So all this talk against masturbation by Republican candidates reminded me of an email exchange I was having with a conservative relative recently. He said that us liberals always talked about Jesus talking about helping the poor and oppressed, but never talked about his stands on sexual immorality. Okay, fair point, I thought, so I decided to check my Bible and see how much emphasis Jesus placed on such issues compared with his discussion of social justice related issues. I figured the easiest way to check this out was just a verse count, which could give some sense at least of how much time he spent on one area vs. another.
I found 19 verses in the gospels where Jesus mentions divorce, which he was against. At that time in Jewish culture, men were quite cavalier about divorcing their wives, leaving them deserted in abject poverty (women of the time had little in the way of economic or civil rights) frequently with little prospects for remarriage, and Jesus was appalled at that idea, and so spoke out against divorce. His focus in these passages was not about the sex part, and was focused on marriage as an institution.
I found 9 verses which specifically referenced adultery and/or fornication. Three of these verses listed one or both on a long list of sins he was mentioning on his way to another point- for example, in Matthew he is discussing the idea that what makes you a sinner is at least as much about what is in your heart than what you do. The final six verses mentioning sexual morality were in the long (29 verse) section of Matthew where he again talked about how we should not just obey the laws but hold ourselves to a higher standard of personal morality, and he used several examples including murder, violence, lying, loving others, and adultery (the famous lusting in your heart verses which Christine O'Donnell was so eloquent about). That's it in terms of Jesus' worries about sex-related sinning- 4 mentions, all of them in the context of explaining a much bigger point he was making about how what's inside matters as much as whether you obey specific laws in the Jewish scripture.
Now, let's compare those to the social justice areas of the Gospel, which I think of as where Jesus talks about showing mercy to those weaker than us, not judging others, loving/forgiving/turning the other cheek to our enemies, forgiving enemies/blessing peacemakers in general, loving/treating others as we would ourselves, and what I would call the class warrior verses (the blessed are the poor/woe to the rich sections). Here are the numbers for these kinds of verses:
Mercy to those weaker: 24 verses
Do not judge others: 34 verses
Love and forgive your enemies/make peace: 53 verses
Loving your neighbors (defined as all other people, not just those who live next door) and treating them as you would treat yourself: 19 verses
Help the poor/the rich should sell all their possessions and them away: 128 verses
All told, that is 258 verses about mercy, forgiving enemies, not judging others, loving all people, helping the poor and woe to the wealthy vs 9 verses which mention adultery or fornication in any way, and 19 more saying divorce isn't good. Oddly enough, Jesus didn't say a single word against homosexuality or masturbation or abortion or birth control, although if you listened to some of our conservative friends, you would think he was obsessed with those topics.
Those ratios are pretty daunting. About 14 to 1 on class war vs. sex. Almost four to 1 on just the simple idea of not judging others as compared to all the mentions of sex sins. If you combine all the things Jesus said about sex and divorce, and compare it to all the stuff he said about helping the poor and how the rich should give away everything they own, you get close to a five to 1. And if you combine all the stuff about sex and divorce vs all the stuff about social justice, it's more than to 9 to 1 in favor of us social justice lefty types.
Of course, 2,000 years after Jesus lived and preached, we can't know for sure how much he said or cared about these issues. All the evidence we have of his life and ministry are those four gospels, written probably 40-60 years after his death by fervent believers who didn't always agree with each other on the details of his life, death, and ministry. But what is obvious from the gospels is that the Jesus of the Bible preached and cared overwhelmingly about just two things: his followers' relationship with God, and their love and kindness toward others, especially the weak and the poor.
Why is this important to our modern society today? Because conservatives try so hard to twist the religion of the majority of Americans into a warped, unrecognizable version of the message its founder had for us.
At least conservatives like Ayn Rand were honest in their disdain for religious pieties about compassion and helping the weak. Those of you conservatives who are trying so hard to wrap yourselves in the Bible ought to try actually reading one someday.
