Tag Archives: liberal

“Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”

The title is a memorable line from the movie Mean Girls, where the gym coach is teaching sex education (see the video below).  Whether by design or not, it demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both extremes of teaching kids about an extremely important topic.

Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.  Don’t have sex in the missionary position, don’t have sex standing up . . . Just don’t do it, promise?  OK, everybody take some rubbers.

I like how it skewered both ends of the spectrum.  Repeating the Nike hybrid of  Just (Don’t) Do It won’t be effective without some guidelines on avoiding temptation and more, and passing out condoms like that is an implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex outside of marriage (in addition to giving them a false sense of security).

Of course I endorse chastity and the abstinence of any sex acts outside of marriage as the ideal for everyone.  It is the only proven way to avoid pregnancy, disease, and emotional damage (and, if you are one of those religious types, the only way to obey God).

Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

They should also emphasize the most recent statistics demonstrating that those who finish high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage are extremely unlikely to end up poor, whereas if you do the opposite you are very likely to be poor.

They should teach girls the lines that guys often use and how to respond to them, for example:

  • Male: If you loved me you’d have sex with me.
  • Female: If you loved me you wouldn’t pressure me to have sex with you.

They should teach guys the lines girls use as well.  I know of one young man whose girlfriend recently broke up with him because he wouldn’t have sex with her.

But the abstinence / chastity message should include simple but effective ways to avoid temptation.  Too many people have good intentions but put themselves in situations that inevitably lead to compromise.

They should also coach you on how much your actions regarding sex are influenced by:

  • What you view
  • What you think about
  • Who you spend alone time with

Contrary to stereotypes, I have no issue with schools teaching a balanced sex education program, provided it is thorough and fact-based.  Birth control options are real and it is acceptable to discuss them, provided the whole story is told and the schools don’t distribute the condoms or other birth control themselves and don’t facilitate the abortion process.

For example, truly comprehensive sex education should teach the following regarding birth control pills:

  • They are X% effective at preventing pregnancies (but the data must be given for different demographic groups, because discipline and effectiveness tends to be lower for younger and poorer women).
  • They offer zero protection against STDs
  • They offer zero protection against emotional issues
  • There are possible side effects

More considerations and possible elements of a truly comprehensive sex education program:

  • Surveys demonstrate that married couples have the most satisfying sex lives.
  • It is absolutely ridiculous for schools to dispense birth control.  It sends the implicit and explicit message that you expect kids to have sex and that the adults say you should use birth control.  Guess which message they will listen to and which one they will ignore?
  • Hey parents, how about supervising your kids?  Giving kids unrestricted time alone with the opposite sex is virtually guaranteed to turn out badly.
  • Teach the truth about the “hookup” culture, where kids barely know each other and have sex.  Girls participating in “hookups” are basically acting like free prostitutes.  They have all the risks of pregnancy, disease, crushed self esteem, etc., but they aren’t making any money!  Somehow they convinced themselves that they are proving their equality by acting like guys do.  And of course there is the associated drug and alcohol abuse required to numb their minds to what they are doing.  Sad.
  • How Sex is Like Duct Tape (great illustration about chemicals, bonding and the pain of out-of-wedlock sex)

And of course, Christians can teach their children about God’s plan for sex and how great it is when used as designed.

The primary problem isn’t what one class teaches in one part of its curriculum in high school.  Whether  you use the falsely titled “comprehensive” Planned Parenthood type curriculum or that of the abstinence groups, the whole thing is doomed to fail if kids aren’t supervised, aren’t equipped to say no, aren’t given support by parents and just wallow in the sewer of our sex-obsessed culture. 

All of the evils of Planned Parenthood-style sex education are brought to you by the “Christian” Left, mocking God and his word since their inception.  Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” have nearly identical views to the world. It shows who their real father is.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Jude 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

When I pointed out problems of sex ed on one post I got this answer in reply:

The problem is that people screw.

My reply to him:

How Zen-like ;-).

Yes, and people steal.  And lie.  And don’t study in school.  And do drugs.  And drink alcohol and drive.

So do we give up educating them that abstaining from these and other behaviors would be wise?

Do we let them escape from consequences when they do the behaviors?

Do we just focus on making is safer to do these things?  “If you are going to drink and drive, be sure to have an air bag in the car.”

Fortunately, one commenter saw the light:

I think his point was that no matter the sex ed, the rest of culture undoes it.

