mix chemicals together. English professors are hired to teach students how to write effectively to convey a message.

What are women’s studies professors hired to do? According to the National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) website, its mission is that it “…leads the field of women’s studies in educational and social transformation.” Women’s Studies professors are hired to work to remake society.

Over a thousand of these women met this past week in Cincinnati, Ohio for the National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) Annual Conference. These women unabashedly pursue their radical feminist vision. In the opening letter, the president of the NWSA encourages attendees to read, “Welcome to Cincinnati: A Brief Feminist Guide for Conference Goers” by the head of the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Women’s Studies. Who knew you could take a feminist tour of Cincinnati?

These women’s studies professors gathered to learn how to become better activists, not better teachers. The Conference included panels to teach them how to use their position as professors to be agents of social change with such loaded discussion topics as, “Feminist Activism from the Inside Out: Connecting Campus to Community,” “’You Say You Want a Revolution?’: Paving New Paths in Feminist Mentorship” and last, but not at all least, “Drive a Mind Wild: How Feminist Pedagogy can Teach Resistance.”

These women do not use the term “feminism” in an all-encompassing pro-woman way, but rather co-opt the term to describe their specific radical feminist agenda. Their agenda is hostile towards conservative women and conservative ideas. One panel even claims that, “Conservative attacks on women’s rights under the auspices or with the blessing of the Bush administration are eroding women’s equal educational opportunity and reproductive rights.” Of course, the panel does not provide an opportunity for a conservative woman to share her view on these issues. Women’s studies departments are more concerned about transforming society than providing a fair debate.

Unlike conservative women, these radical feminists are obsessed with their perceived oppression and trumpet their victim status, no matter how much women achieve. The theme of the Conference was, “Resisting Hegemonies.” What are the “shegemonies” of which these women are so afraid? One is abstinence-only education. They held roundtable entitled, “Dismantling Hegemonic Abstinence-Only-Until Marriage Programs and Virginity Pledges,” to “expose the repressive, hegemonic myths underpinning abstinence-only-until marriage programs and virginity pledges and recommend several ways to challenge them.” Sex education is a hot button political issue. In a history class, professors might teach students the history of sex education in America, while in an English class, professors might use the issue to teach students how to write persuasively. In a women’s studies class, students are taught that there is only one right side of the issue and in turn, how to transform society so this view is forced on everyone.

Women’s studies departments function less as academic departments and more as political organizations. They are one of the few departments that take a purely political stance, representing radical feminists and rejecting conservative women. Conservatives have generally ignored or been ignored by these departments, leaving these departments without any potentially moderating opposition. Thus, they pursue a feminist agenda that becomes more and more extreme and political. While the outspoken attacks in the election show the departments are successfully organizing to promote “social transformation,” our taxpayer dollars at public universities should not be used to promote a purely political agenda in the guise of academia.

The chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday suspended an obscenity trial over which he was presiding after a newspaper reported that he had sexually explicit photos and videos on his own Web site. 

Opening statements were under way Wednesday morning in the case against a porn movie distributor when the Los Angeles Times’s Web site reported that Judge Alex Koozinski’s personal site contained explicit material and that public access to it was blocked after he was interviewed about it Tuesday evening.

Jude Kozinski told the Times he thought the material couldn’t be seen by the public and that he didn’t believe any of the images were obscene.

Father Absence Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5mg-kj6ecY

You could see it coming in January, in the wake of the surprise box office hit Juno and the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears. ABC’s Deborah Roberts observed on Good Morning America that, “…teen pregnancy is the new hot topic in Hollywood….” 

As surely as gestation follows conception, Hollywood was going to cash in on teen pregnancy.

If conception took place in January, then Hollywood gestates a little more quickly than a human mother. By the end of June, NBC delivered its teen pregnancy “reality” show, The Baby Borrowers.  A week later, ABC delivered a drama, The Secret Life of the American Teenager.

The Baby Borrowers features unmarried teenage couples living in a house, taking care of real children as if they were parents.  Before the couples get the children, they live in the house together for two days, without chaperones, indulging in what one participant likened to a “honeymoon.”   Nevertheless, NBC is peddling the show as a public service, a form of “birth control,” because it shows teen viewers how difficult raising a child can be.

