Changes in Chile
I understand this wouldn't happen in the USA, but you might find it interesting anyway. Chile has had a problem with teen pregnancy. They could have done like the US -- they could've implemented a systematic campaign to stop teaching young people about sex, and instead tell them not to do it. And, you know, some people in Chile think that's what should be done.
But they're trying a different approach. From The Christian Science Monitor:
Well, it sounds like there was a lot of "early sexual activity" going on already, don't you figure?
Skipping the part where the Catholic and Episcopalian Churches are against it...
Oooch! That's a nice one -- passing out free contraceptives to support family values. I like that.
This article is a pretty long but really good article. People in Chile aren't that different from people here. Some people think that teens need to be protected from the temptations of the world, and some people think they should be raised to make responsible decisions. I don't see any reason to call either of those points of view "evil," it's just how folks are.
From there, you have to choose how you want your country to be. Should the government protect people from temptation, or should they be free? Nobody ever said it was easy, we struggle with it every single day.
But they're trying a different approach. From The Christian Science Monitor:
SANTIAGO, CHILE – This month, Chile began to combat the problem of high teen-pregnancy rates by distributing free morning-after pills to girls as young as 14 years old.
Government support of emergency contraception is not unusual in Latin America or in Europe. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the over-the-counter sale of morning-after pills (known as Plan B), for women over 18. Girls age 17 and under must have a doctor's note.
But the Chilean government, by giving away the pills to such young girls, is igniting a storm of opposition from critics who say it undermines parents and is tantamount to abortion.
On Sept. 2, Chile's health minister, Maria Soledad Barria, announced the distribution of morning-after pills in public health clinics as part of a broader set of new regulations on fertility. Since then, the outcry has been building from religious groups, the political right, and even some of the government's own coalition partners in Congress. Many are up in arms about the measure, which they say encourages early sexual activity. In Chile, free morning-after pills to teens
Well, it sounds like there was a lot of "early sexual activity" going on already, don't you figure?
Skipping the part where the Catholic and Episcopalian Churches are against it...
On Friday, two conservative mayors in Santiago asked Chile's courts to halt the government's program until the courts consider arguments that it violates the constitutional rights of parents to protect "the physical and psychological integrity" of their children.
President Michelle Bachelet responded to the uproar, arguing that the state has a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. "There are roles that the family undertakes and which no one can replace," Ms. Bachelet said in a national radio interview last Wednesday. "But naturally the state has another role to fulfill, and that is to offer a range of alternatives, which people can choose between - according to their own family values and principles."
Oooch! That's a nice one -- passing out free contraceptives to support family values. I like that.
This article is a pretty long but really good article. People in Chile aren't that different from people here. Some people think that teens need to be protected from the temptations of the world, and some people think they should be raised to make responsible decisions. I don't see any reason to call either of those points of view "evil," it's just how folks are.
From there, you have to choose how you want your country to be. Should the government protect people from temptation, or should they be free? Nobody ever said it was easy, we struggle with it every single day.
posted by JimK at 12:09 PM
14 Comments:
In the year 2005, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in Montgomery County, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked, over-developed and over- populated and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans." He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have six months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights".
Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard ..... but no ark. "Noah"! , He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?" "Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah. "But things have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My Bethesda neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.
Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I argued that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.
Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the Sierra Club environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls. But no go!
When I started gathering the animals, I got sued by PETA, the animal rights group. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. As well, they argued the accommodation was too restrictive and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.
Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.
I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with a few council members on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew. Also, the trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark building experience.
To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the county illegally with endangered species.
So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least ten years for me to finish this Ark."
Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.
Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean, You're not going to destroy the world?".
"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."
From former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, not a man one would easily call a liberal:
Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There’s not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. That was pure, blatant pandering to [Focus on the Family President] James Dobson. That's all that was. It was silly, stupid, and irresponsible. Nobody serious about the Constitution would do that. But the question was will this energize our Christian conservative base for the next election ...
Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn’t work unless it's dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking.
This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody
McLeod.
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country."
Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a vi olation of Federal Case Law.
As I understand the law at this time, I
can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK.
I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK.
I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem...
I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to wor ship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology."
I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and
"ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."
However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to Bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is
violated.
Thi s appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments.
Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical... I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.
For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time.
"However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."
