That the White House has lost any sense of reality (if it ever had it) and is conducting an ideological campaign that has nothing to do with the public interest is painfully clear to almost everybody – if the topic is Iraq. But sex?Turns out that Bush and co., in a decidedly obtuse and un-Republican fashion, have told States that they can apply for millions in grants if they target “abstinence-only” messages to people 19 to 29 years of age. You read correctly, the government is telling adults – old enough to drive, drink (if above 21) and get killed in Iraq – that they shouldn't have sex, or they risk getting pregnant “out of wedlock.”
Besides the inanity of pushing a policy so contrary to human nature (it has even less chance of succeeding than a ban on large portions at restaurants would), how dare the Bush administration tell us that it is bad to have children if we are not married? Only a religiously motivated government would consider marriage “sacred,” and anything more than it actually is: a legally binding contract between two people who decided to share the good and the bad in life, and who want to get some assurance from the law that when the bad times come their partner can't simply bolt out and disappear into the fog without paying some reparation. (And even so, there are alternatives to marriage in a civil society, you know.)
The Republican party used to be the party of small government, but Bushy boy has turned it into one of the most bloated and intrusive (not to mention most expensive) bureaucracies in the history of the Western world. The result has been an unwinnable “war on terror,” an insane invasion of Iraq, the spectacle of the greatest democracy in the world engaging in torture of its detainees, blatant disrespect for individual privacy and due process at home, rampant stupidity masquerading as security checks at airports, and now millions of dollars spent to tell adults not to engage in the most natural act in the world, after eating. The political surge of the Christian right has suffered a serious setback with the November elections, but is it 2008 already?
Don't do it after eating!
ReplyDeleteOr am I confused??
Yes, becaue then you're already stuffed!
ReplyDeleteSo does that mean GW didn't have sex until his marriage at age 31?
ReplyDeleteYikes!
Daniel
I know the head of Republicans Abroad over here, and he's a fundamentalist Xian. He says that marriage can only take place in a church; to him, a legal document is a civil union. Consequently, all those people who got married at city hall, or in a synagogue, etc., aren't REALLY married. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means in light of Max's article that only Xians can have sex...
ReplyDeleteM, I think you dangled your participle or something, in your next to last sentence. But I don't think it had anything to do with sex. Thats ok though - it is one way to get a little humor into a subject as gut-wrenching as discussing Bush and his policies.
ReplyDeleteIt is now time for a bi-partisan committee on Bush's sexual abstinence policies. I would suggest (for the democrats) Bill Clinton- who better to appreciate yhe joy of sex?
ReplyDeleteAnd for the republicans- Bush senior- who beter to appreciate the virtue of abstinence?
Hey, Massimo, where can I find a transcript of your debate with Duane Gish?
ReplyDelete-KEC
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI debated Gish several times, but I'm not sure where one can find a transcript. You can read a (admittedly non-neutral) almost play-by-play recount of one of the debates in my "Tales of the Rational" book (Amazon, if they still have copies)... :)
Yea, just out of curiosity, how do you keep debating creationists without losing your mind? I think you said you debated Kent Hovind like 3 or 4 times-- You know what he is going to say, he knows what you are going to say, etc etc.
ReplyDelete-KEC
PS, haha, I am trying to find your books used, they are pretty expensive on AMAZON
Kevin "Yea, just out of curiosity, how do you keep debating creationists without losing your mind? You know what he is going to say, he knows what you are going to say, etc etc."
ReplyDeleteAltho a person's choice in life might appear to be clear when the first few words come out of their mouth regarding certain sensitive issues, there are still degrees of following God and degrees of falling away from God that I don’t think humans really can predict.
Like Massimo, for instance. (may I use you for an example?)
It has occurred to me that he seems rather stern and irritable in his public speaking about creationist issues, but places his words far more carefully and tactfully when he writes. So it must be that he is either the most excellent and clever propagandist for Secular Humanism, or he is not in fact a sold out atheist at all. And I have no way of knowing which is more true. The optimist part of me, or course, wishes to vote for the latter. Predictability and all the seemingly monotonous aspects of debate aside, that optimist also wishes to think that anyone I could possibly meet and know is still a searcher.
