Posts Tagged ‘accused’

Protest to take Tamil Tigers off Terrorist List

Friday, February 20th, 2009

There was a marching protest today in front of the White House where activists shouted out for President Obama to “help us”; meaning to take the Tamil Tigers off the terrorist list.

The Tamil Tigers, according to Wikipedia:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, Tamil: தமிழழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள் ISO 15919: tamiḻ iiḻa viṭutalaip pulikaḷ), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant terrorist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign since the 1970s to secede from the Sri Lankan state in order to create a separate Tamil state in the north and east of the island. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, one of longest running armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries. The Tamil Tigers are headed by their founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The Tamil Tigers are notorious for their well-developed militia cadre, atrocities against Muslim and Sinhalese civilians, and high profile attacks, such as the assassination of several high ranking Sri Lankan politicians, and the former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. They also have the distinction of introducing suicide bombings as a tactic, and have carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined. The LTTE have repeatedly been accused of recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE are the only rebel organization with aircraft.

In January 2009, Canada and the EU notably refused to take the group off its terrorist list, even while the EU agreed to remove the Mujahideen Organization of Iran. The U.S. has had the Tamil Tigers on its terrorist list since the 1990s.

European states agreed on Monday to remove exiled Iranian opposition group the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) from an EU list of banned terrorist groups, an EU official said.

The official confirmed that EU foreign ministers approved a decision to take it off a list that includes Palestinian Hamas and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The PMOI is the group which exposed Iran’s covert nuclear program in 2002. It began as a leftist-Islamist opposition to the late Shah of Iran and has bases in Iraq.1

Waving today in the march were the flags of the U.S. and Canada, among others.

(link to short video clips of part of the procession)
Tamil Tiger Protest

tamil2

tamil3

tamil4

(Thanks to sanhedrin and waxpoet at Reddit for corrections/suggestions)

  1. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3661977,00.html [<]

Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl

Monday, December 8th, 2008

From the What a Fucking Moron files comes the verdict of a child pornography criminal case in Australia, where Justice Michael Adams, of the New South Wales Supreme Court of stupidity, held that a fictional cartoon character, specifically Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, is a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Because the accused, John McEwan, possessed images of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson having sex, the court found him guilty of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

Said the judge:

In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …

… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.1

So, is the judge right?

Bwahahahaha. Oh my goodness.

Look, it’s two stick figures having sex: (man, I’m bad at this)
O
|\___o
||/\../\

See the one on the right? That’s a 7-year-old girl, right? Just play along. The one on the left? An old guy.

BOOM, that’s child pornography in Australia. Nearly was in the U.S., too, before the U.S. Supreme Court (barely) decided that, hey, maybe no one is actually getting hurt when someone DRAWS (simply or creatively or otherwise) a child.2 Wait, did I say “nearly” in the U.S.? Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law that Congress passed, which would have criminalized possession of cartoon kiddy porn, Congress persevered, passing the PROTECT Act of 2003 (related to COPA that originated in 1998). Now we’re just like Australia in that respect. [also see the latest bs Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years] (my stick figures are going to end up with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) (But see Update below about the implied overturning of the law) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly:

The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects of child abuse, prohibits all illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.3

But perhaps I could have been of some use in McEwan’s defense. Here’s how I would have argued:

The youngest Simpson, Maggie, was a newborn at the start of the cartoon series on television, which was in 1987. Considering it’s now 2008, that would make the youngest Simpson family member about 21 years old. Despite the fact that the characters have not “appeared” to have aged, someone in possession of depictions of these actual age of majority characters having sex is no different from possessing pictures of an adult victim of dwarfism engaging in sex.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that McEwan’s attempt to appeal was successful. What would you do if someone in the U.S. were tried under the PROTECT Act for possessing Bart Simpson porn? What if it were you?

It may seem pointless to defend the rights of someone who would illustrate or enjoy such things, but realize that by doing so, you’re actually defending the rights that you currently possess, but that quite possibly are next in line on the chopping block. If you’ve ever pointed a finger at someone for being a hypocrite, for cherry picking moral lessons from an ancient book, note that by defending what you think is your right to speak freely, but attacking someone else’s self-perceived right to do the same thing (because, perhaps, you don’t like the content of the speech), you’re pointing a finger at yourself.

Wake up. Get the new administration to examine and amend the PROTECT Act, and other laws based on nonsense.

I linked above to The Nock Blog, where an automatically generated trackback thingy posted on my behalf on that blog. Mr. Nock read this post, and commented, albeit on his blog. I responded, and he elaborated. Here’s the conversation, which can be seen at The Nock Blog.

#State of Protest » Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl
December 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm

[...] with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly: The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects [...]

(that’s the auto linky thing)

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Firstly Wikipedia itself is not banned, only that access to Wikipedia passes through transparent proxies that cause the page that is dodgy to be not available in the UK, with no logging taking place based on Plusnet’s responses and other information gathered from the Internet.