'Faith and Politics'
How religion can be a reconciling—or a divisive—force in America. An exclusive excerpt from a new book by John Danforth.
Newsweek
Sept. 18, 2006 - Christians have a choice between reconciliation and divisiveness. Those who have chosen the latter course are getting all the attention. They are the talking heads of television, the subjects of magazine articles, the forces in American political life. In getting media attention, they have the advantage of clear positions, certainty that they possess the truth and the natural attraction of a confrontational style. By contrast, people seem boring who believe that the ministry of Christians is reconciliation. In writing an opinion piece for the New York Times, I thought for some time about the best word to describe the reconciling view of Christianity, and I could come up with nothing better than “moderate.” How dull can you get? What was remarkable was the enthusiastic response the column received, despite the wimpy heading given it by the Times: ONWARD MODERATE CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS. It was as though, for the first time, someone had said there was a respectable alternative to the Christian Right. Of course, it was not the first time. Jim Wallis, for example, has been a very public voice for Christian liberalism. But on the whole, conservatives have drowned out their moderate brethren, so the column in the Times was widely heralded as unusual if not unique. We have not been effective in proclaiming our position.
The best advice to preachers preparing sermons is “Tell ’em what you’re going to tell ’em, tell ’em, and tell ’em what you told ’em.” In other words, stick to the point and don’t be afraid of repetition. Moderate Christians have failed to follow that advice to the point of being oddly silent in response to the Christian Right. It is time for a clear statement of what we believe, a statement we repeat relentlessly and a statement that expresses the strength of our convictions:
-We believe in a large God, a transcendent God, a God who cannot be shrunken by political activists and stuffed into their own agendas.
-We believe that no one should presume to embody God’s truth, including ourselves. We acknowledge that our political programs, however prayerfully inspired, are no more than our best efforts to be faithful to God, and that we should pursue them with humility.
-We believe that God’s truth is expansive enough to embrace conflicting opinions, even on hot-button issues, even of people with whom we vehemently disagree.
Christians who espouse the ministry of reconciliation should express themselves clearly and forcefully as the alternative to those who favor divisiveness. They should preach reconciliation from their pulpits, by pronouncements issued from their hierarchies and conventions, from their great cathedrals and places of worship, by frequent statements to the media, and by messages understood and expressed by people in the pews. Christians today are not conveying a clear message of reconciliation. It is time to do so.
If we preach reconciliation, it is important that we practice what we preach. It would be hypocrisy to preach reconciliation where faith touches politics while we practice exclusiveness in our denominations. Divided Christianity is a scandal, clearly contrary to Christ’s High Priestly Prayer “that they may be one,” and clearly contrary to Paul’s teaching that “we all attain to the unity of the faith.” It belies any effort of Christians to be ministers of reconciliation to a fractured world. In my own tiny Episcopal Church, people who are convinced that they possess God’s truth, especially with regard to the ordination of gays, have broken away and formed their own miniscule denominations. No doubt, Episcopalians hold strong opposing positions on this very controversial subject, but the Episcopal Church, historically able to embrace a variety of opinions on a range of subjects, is broad enough to hold together people on both sides of this issue.
In my home town of St. Louis, what began as a dispute over the control of finances between a parish church and the Catholic archdiocese has escalated to the point of excommunication of the parish’s priest and governing board, and the archbishop’s announcement that the parish is no longer part of the Catholic Church.
In describing the kingdom of God, Jesus told a story about a king who invited guests to a great dinner. When they declined the invitation, the king persisted to the point of sending servants into the streets of the town to compel anyone they could find to come to the dinner so that his house would be filled. It is a story illustrating an inviting God and an accessible kingdom. In John’s Gospel, Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many rooms”--very large rooms--in the King James Version, “mansions.” The image is of a Lord who is preparing a place for us in a welcoming space where there are a lot of different people. The passage is about the world to come, yet it is not only about the next life. In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask that the kingdom of heaven be established on earth.
If the kingdom of God is spacious, how dare church leaders take it upon themselves to rope off these large rooms and establish crannies for some while booting out the others? Yes, Jesus told Peter, “... whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). But I do not think Jesus intended a church that is more focused on loosing than on binding.
