« Page 4 of 4

Yikes! I wish I could speak extemporaneously (literally) on this issue because it's one of my passions and my discourse flows a bit more freely from my mouth than it does my fingertips, but here goes. It's always been clear that Democrats are not in favor of abstinence education. Period. Why? Well, many may argue me, but I think the main reason they oppose it is because it's a philosophy commonly associated with the "Religious Right" and let's be honest, Democrats hate the "Religious Right" and everything for which they stand. So regardless of whether the concept of abstinence education makes sense, Democrats would hate it just based on the fact that Jerry Falwell supports it, and Planned Parenthood doesn't.

A few have noted that Rep. Henry Waxman (D) in his recent report, has sought to wage war on the concept altogether by trying to dismantle 13 of the most commonly used abstinence curricula. Waxman claims that the curriculum is leaving young people uneducated and confused. Meanwhile, a recent article by Ceci Connolly in the Washington Post (email: nobiz@nobiz.com pass: nobiz) underhandedly co-signs on Waxman's findings which used convoluted manners of fact-finding to make a point.

The issue of abstinence education is a loaded one, and I don't think either side has done a good job making their case.

When people talk about "abstinence-only education", there are really two definitions of it. One definition states that schools should only be teaching about abstinence and not discussing contraception and other issues that pertain to giving up your purity in high school. The other definition states that schools should be honest and forthright in teaching that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but other basic (and I stress basic) issues of sex education should also be taught, and all with equal weight. Although the first philosophy I mentioned is in my opinion ideal, I am of the latter belief.

Do I think teenagers (or anyone for that matter) should be encouraged to have premarital sex? I can say with about 658.9% certainty: NO. What I recognize is that gaining of any ground on this issue is going to take some diplomacy. (Not compromise, but diplomacy). In addition, this country is too carnal and too self-seeking to latch-on to the reality that premarital sex for anyone, is ultimately a bad decision. For the nation to come to that revelation alone would take the mighty hand of God. For this very reason, Conservatives need to be wise as serpents in how we push abstinence-only education and other similar initiatives because the very semblance of "morality" or "Christianity" will send Liberals flying off the handle. Not only that, the Liberal knee-jerk reaction to abstinence-only education is usually to write-off abstinence education altogether and I believe that possibility to be very dangerous.

That said, I am a hardcore proponent of abstinence education being given equal weight and classroom time as the "slap on a condom and just go at it like an animal until you can't stop, or get pregnant, in which case you can have an abortion, but don't forget to get tested for HIV too, and here's a Planned Parenthood representative to take your questions" theory of sex education. It's time we stop using tax dollars to lie to kids. The way we educate about sex in this country is lacking any semblance of balance.

While ultimately, it should be the parents' role to educate their children on sexual matters, a brief reality check reveals that the public school system (and private schools too) are attempting to fill a gap that's been created by the breakdown in the family. In regards to many matters, but specifically sex education, the public school system has usurped the role of parents. Since they're going to usurp, we might as well push for them to usurp the right way. The Left's sex-ed propaganda is dangerous, deceptive, and--despite what they may say out of the sides of their Planned Parenthood-worshipping necks--isn't one bit interested in the well-being and physical and emotional health of young people.

Those against abstinence-only education usually state that they're in favor of "comprehensive sex education". "Comprehensive" my size-nine-foot. "Comprehensive" meaning that the idea of abstinence gets mentioned during the last five minutes of the last class on the last day of the semester. And if how we've educated on sex in the past is any indication of the future, the Liberal brand of "comprehensive" means everything under the sun:

• "What happens if Billy feels like a woman trapped in a man's body? By gosh, even though Billy has a penis, he might really be a woman!"

• "It's perfectly fine and normal to be 16-years-old and get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge."

• "Sure condoms aren't 100% effective, but who cares about that 3% anyway?"

• "Masturbation is fine! It's perfectly normal and healthy!"

• "Birth control pills are perfectly healthy!"

• "It's fabulous is you have begun having 'feelings' for the same sex...you just might be gay."