Seventeen percent of sexually active teenage girls said they used the rhythm method as a means of birth control in 2008, up from just 11% in 2002, according to the latest report from the CDC. For most of these girls "rhythm method" means guessing the least risky day to have unprotected sex. You and I both know that one in five teenage girls isn't taking her temperature every day and charting the consistency of her cervical mucus on the calendar.
Not so ab-fab
Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check blames abstinence-only propaganda for the trend. She points out that abstinence-based curricula rely heavily on shame to discourage kids from having sex. Teens who are ashamed don't necessarily abstain, but they are less likely to use birth control when they do have sex. Claiming to use the rhythm method is an excuse not to use real birth control. Marcotte points out that abstinence-only curricula also promotes stereotypes of female passivity and male dominance, which makes it even harder for girls to negotiate condom use.
There is a glimmer of hope, Robin Marty of RH Reality Check reports that the Obama administration is shifting gears on sex ed. For the first time in many years, school districts will be eligible for federal funds to teach evidence-based, comprehensive sex ed. Abstinence-only funding hasn't gone away, but at least districts will have the option.
Recession-based bedroom blues
Interestingly, teens are having slightly less sex overall, according to the CDC. The abstinence-only crowd is trying to take credit, but as Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones notes, the recession seems to be putting a damper on the sex lives Americans of all ages. The latest sex survey by the AARP showed that Americans over 45 are having less sex than they were in 2004 and enjoying it less as well.
Looking at the same study, Wendy Strgar of Care2 notes that that teen motherhood has become much more socially acceptable among adolescents, perhaps due to highly publicized teen moms like Bristol Palin and Jamie Spears.
The war on choice
Michelle Chen of RaceWire reports that hundreds of anti-choice bills have been introduced in state legislatures around the country since the passage of national health care reform. Missouri's new Abortion Restriction Act requires abortion clinics to post signs offering state assistance if she has the baby. Too bad the Missouri legislature slashed the funds that would have provided most of those services.
Two moms = healthy kids
In other health news, a new study forthcoming in the journal Pediatrics shows that lesbian couples raise healthier children than straight couples. Gabriel Arana of TAPPED suggests that maybe lesbians do better on average because they are a self-selected group of highly motivated parents that had to overcome obstacles in order to raise their kids. Or maybe two moms are better than one.
As Arana notes, the politically important thing about this study is the finding that same-sex parents are doing at least as well as opposite sex parents. Conservatives opposed to gay rights have often justified second-class citizenship for gays in terms of protecting children from allegedly harmful same-sex parents. Now, science is showing that same-sex families are at least as healthy as more traditional family units.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Have you ever heard a woman being told, or told a woman, or been told 'for your own good' as a woman, that women shouldn't ...
get into a car with a man, be alone in a room or apartment or house or gym or office with a man, dress like 80% of female pop stars, publicly enjoy alcohol, jog in parks alone, live alone, walk outside the house at night, have any kind of sexual contact outside marriage, etc.,
... or if 'something happens', by which the speaker means sexual assault, it was her fault?
I can be pretty sure that you have indeed heard some version of that. But let me put that another way, a more explicit way, the way any number of feminists might put it:
Men are fearsome, evil and dangerous predators who can't be trusted under any circumstances, excepting if they've gone through an ancient public ceremony with you while wearing a rented tuxedo.
Another year has come and gone. Everywhere she goes she hears people speak of New Years resolutions. They all say this time will be different. I will decide to do as I had not done previously or at least had not done well. Countless commit to a life of calorie counting. Others merely muse that they will exercise more. Drugs, drinking, there are also discussions of these concerns. People are confident. This year I will deliver myself from what I think evil. A few philosophize as to their personal career path. Change is the objective. A greater goal is thought to be golden. As Author Mary Anne Radmacher reflected and now millions whisper as their mantra, "Live with intention . . . Choose with no regret. . . . Do what you love. Live as if this is all there is." Therein lies the problem.