Ecumenical discussions among ecclesiastical hierarchies are so ponderously slow that I have little hope that they will accomplish much, at least not with the urgency required for an effective witness of reconciliation to a dangerously fracturing world. So I believe that the ministry of reconciliation will be led more by the members of the flock than by the shepherds. At the least, ordinary Christians should make it clear that church leaders do not speak for them if they advocate exclusivity and divisiveness, within Christianity and to the world at large. Christians can be more than a countervoice to the dividers. They can embody the ministry of reconciliation by their own ecumenical and interfaith activities. They can take an interest in other religions and participate in religious observances that are not their own. And they can make it clear that the Eucharist is not the exclusive possession of one denomination or another. The altar is God’s table, and it should be open to all God’s people.
Whether religion is a reconciling or divisive force in America depends on the degrees of certainty or humility with which we claim its truths to be our own. If we are convinced that our opinions on social and political questions are the law of God, then people who oppose our opinions become opponents of God. If, in contrast, we recognize the limits of our own understanding of God’s truth, while acknowledging that our opponents are trying, as we are, to do God’s will, we are able to be ambassadors of reconciliation. In that case, our faithfulness in politics depends less on the content of our ideology than on how we view ourselves and treat each other. Faith in politics has more to do with the way faithful people approach politics than with the substance of our positions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14752888/site/newsweek/
Theresa,
I just want to be perfectly clear. Was that diatribe you just posted on this thread a quote from that Tennessee woman regarding football game prayers, or was it your own presentation?
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
From former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, not a man one would easily call a liberal:
Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from?.... These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking.
Action T4 (German Aktion T4) was the official name of the Nazi Germany eugenics program which forcefully conducted euthanasia on Germans who were institutionalized or suffering from birth defects. In total, an estimated 200,000 people were killed as a result of the program.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/prayer.htm
Truth.
Well, it's true that it happened (that was the first thing I checked when you posted this thing). If you follow the Snopes comments thread you'll see that her interpretation of the court's rulings was a little ... idiosyncratic.
JimK
Look at the changes right here at home:
Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus
New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement
By DAN HARRIS
Sept. 17, 2006 — - An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush -- these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film.
"I never felt at any point that I was exploited," Fischer said.
"I think there is a push right now in a lot of evangelical churches to definitely keep the teenagers and keep the children in the faith," said Heidi Ewing, co-director of "Jesus Camp." "And this is one version of that attempt."
A Growing Movement
This camp is, by many accounts, a small -- and perhaps extreme -- slice of what some say is a growing, intensifying evangelical youth movement.
Over the past decade and a half, enrollment at Christian colleges is up 70 percent. Sales of Christian music are up 300 percent. Tens of thousands of youth pastors have been trained.
Young people are targeted through Christian music festivals, skateboard competitions and rodeos.
"This is an enormous youth movement," said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, "Righteous."
Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country's future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
"It's an absolute, straight-up us-against-them," Sandler said. "It's, you're either with us or you're against us. … Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy -- the enemy being Satan."
Chap Clark, an associate professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary who's trained youth pastors for decades, said people who see "Jesus Camp" should not come away with the idea that evangelizing to youth consists mainly of political indoctrination.
Clark said youth pastors focus much more on providing meaning to kids who can't find it in a materialistic culture or in their family lives -- "which is going to translate into much healthier adults who are more able to be into respectful dialogue and come alongside people who disagree with them.
"I think this is a very hopeful time because of the youth ministry movement," he added.
There's disagreement about whether this movement is good for the country and whether the movie is an accurate portrayal of the movement.
But there's growing agreement that these children will have a real impact. One child in "Jesus Camp" goes so far as to say, "We're a key generation to bringing Jesus back."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343&page=1
Video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2456227
"worshipping a picture of President Bush -- these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota"
I find this a little difficult to believe. If it is accurate, however, it wouldn't be Christianity.
"The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize."
Demonize what?
"This camp is, by many accounts, a small -- and perhaps extreme -- slice of what some say is a growing, intensifying evangelical youth movement."
I read this whole thing. I don't get it. Where was the extremism?
"Over the past decade and a half, enrollment at Christian colleges is up 70 percent. Sales of Christian music are up 300 percent. Tens of thousands of youth pastors have been trained."
Cool.
"Young people are targeted through Christian music festivals, skateboard competitions and rodeos."
Young people are targeted by everyone in our culture from cereal companies to aging hippies who want to take over their sexual education. So what?
""This is an enormous youth movement," said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, "Righteous."
Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country's future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage."