That sums it up nicely.

Advertisements

The Liberal / Leftist mindset summarized perfectly in one phrase — in their own words

Obamacare Supporter Surprised When She Loses Her Coverage

Alternate title: Mugged by reality.

Seriously, what could better explain their worldview?  The same thing happens weekly in theologically Liberal churches led by false teachers such as Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis.  They take verses out of context about helping the “least of these” — while hypocritically supporting the Democrats’ platform of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions that literally destroy the least of these — yet it never occurs to them that by definition you can only give your own money.  If you ask “Caesar” to take it from neighbor A by force to redistribute to neighbor B, then that isn’t giving.  See the good folks at Dictionary.com on the difference between giving and taxes if you need help with that.

Here is a better view of real giving, courtesy of the Holy Spirit:

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

As evil and incompetent as the Obama administration is, they aren’t completely without intellect.  They are so committed to their horrific Cloward/Piven/Alinsky agenda that they don’t mind looking foolish as long as they get their end game: Universal health care and more government control of everything.  They know there is a tipping point after which it will be too late to stop it, short of a full-blown revolution.

But quotes from Leftist voters who are finally impacted by the consequences of their worldview do give a glimmer of hope.  Hopefully enough people will notice how Obama is pushing the next wave of bad news to just after the November 2014 elections and they’ll realize that he didn’t just lie to them once.

Republicans have a golden opportunity — which, admittedly, they will probably ruin — to reset voter expectations for a decade or more.  They just need to relentlessly point out the consequences of the Leftist mindset of “charity” and how superior and more fair the free market approach is.

King David vs. the theological Left

If you ask the government to take from neighbor A by force to transfer to neighbor B, then that is not charity on your part, and certainly not something Jesus taught. He said to give your own money.  Yet the theological Left and its false teachers do this endlessly.

These people, who claim the name of Christ, should follow the example of King David when he was making an offering to the Lord: 1 Chronicles 21:24 But King David said to Ornan, “No, but I will buy them for the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, nor offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing.”

David wouldn’t even take the offerings that were given freely.  He didn’t want to just re-gift something to God.  The theological Left does something far worse than re-gifting: They advocate taking from others by force to “give” in their name.  They are greedy (wanting to keep what they have) and covetous (jealous of what others have), not generous.  Don’t let them fool you, and don’t be a part of it.

Give generously, but give your own money.

2 Corinthians 9:6–7 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Detroit: The petri dish of Leftist politics, education and unions. And bankruptcies.

Just updating this in honor recognition of Detroit’s bankruptcy.

Best line I’ve seen on Facebook lately: If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit.

I saw an item where a 50 yr. old lamented that he might not be able to retire this year as planned.  He filled potholes in Detroit for a living.  That is important and honorable work, but the idea that it would prosper one to be able to retire at that age is symptomatic of a much larger problem.

Leftist polices are poison.

As you probably read recently, Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate.  Forty-seven percent!  Less than 2% of their students could do college work.

Ideas have consequences.  Please watch Steven Crowder’s analysis of Detroit and how the policies that ruined it are spreading to the rest of the country.  Democrats have had a virtual monopoly on inner city politics, education and unions for over 50 years and today’s Detroit is the result.  I think that all Liberal members of Congress should have to live there for a year — with the same un-Constitutional gun control laws they want to force on others.

More details here: Why did Detroit go bankrupt? Who is to blame? Whose fault was it?

Typical comments of Sojourners’ followers

I noticed the following comments left at Top 4 Reasons Jesus Is My Favorite Feminist from the blog of Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis:

Liberal guy: But then you have Paul aka Saul of Tarsus in 2 Timothy going on his anti-female screed.

Liberal woman 1: Paul is not Jesus. Paul seems to be a split personality in his writings. He says a number of things that I suspect Jesus would not have agreed with

Liberal woman 2: Thank you! Finally, someone who gets it: Paul was not divine, nor was he anything other than a man who seemed to be quite conflicted in many ways. Personally, I have little use for most of his misguided and inconsistent writings. I’ve never really understood the church’s seemingly endless fascination with Paul–it’s almost as if he’s right up there next to Jesus, and that’s a ludicrous premise. Paul is waaaaaay overrated.