This week, we bring you news of drugs, sex, and single-payer health insurance, including a fun video clip on Obama's new drug czar from the Rachel Maddow show. Now that Obama has chosen his top healthcare advisers, the administration is beginning to chart a course for healthcare reform. Not surprisingly, there is vigorous debate about what our new healthcare system would look like, and how to pay for it.
Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
And, just in case the link between Drudge and Republicans needed to made any clearer, the National Republican Congressional Committee immediately began attacking freshman Democrat Bobby Bright for his role in trying to prevent sexually transmitted diseases:
The question is: Will Bobby Bright still support the massive spending bill now that it has become public that the House Democrats' so-called "stimulus" has been stuffed with an astonishing $335 million to fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases?
So, by this attack, are we to take it that Republicans favor sexually transmitted disease? Are they really going to hang their messaging on "Democrats fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases?" Really? Would "vote against Congressman X, because he supports stopping STDs" really be an effective campaign message?
Is the McCain attack ad on Obama and kindergarten sex (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... )underhanded? Of course it is. I imagine that even McCain supporters might be embarrassed by it - particularly if they know that the purpose of the bill in question wasn't to teach kindergarteners about sex, but instead how to avoid sexual predators.
But getting mad at McCain about it seems to me to be missing the point.
Perhaps an analogy might help. Let's say you're at war, and an enemy soldier shoots you in the back. Was this an "underhanded" decision on their part? Sure, maybe, but it's also a smart decision if they want to survive. Expecting them to politely inform you before they fire so you can face them head-on wouldn't be very wise. The better question, understanding the context of war, would be to ask why you had your back turned to the enemy.
Obviously politics is a lot like war. And while I'm not endorsing McCain's underhanded move, I also think it's pretty foolish to whine about it, given the context. In politics - particularly when you're fighting against Republicans - you should expect that you're going to face a lot of underhanded attacks. Obama can't prevent attacks like these but he does have a lot of control over how he responds, and whether his responses are truly effective.
Read Obama spokesperson Bill Burton's response and tell me how effective you think it really is:
"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."
Now, if you're an Obama supporter, you might be happy with this response. After all, you probably already thought McCain's charges were ridiculous. However I think that weak responses like these help explain why Obama is in danger of losing this race.
McCain: You want to teach kindergarteners about sex.
Obama: No I don't. I have children. Your friend agrees with me. You have no honor.
Audience: What a sputtering whiner.
There are really several problems with this response, which has multiple threads and is inherently defensive in nature. The riposte is tacked like an afterthought on to the end, and it's rather weak. Saying a politician has no honor is sort of like saying that he swears. Most people expect it, so it's a boring attack. More importantly, there's no real outrage in this response. You've just been accused of what many people would consider gross perversion - you want to teach their young children about anal sex and pregnancy. This is an outrageous accusation, and if it's untrue, many of us would expect to see some outrage on your part. If there's no outrage - if this idea doesn't seem to upset you - then the truth of the details isn't so important because you've confirmed the substance of the charge with your reaction.
Rather than issuing a press release by a spokesperson, it would have been better if Obama had responded directly and forcefully - and emotionally - in a live televised press conference.
An even more effective step would be to take the initiative by attacking forcefully in return. This might be a good ad:
Unshaven middle-aged white guy speaking to the camera: "I don't know what child molesters like me would do without John McCain. Child molesters don't often have friends in such high places. Usually we get by because children don't know enough to run away, but Sen. Obama voted for a bill that would have helped them avoid molesters like me. Thank goodness we have friends like John McCain. The more he attacks Obama, the more people will learn to leave us alone and let us do what we do best."
Is it outrageous? Sure. But it has a lot more truth in it than McCain's ad has, and if you really want to cut through the noise, you have to be a little outrageous. That's why McCain's ad is likely to be so effective.
I understand why Obama wouldn't want to run an ad like this, even if I don't agree. But that fact that he's taken this attack so cavalierly, yawning about honor in some low-grade press release, helps explain why this race is so close - and may help explain Obama's eventual defeat.
STATE BLOGS