The Secret Life of the American Teenager makes no such pretense of social conscience.  The show is populated by a cast of characters with one thing on their minds.  Though Secret Life centers on a 15-year-old mother-to-be, the creator of the show, Brenda Hampton, told The Hollywood Reporter, “I don’t have anything to say about the issue of teen pregnancy.  I’m just telling a story about a girl who happens to get pregnant.” Hampton says plenty about the supposed inevitability of teen sex, however, when a devout Christian boy who warns others against having sex gets busy with the school slut during the very first episode.

Critics have panned the shows, but ratings were good for both opening episodes.  If viewership remains strong, ABC and NBC will soon be fattening their bank accounts.  But have they thought how much their profits could cost society as a whole?

America has witnessed an uptick in teen birth rates in the past year, and social critics are blaming what they call the “Juno effect.”  A child psychiatrist told CBS that Juno and similar movies, along with pregnant, unmarried Hollywood starlets, “might have glamorized the idea of pregnancy” and removed the stigma.  Whether Juno was the principal cause or just a contributing factor, something persuaded a dozen or so high school girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts that it’s okay to deliberately get pregnant.

Television shows depicting sexually active teens are likely to encourage teen viewers to become sexually active themselves.  Teens will abstain from sex only if parents and schools establish high expectations for them and teach them that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.  Watching other teens engage in promiscuous sex, even characters on a TV show, will desensitize teens to moral considerations and reduce behavioral expectations.  Why shouldn’t they do it if everybody else is?  Why shouldn’t they do it if everybody expects them to? This is the prime reason that “comprehensive” sex education is a colossal failure.

If America sees teen sexual activity spike in the next year, no doubt the social critics will coin a new term, the “Secret Life effect.”  More teen sex will mean more STDs, more illegitimate pregnancies, more unwed mothers, more abortions, more innocence lost.  Hollywood may profit from exploiting teen sexuality, but real people will pay the price.

One of their pretend toys they offered was the Peek-a-Boo Pole Dancing Kit.  The kit included a three-piece tension pole that fits ceilings up to 8′6″ tall, a dance booklet, a garter belt and play dance money. 

One parent was a little upset to see this product in toy stores; they thought that their five-year-old was a little young for sex work.

Tesco has now pulled the product from toy shelves but it is still available to an older “more appropriate” audience as “Peek-a-Boo Pole Dancing Exercise Pole” on sites like amazon.com. 

Each year, marketers attempt to sell sensual products to younger and younger girls.  We must be vigilant and let manufactureres know that we will not stand for products of this type to be out there for our children and grandchildren!  

One of their pretend toys they offered was the Peek-a-Boo Pole Dancing Kit.  The kit included a three-piece tension pole that fits ceilings up to 8′6″ tall, a dance booklet, a garter belt and play dance money. 

One parent was a little upset to see this product in toy stores; they thought that their five-year-old was a little young for sex work.

Tesco has now pulled the product from toy shelves but it is still available to an older “more appropriate” audience as “Peek-a-Boo Pole Dancing Exercise Pole” on sites like amazon.com. 

Each year, marketers attempt to sell sensual products to younger and younger girls.  We must be vigilant and let manufactureres know that we will not stand for products of this type to be out there for our children and grandchildren!  

In Leonard Pitts’ mean-spirited column, he intimates that abstinence-only education is responsible for the 17 teen pregnancies in Massachussets. He also wrongly states that abstinence-only education can’t mention contraceptives - it can and does, but does not condone the use because there obviously is only one sure way to prevent STD’s, unwanted pregnancies or abortion, and that is abstinence-only.

Recently, an AP story about the growing number of states abolishing federal funding for Title V programs (Virginia is one) have turned a blind eye to the needs of America’s young people. Massachussets rejected the funds and watched pregnancy rates quadruple in one year at Gloucester High School. You see, Mr. Leonard Pitts, it really wasn’t due to the Bush administration at all.
 