Eye of the beholder. Most people would feel that commitment to saving life and strengthening families would be a positive sign for any country. It always has been in the past.
"Chap Clark, an associate professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary who's trained youth pastors for decades, said people who see "Jesus Camp" should not come away with the idea that evangelizing to youth consists mainly of political indoctrination.
Clark said youth pastors focus much more on providing meaning to kids who can't find it in a materialistic culture or in their family lives -- "which is going to translate into much healthier adults who are more able to be into respectful dialogue and come alongside people who disagree with them."
Absolutely.
"I think this is a very hopeful time because of the youth ministry movement," he added.
Absolutely.
"There's disagreement about whether this movement is good for the country and whether the movie is an accurate portrayal of the movement."
Maybe the movement's good and the movie's accurate. Other than a quote from a lunatic fringe feminist, I didn't hear anything negative in this post. Unless you think it's a bad sign that growing numbers of youth are buying praise music instead of gangsta rap.
"But there's growing agreement that these children will have a real impact. One child in "Jesus Camp" goes so far as to say, "We're a key generation to bringing Jesus back.""
Let's hope so.
Anon said, "I find this a little difficult to believe. If it is accurate, however, it wouldn't be Christianity."
I guess you didn't watch the video. Watch it and see the children prostrating themselves, worshipping the picture of Bush for yourself.
ABC News reported, "I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
Anon said, "I read this whole thing. I don't get it. Where was the extremism?"
When madrassas teach children to worship a man, Bin Laden, and that being a warrior who is willing to die for Islam is a good thing, that's a gross distortion of Islam. It is also extemism. It's also extremism when the object of worship is Bush, not Bin Laden and the faith being distorted is Christianity, not Islam.
"I guess you didn't watch the video. Watch it and see the children prostrating themselves, worshipping the picture of Bush for yourself."
No, I hadn't. Now, I have. The video was spliced. You see children praying before a stage. Then it switches to a scene of a cardboard image of Bush on a stage. I'll assume it's the same one but can assure you if you think the kids are praying to Bush, you're mistaken. I've yet to hear of any religion that worships the President. If one were to develop, it wouldn't be Christianity. Unbelievable distortion.
"ABC News reported, "I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
Anon said, "I read this whole thing. I don't get it. Where was the extremism?"
When madrassas teach children to worship a man, Bin Laden, and that being a warrior who is willing to die for Islam is a good thing, that's a gross distortion of Islam. It is also extemism. It's also extremism when the object of worship is Bush, not Bin Laden and the faith being distorted is Christianity, not Islam."
Are you saying that being willing to die for your religion is extremism? This would be a rejection of Judeo-Christianity, the scriptures of which recount many tales of martyrdom. The problem with Bin Laden and his followers is not that they are willing to die for their religion- it's that they are willing to kill for their religion. Bravery and self-sacrifice, however, while unusual, are not extreme.
As far as I know, al aqueda followers worship Allah not Bin Laden.
Anon said, "As far as I know, al aqueda followers worship Allah not Bin Laden."
I hope you watched the video and saw for yourself that American Christian kids at Fisher's Bible Camp prostrate themselves before a picture of Bush.
Al qaeda followers (some Muslims) worship Bin Laden and Allah, just like some Christians worship Bush and Jesus. Expand your knowledge:
"Islamist discourse dominates in the pan-Arab media, where both nationalists and Islamists revere Osama bin Laden"
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=53609
"Osama Bin Laden is now acquiring a personality cult in Bangladesh and children sing his praises.
There has been a surge of support for him among some in Bangladesh since the fighting in Afghanistan began.
Fazlul Haq Amini is a member of parliament for the Islamic Unity Alliance.
"Osama Bin Laden is loved by the Bangladeshi people. Everyone respects him and considers him to be a leader of Muslims." he says."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1669116.stm
Anon-worldly
I looked at the video and I think it's misleading. It might not be intentionally so- you might be reading too much into it. I can tell you that a common sign evangelicals look for to detect emerging cults is someone being exalted to deified status. That usually is some charismatic religious leader with corrupt motives, which doesn't really sound like the guy in the White House currently.
Not to be an apologist for Bin Laden but I don't think it applies there either. There are misguided and resentful masses that admire and follow him but I don't think it's worship.
In any case, a comparison between the two is ridiculous.
Post a Comment
<< Home