In short, it ain't over till were all dead.. ;)
cal
Cal-
ReplyDeleteHaha, I like this- "Deconstructing Massimo" (jk) But the best place to go to try to figure out what Massimo is thinking theologically is a debate that he did with David Chappy. Here are some of the more telling lines from that discussion:
"Those (minority) of Atheists fall under that category (asserting definitively that there is no God)...they are an ideology and as such they are not that intellectually interesting to me...but certainly the way I define Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God...It's just a skeptical position that says 'I don't believe in something unless i have good reasons or evidence to believe it,' and in that sense it seems to me to be a very reasonable position. It is not an ideology. For one thing, it is subject to change. The moment in which I do see a good argument or evidence to change my mind i would change my mind. Secondly, people lack a belief in a lot of things, for example, most people don't believe in the existence of Unicorns--they are A-Unicornists, if you like. But you would probably not characterize that as an ideology or a religion. You would just consider that a reasonable position, since nobody has ever seen a Unicorn."
"What is just about sending somebody to hell just because he wanted to use his brain...Let's assume for a minute that, in fact, you are right, that the christian God of the bible exists, and, ok, I'm wrong. So I am going to go in front of him and i am going to say, 'look, I was wrong, but I was wrong in good faith,meaning I didn't mean any harm, I had a decent life, I loved my wife and child. I behaved pretty well throughout my life. I didn't believe in your existence because I thought I had, in good faith, good arguments not to believe. And what are you going to do about that now? You are going to send me to hell forever?' That seems the most gross injustice that i have ever heard of. More than an overkill, don't you think?"
I suppose all this deals mainly with the Christian God, but it helps me to peace together where MP is at philisophically.
Speaking of which, whats the deal, Massimo, are you a philosopher, a scientist, or a philosopher of science? For posterity, I mean, For example, Dawkins is running around trying to be the next Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll or something, do you care about your legacy to philosophy?
-Kevin
I heard Massimo debate Jonathan Wells on some radio show, and he wasn't stern and irritable at all. In fact I couldn't believe how nice he was. Treated him with the utmost respect.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeletethe quote you presented is obviously reasonable and all that. The only problem is that, if the guy debating Massimo is right and the christian god and Bible are right, he WILL be sent to hell for eternity -- because THAT particular god is really a bitch... Not the only one, mind you, but one nonetheless. I like the way Dawkins puts it in the first chapter of his book.
Now if christians et al. could refrain from sex AFTER marriage too, that would be nice also.
J
madm4n said...
ReplyDeleteI heard Massimo debate Jonathan Wells on some radio show, and he wasn't stern and irritable at all. In fact I couldn't believe how nice he was. Treated him with the utmost respect.
"
I don't disagree. He likely is different than some people. The venue I happened to hear him in was a gathering of skeptics quite awhile ago.
have noticed that both Skeptics and Christians can tend to be in the camp of not believing that the individual should have freewill. I.E., being very deterministic and manipulative in their manner of placing ideas before you. I am not in favor of such because if God is God, strong arm tactics just prove our stupidity and lack of trust in God's abilities. Conversely, if the human-being is "the god" a similar approach would still tend to show the lack of viability of said ideas as there should be few or no fear motivated reactions.
The proposed supremacy of human knowledge, however, does not show any signs of being on the verge of overcoming human irrationality. Knowledge is just not enough.
cal
Cal,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I understand you completely, but if you are saying that one shouldn't be making important decisions while she is in a heightened state of emotion, I completely agree with you.
Also, I am pretty deep into following the contemporary philisophical discussion over the existence or non-existence of god, and, yes, apologists on both sides of the coin can be pushy or arogant, of course. But in much of the public conscience, there is a stereotype of the "village Atheist," who runs around yelling at people that they are dumb for believing etc etc--and that stereotype seems untrue in the case of the vast majority of critical atheists/agnostics.
kevin "But in much of the public conscience, there is a stereotype of the "village Atheist," who runs around yelling at people that they are dumb for believing etc etc--and that stereotype seems untrue in the case of the vast majority of critical atheists/agnostics."
ReplyDeleteMy primary (almost life long) experience was with such a "village Atheist". A member of my family. lol! :) He began in on me when I was about 16 or 17. The worst thing that I think he taught me was that, if nothing else, determination can win the day. That is an area to which I may still be a bit humanistic in my thinking.
In reality, it is more true that if God really draws someone, (and they respond in kind) there is no human effort in existence that is going cause that relationship with Him to come into being.
cal
Kevin,
ReplyDelete>> Speaking of which, whats the deal, Massimo, are you a philosopher, a scientist, or a philosopher of science? For posterity, I mean, For example, Dawkins is running around trying to be the next Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll or something, do you care about your legacy to philosophy? <<
I was originally trained as a scientist, but I do have a PhD in philosophy, and about 1/3 of my active teaching and scholarship is in philosophy. As for legacy, I don't think that far ahead... :)
This from today's newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6292226,00.html
ReplyDeleteI guess nature wins, after all...