It is odd to me how someone can claim to be a Christian yet be so dismissive of huge parts of the Bible.  Here was my response:

No one claimed that Paul or any other Bible writers were divine. But everything Paul wrote in the Bible turned out exactly as God wanted it to, and Jesus, as part of the Trinity, agrees with it. If you say otherwise you are creating a god in your own image. You are sitting in judgment of the Bible and only accepting as inspired the parts that agree with your sensibilities (see 2 Tim 4:3, among others). Have you gone through all 31,173 verses to tell us which are “really” from God and which aren’t, and why should we trust your interpretation — which just happens to agree with the world’s perspective?

Having said that, I have yet to find a “Paul was a misogynist!!!” person who actually studied all of the Bible carefully.

Remember, Paul wrote, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.” If you think about that you’ll realize it is the highest possible standard.

Paul was surely perceived just as radically and politically incorrect in his day as he is in ours, but for the opposite reasons. Take off the modern blinders that equate feminism with the right to have your unborn children killed, then read all of what He wrote and consider how God’s word elevated women relative to their treatment at that time.

 

Facebook memes

A friend linked to a “Liberal and proud of it” Facebook page and I read some of their, uh, arguments.  I should note that many Conservative memes are pointless.  I think it is always worth asking if the joke would work on the other side if you just changed the names.  If so, I don’t click “like” or share it.  Just saying, “Obama is stupid,” or attacking his wife’s appearance is about as productive as the Left’s obsession with Sarah Palin.  We have endless facts about his record and beliefs to point to. Why dilute the message with pettiness?

But when the Liberal pages try to make a logical point it is typically loaded with fallacies.  A few samples I saw plus the comments I left:

It is only charity when you donate your money and time. Forcing others to “give” at the point of a gun doesn’t qualify. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. Coveting is still a sin.   Even if his definition of giving matched the dictionary he would still be wrong on two counts. First, he pretends that we aren’t already “giving” vast amounts to the poor. Worse yet, he assumes that more of this “giving” will actually help the country.

This assumes that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is a civil right, but you haven’t proved that. You have about as much right to that as you do a square circle.

It also assumes that gays and lesbians can’t be “married” today in fake churches and live together as they like. They can do that all-day, every day and we won’t complain. There is simply no need for the government to get involved in their relationships, because by nature and design they do produce the next generation.

Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, that ignores the body of the innocent human being destroyed in the abortion.The scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq) is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.  The Democratic platform is officially pro-abortion.

If it isn’t a political issue, why do the Democrats want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?

Yep, we oppose gender-selection abortions — nearly all of which destroy unwanted females — and the Left fights for them. Tell me again who hates women?

Oh, and abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites. And who are the racists who want to increase that rate with taxpayer-funded abortions?

Other commenter: Please quote your source for taxpayer-funded abortion. Fox News? Bzzzz. They definitely don’t happen at Planned Parenthood. Please come back when you can argue without using strawman arguments or false equivilencies.

Hi — would the 2012 Democratic Platform be an acceptable source for you? “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”  http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Thanks for making the day of this conservative. I hope you reconsider your views once you realize you were just shouting from Stereotype-Land (I don’t watch Fox News — not that there is anything wrong with that).

The Democratic platform called for taxpayer-funded abortions. That would increase the rate of black abortions beyond the current rate, which is three times that of whites.

Democratic policies keep blacks dead or dependent. Coincidence?

The race card gone wild

Abortion is one area where the Left is oddly quiet about playing the race card.  Perhaps that is because abortions kill unwanted black human beings at a rate three times that of whites and Hispanics at a rate double that of whites, and the Leftist dream of taxpayer-funded abortions would take those rates even higher.

That is, they were quiet about it until now.  In a climate where even saying the word “Chicago” is considered racist, Banning Abortion is Now, Apparently, Racism.  You just can’t make these things up.

Right. You caught us, Brian. That’s exactly what the GOP is attempting to do, to make sure there are more Black, Latino, and other minority children not being aborted so that the country will have more Black, Latino, and other minorities because we hate Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities. I find myself rubbing my forehead after writing that, considering what Liberals feel are their deep policy positions.

If anything, pushing for more abortion on demand is racist. Consider that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist pushing eugenics to reduce the population of Blacks, other minorities, and “defectives.” She spoke in front of the KKK.

So in a Liberal Logic 101 way, remember this:

  • Saying “Chicago” is a code word for racism when used to describe the President’s politics.
  • Having a #1 priority that results in blacks being killed at three times the rate of whites is not racist.  But opposing it is!