Interestingly enough, it was Rep. Waxman himself who was quoted as saying,

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases...I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

Well won't that one preach. It's uncanny that the very thing Waxman is fighting against is exactly what Liberals have been doing for years. Nevermind that according to the Center for Disease Control, 50% of the sexually active adult single population has at least one STD and one quarter of all sexually active teens have an STD. Nevermind that the emotional stability and well-being of teenagers has been directly and negatively linked to sexual activity. High depression rates in girls have been linked with teenage sexual activity. Attempted suicide rates for teenage boys has been linked to sexual activity. These are the things that even nonpartisan fact-finding has proven true.

But down with facts for just a moment. The reality is, both sides skew or mis-represent health statistics to support their own agendas. Even Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the abstinence material that was surveyed, admitted that. Somewhere in all this mess, there is the truth. And although I run the risk of sounding totally uncool by borrowing an over-used phrase from "A Few Good Men", people can't handle the truth.

I'm going to spend a good deal of next week examining this issue from my perspective and personal experience. I think there are a good number of things Conservatives could and should be doing differently as it relates to furthering the cause of sex-education curriculum reform. It's time to expose the Liberal sex-ed propaganda for what it truly is because it's reaping a harvest of confused souls.

 

Completely unrelated to anything important going on in the world, but I was up entirely too late as I usually am (note to self: stop doing that), and happened upon yet ANOTHER tragic television moment:

Rod Stewart on the Tonight Show belting (and I use that term VERY loosely) Louis Armstrong's classic "What a Wonderful World".

Two words for Mr. Stewart: "No" AND "NO!"

Absolutely not. Under no circumstances. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to post a memo to all the middle-aged rock stars that are on this "trying to look young with the spikey hair and MAC foundation make-up and eyeliner" kick: Please Stop it. Stop it right this instant.

Updates in a few....

 

Today I just wrote my last rent check, ever. Excuse me while I do the hokey pokey.

You'll recall that earlier this summer, I expressed my sentiments on "the big potty in the sky" where people throw their rent money.

Now if only I could get Oprah to buy me a house too.

Thankfully, President Bush has a plan and I'm glad I don't live in Ireland.

In other news, if you ever want to make yourself REALLY happy, buy a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts and stick them in your car at night. When you come out in the morning to leave for work, you will have a happy surprise.

 

I don't want to get deep, but I am getting that feeling in my belly that something is about to go down in this country. In a good way I mean. Like let's start with the fact that Washington state just elected their first Republican governor in 20 years--Dino Rossi--who by the way earned the endorsement of the NAACP AND the Urban League. Yeah I had to pinch myself too. There's been far too much change going on over this last month and I believe the guards may be changing in our country politically, socially, and spiritually.

Responsibilities are shifting, influence is being stripped away, and there is window of opportunity here that I believe we need to be aware of. Just a few things that I've noted among many:

• George W. Bush is re-elected.
  
• Yasar Arafat Dies
  
• Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge resign
  
• A black Conservative woman is appointed as secretary of state
  
• Dan Rather steps down
  
• Kwiesi Mfume leaves post as President of NAACP
  
• Tavis Smiley ends his NPR talk show citing lack of diversity
  
• All 11 states seeking to allow homosexual marriage failed miserably
  
• Mount Saint Helens erupted (Biblically, the natural is an indication of the spiritual, last time Helens erupted was 1980, also an election year.)
  
• Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy..ha.

I'm just saying, none of these things are coincidental. I'm forgetting quite a bit. Any more you can think of?

 

I don't want to get deep, but I am getting that feeling in my belly that something is about to go down in this country. In a good way I mean. Like let's start with the fact that Washington state just elected their first Republican governor in 20 years--Dino Rossi--who by the way earned the endorsement of the NAACP AND the Urban League. Yeah I had to pinch myself too. There's been far too much change going on over this last month and I believe the guards may be changing in our country politically, socially, and spiritually.

Responsibilities are shifting, influence is being stripped away, and there is window of opportunity here that I believe we need to be aware of. Just a few things that I've noted among many:

• George W. Bush is re-elected.
  