Furthermore, this report states that faced with a culture saturated in promiscuity and STD’s, teenagers need to be equipped with the skills that abstinence education offers now more than ever. It’s time for politicians to put the teen in need of this programming first, so that they can successfully build healty relationships, refrain from sexual acitvity, aspire to marriage, and protect their health.

Shame on you, Mr. Leonard Pitts, and thank you, Mr. Bush

I also hope you will join me today on this 4th of July, the birthday of American independence and freedom, in praying for the safety of the members of our armed forces who are in harm’s way. They deserve no less, and much, much more.

Some suggested that the “glamorization of pregnancy” in pop culture have contributed to teen pregnancies.  This would include situations such as Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy, as well as movies like “Juno.” 

Others have attributed the 17 pregnancies to the free day-care center at Gloucester High School and the comprehensive sex education curriculum employed by the school.  Abstinence education programs may have prevented the tripling of pregnancies at Gloucester High School. 

Sweet Land of Tolerance 

Religion in America

June 26, 2008 

“Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance” was the headline of a New York Times article about the Pew Forum’s survey of America’s religious landscape.  It found that Americans have a “non-dogmatic approach to faith.”  In fact 70 percent of Americans who claim affiliation to a religious body—including Christians—agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life.”  Nearly the same percentage said that “there’s more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion.” 

What’s true of faith is also true of morals.  Seventy-eight percent say that there are “absolute standards of right and wrong.”  But only 29 percent say that they “rely on their religion to delineate these standards.”  Instead, more than half o fhte respondents said that they rely on “practical experience and common sense.”  As the Book of Judges put it, “every man did what was righ in his own eyes.” 

Not surprisingly, the media repeatedly used the word tolerant to characterize America’s religious beliefs. 

But to be regarded as “tolerant” today no longer means extending “full rights of free speech and free expression” to those of all faiths.  Instead, it appears that “tolerance” now requires what journalist Terry Mattingly calls a “certain doctrine of salvation,” that regards all “religious paths” as leading “to the top of the same eternal mountain.” 

So, it is not possible anymore to debate religious truth claims respectfully.  Instead, the new “tolerance,” which has become our ultimate civic virtue, requires abandoning all truth claims lest we “offend” somebody. 

This applies everywhere: over the water cooler at work or even in presidential politics.  When asked recently in a private meeting with religious leaders whether Jesus was the only way to salvation, Barack Obama reportedly said, “Jesus is the only way for me. I’m not in a position to judge other people.”  Was he merely trying not to offend non-Christians?  Or could his answer reflect this growing relativism, even among Christians? 

The problem is that all religions make mutually exclusive truth claims.  Either Jesus is, as He Himself said, “the only way to the Father,” or He is not.  What Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus say about the person and work of Jesus Christ cannot be reconciled.  They may all be false, but they cannot all be true. 

It’s called the law of non-contradicition—it goes back toAristotle: If proposition A is true—that is, if it conforms to reality—then proposition B, making a contrary claim, cannot be true as well. 

We can trace our debased definition of “tolerance’ back to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who rejected any distinction between “civil” and “theological intolerance.”  Rousseau did not believe that peole can “live at peace with those [they] regard as damned.”  He say Christian truth claims as being intolerant and a prelude to civil strife.  Specifically, he wrote, anyone who dared to say “no salvation outside the church” should be driven out of society—precisely what is happening.

Have we been so taken in by our own culture that we have abondend truth?  The antidote to this is what I have written about in my book, The Faith.  Christians need to be grounded in our basic beliefs, or we will, indeed, be swept up in the tides of surging relativism. 

At the end of the school year, the school nurse had given  150 pregnancy tests.  The school pregnancy rate increased 400% in one year! 

The media is saying that more contraception available to high school students is the answer.  How will that help girls who have a mindset determined to get pregnant?  Increasing available contraception is NOT the answer. 

NAC believes that abstinence education is the key to preventing future teen pregnancies and protecting the health of high school students! 

Being a good friend 11% 

Being a good community citizen 18%

Being a good partner 27%

Being a good parent 44%