• Yasar Arafat Dies
  
• Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge resign
  
• A black Conservative woman is appointed as secretary of state
  
• Dan Rather steps down
  
• Kwiesi Mfume leaves post as President of NAACP
  
• Tavis Smiley ends his NPR talk show citing lack of diversity
  
• All 11 states seeking to allow homosexual marriage failed miserably
  
• Mount Saint Helens erupted (Biblically, the natural is an indication of the spiritual, last time Helens erupted was 1980, also an election year.)
  
• Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy..ha.

I'm just saying, none of these things are coincidental. I'm forgetting quite a bit. Any more you can think of?

 

There is a point to all of my stories.

During my first two years of high school, I was a closet-Christian. I was like, you know, undercover and whatnot. I had mastered the art of not saying anything and fading into the background. Probably like some of you. Then again, I'm certain this disposition had to have been specific to me, right? It was the summer before my junior year that I went with my mother and sister to Zimbabwe and had my life totally transformed in one moment during a conference of thousands of Zimbabweans, collectively praising the God of the Universe. After that point, I was "firebrand Ambra" as a fellow blogger once called me. When I returned to school that fall, my first order of business was to try to start a Bible study group at school along with a few of my friends.

If I knew then what I know now (one of the dumbest phrases ever to be uttered by humanity), I would have petitioned the school administration to be able to start an after school study group of a particular "historical text" for the sake of personal enrichment and a higher score on the SAT II subject test for Hebrew. Instead, thinking our "cause" was certainly just as valid as the queer folk (their self-imposed title, not mine, although it's fitting), who had recently been granted permission to start a group called "Gay, Lesbian, or Whatever" (GLOW), we approached the possibility in all honesty and purity with the words, "We want to start an on-campus Bible study".

Just what were we thinking?
It would never happen.

Although my high school was private, it certainly wasn't "religious" and it definitely wasn't "tolerant" despite what the guidance counselor who got paid to hand out condoms may tell you. In all their autonomy and "independence" my private high school resorted to referring to the public schools' observance of "separation of church and state" law as a means to deny us our most humble and unobtrusive request.

"No religious groups on campus," they said. And I might add, they were certainly well within their rights to say so. After all, anyone who charges $19,320 a year in tuition for a mere secondary education and perhaps a slightly higher possibility of making it into an Ivy League school, can do whatever the heck they want to. It's their world; we were all just squirrels tryin' to get a nut (and high paying salaries in our adulthood). But I will say this: they certainly didn't stop us from praying around the flag pole when we did so. And I can just about guarantee that following 9/11, nobody up on that campus had any problem with Bible OR prayer. Funny how things work that way.

The tossing in of the "church and state separation" rhetoric was pretty low of them considering that A) most public schools I knew back then had on-campus Bible studies and B) That aspect of the First Amendment has been mis-interpreted for years, and thereafter manipulated to remove prayer from schools, force-feed evolution, and keep students from collectively discussing the Bible on their own free time. I submit to you that the greatest detriment of the Left's mis-representation of this aspect of the First Amendment is the effect it's had on how we educate in this country.

Let us read the writing on the proverbial wall:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The "separation of church and state" language is a lie because it's not there.

It is a sword improperly yielded by the the God-hating section of the Left (which is arguably all of the Left, except of course my Democrat family members and my next-door neighbors). The words "separation of church and state" were actually co-opted by Thomas Jefferson who referenced the words of another when referring to the "wall" or "barrier" that must be built between the church and the state. However, it is rarely noted that Jefferson did so in a written address to a Baptist Convention where he was assuring them that the state would not dictate to them how they ought to worship God or stop them from teaching Biblical values....Uncanny.

The intention of the law is in fact to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. And how prophetic it was as someone a long long time ago was able to foresee that humanity, when left to its own devices will seek to destroy anything in its wake. During the time Jefferson's words were spoken, there was a fear present in the church that America would move towards adopting a national religion like the church of England and ultimately, regulate worship into the crevices of peoples' homes. And thanks be to God such a law helped us not to go that route as the the Church of England is stoic and nearly dead. Unfortunately, that same law was a double-edged sword.

In his recent column, "We Don't Need Them", activist and pundit Mychal Massie eloquently and insightfully inquires rhetorically about our application of this law:

"Why must we wage costly court battles to retain the right to ask God's blessing on our food; to not have our children subjected to the loathsome homosexual agenda in grades K--5; to not have our daughters taught how to deceive their parents; to have our children taught without bias and prejudice of agenda-driven professors? Why fight for our children to celebrate Christmas, but not Ramadan or Kwanzaa? Why would anyone-- much less a Christian -- continue to send their children to such institutions?

Good question. And the answer is two-fold: one because the average person with the insight Massie just gave probably can't afford to send their children to private school or homeschool, and two, because the Church isn't doing its job. We've left education of children as a responsibility for the government to handle and that's our first (and biggest) mistake.

But the issue is complex. Massie points out some statistics behind our country attempting to remove God from schools:

"Every facet of public school system has been negatively affected since the anti-God rulings in 1962 and 1963. It doesn't matter what those who revel in those rulings say -- the proof of the matter is as follows:

• Pregnancy rates for ages 15-19 girls are up.
  
• Pre-marital sex for ages 15-18 girls is up.
  
• Sexually transmitted diseases for ages 10-14 are up.
  
• Rape arrests for ages 13-15 and 13-18 boys are up.
  
• Assault arrests for ages 13-15 and 13-18 boys are up.
  
• Murder arrests for ages 13-18 are up.
  
• Attitudes toward rape have changed indicating it is selectively permissible.
  
• Divorce rates are up.
  
• Single-mother households are up.
  
• SAT total test scores are down.
  
• SAT verbal test scores are down.
  
• Public school expenditures per student have dramatically increased.

Massie goes on to point out that these statistics are not the same for privately educated or homeschooled children. To counter this point a bit, I should note that it may be an unfair assumption to compare homeschoolers with public schooled children as some of these problems are a bit cyclical in nature (e.g. single mother is probably less likely to homeschool in the first place). In light of some of these facts, the trend in thought has been more geared towards the "mass exodus" concept which is to essentially create a Christian sub-culture of private (and better) schools where children are being educated without having to put on the full armor of God in order to combat the liberal crap taught in every crevice and corner of the average public school.

I am in full support of this methodology, and regardless of my support, it will happen anyway once enough people get sick and tired of being sick and tired. But I am not in support of the "abandon the public school system altogether" philosophy. I'm not comfortable letting "them" getting away that easy. We need educators and lawmakers that will not only advocate for change within the school system, but will start holding people accountable to what our laws really say and not some faulty interpretation that's been passed on throughout the years.

Liberals have this grandiose fear that the "American Taliban" will infiltrate the school system and force every child to recite scriptures and be spanked by a rod. While this is untrue, the reality is, liberals are threatened by the fact that their "religious doctrine" (because yes that's what it is) of secular humanism will be challenged by the truth and be defeated.

Until then, we'll just continue to watch our kids shoot each other in the classroom and practice putting bubble gum flavored condoms on cucumbers. Maybe eventually the hard-hearted will see that their method doesn't seem to be working.

 

I'm sure you all recall the abortion pill RU-486. Call me crazy, but I thought they took that lethal injection off the market a long time ago. Turns out I'm wrong, but recent reports of adverse reactions to the pill, including the death of three women (who were of course exercising their "right" to choose), have some lawmakers pushing for the drug to be pulled off the market. Instead, the corrupt Food and Drug administration is merely require the makers of the pill to place a label on the bottle that warns patients of potentially complications "including bacterial infections, serious bleeding and death". Gotta love that last one. "Death". That's almost right up there next to "Your head will implode and you may experience gas with oily discharge". But hey, who pays attention to side effects anyway?

So I got into a short but pointed conversation recently with a married friend of mine who has decided to go off birth control not because she and her husband want to have kids, but because the things are wretchedly bad for women. So for them it's now a faithwalk. Interestingly enough, I can't possibly think of how that could ever be a bad thing. But in light of my last discussion of the topic, I'd just like to clarify that I tend to lean more to the side of natural methods because of the horrible damage the pill is causing to many women, and my uneasiness as a Christian with anything that has the word "control" in it.

Now if someone were to bring up the topic of Michael Moore and his wife (yes he has one, I couldn't believe it myself when I found out), we might have another discussion on our hands about which people should NOT be procreating.