Secondly, the cartoon depiction of sexual acts between minors is as illegal in the UK as it is in Australia. It matters not that they are cartoons or real, as long as the meaning is sexual. I think however a full legal opinion would need to be sought for this, but you can bet that the realism of the depiction does count and Lisa Simpson is real enough but your stick figures are not. However associate those stick images with the words you have so placed on your site then I think you could be going some way towards demonstrating important circumstantial evidence that you are indeed committing a criminal offence. However, I am not a lawyer as I said and a full legal opinion would need to be obtained… This in itself is pertinent to the discussions today as the IWF are not a full legal body (for opinion) and are making decisions about content that can be challenged in court, and would ultimately be challenged with the right amount of suspicion and belief that an offence is taking place.

stateofprotest
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Ian D. Nock,

(First, feel free to leave that comment on my actual blog; what you see above is an auto-generated trackback thingy).

Second, what’s the difference between stick figures described as minors doing it and the sticks that make up the words creating the description you suggest would criminalize my depiction? In other words, words are stick figures, and once you start censoring the content of words (stick figure or no), you open the door to having any words censored for any reason. For, who is to judge?

Censorship is a double-edged sword.

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

The words give the drawing context, this is what can give criminality to something that is otherwise grey.

UPDATE:

According to Polymorphous Perversity, the fact that the law was pinballing among the courts till recently meant that despite its “passage” in 1998, it could not really be enforced until a final decision (or at least a precedent) was made. PP refers to an article in the LA Times today that indicates that the Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die. Five years ago, the Supreme Court was split on the issue, deciding that the lower courts should determine whether the proposed filters would be sufficient to protect minors. In the key case of Mukasey vs. ACLU, where the ACLU prevailed in the lower courts, the fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case indicates that the law is effectively unconstitutional (or at least not enforceable as it stands), and is effectively dead. Good news for free-speech advocates and stick-figure artists.

Also check out this thorough article on CNet: Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

StOP

  1. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html [<]
  2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795 [<]
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography [<]

Dear Procrustes, I’m going to kill you!

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

Dear Procrustes,

You are a moron, with your liberal anti-Christian views, and you’d better shut your site down, or I’m going to find you and your family and I’m going to crack your skull with a baseball bat and mutilate your family.

Signed,
Hypothetical

Yes, fortunately this is still a hypothetical situation for me, but it’s certainly real enough for a number of rational activists out there, including, fairly recently, PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who blogs at Pharyngula.1 On July 13, PZ Myers received an email with the subject line: “your short life.” The sender went on to state that if PZ Myers did not cease and desist his job (for the sake of his children), the PZ Myers would get his “brains beat in.”2

I’m not going to bother addressing the fact that someone who purports to follow a higher spiritual code is threatening the life of someone (and his kids) who follows a code of reason. Instead, I’d like to cite a few more examples, and then ask the readers if anyone else has had similar experiences, what have they done in those situations, and what can be done if we ever find ourselves in such a situation.

Before I jump into other examples, I’ll give some closure to the PZ Myers issue. First of all, PZ Myers made it quite clear that he reserved the right to post any emails (in full, with metadata) that contain threats of violence. What, pray tell, must have someone endured to require such a disclaimer! Word got around, and AIGBusted, from Answers in Genesis Busted, sent an email to the threatener’s employer3 (since the email threat was sent from a work address). It turns out that the threatener, Melanie Kroll, who, ironically, worked for 1-800-Flowers, was fired over the matter.4 Although it’s unknown how many readers possibly sent similar emails, AIGBusted appropriately feels no guilt over the firing. “I don’t feel guilty about reporting her. I think it is important for atheists to realize that large numbers of us wield a fair amount of power in these situations.”5

Apparently that is true. We have shown that we have the ability to do more than just sit idly by, wondering how valid a threat is. But how many of us (and by us, I mean anyone in the non-believing, rational, atheist, etc., community) are actually being threatened, how consistently, and, most importantly, how viable are these threats?

Where to begin? Of course, with the blog post that prompted Melanie Kroll’s threat.

July 12, 2008:
PZ Myers wrote, in a blog entry: “Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker… Unlike those nutty Muslims who are always taking offense over cartoons, these people have serious grievances.” And went on to describe and criticize the overreaction by the Catholics, media, and others, to Webster Cook’s forcible removal of The Body of Christ from a church.6 Accused of having “kidnapped” the equivalent of Jesus Christ, Cook began receiving death threats shortly after the media exploded the issue beyond repair, and PZ Myers, in turn, received a death threat for reporting about it. (Yes, I’m anxiously anticipating my day in the sniper scope.)

July 17, 2007:

Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution
Letters from a Christian extremist last week threatened the lives of evolution biology professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The letters claimed to be on behalf of a group, but newspapers and at least one blog have reported that an individual, Michael Korn, a Jew-turned-Christian extremist, is likely behind the threats (an image from his web site is at right). CU police spokesman Brad Wiesley told me they haven’t officially named a suspect but the Colorado Daily wrote that others “close to the case” named Korn.7

July 7, 2007:
J.K. Rowling announces the end of her beloved Harry Potter series of books, indicating that although it was a wonderful experience for her, there was a darker side to writing something Christians didn’t agree with: “Rowling says her success has been “the experience of a lifetime.” But it also has brought an intense level of pressure, scrutiny and criticism. In the United States, her book tours have attracted thousands of screaming children, but also death threats. Some Christians have called for the books to be banned, claiming they promote witchcraft.”8

March 28, 2008:
“Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA [by Geert Wilders9] after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.”10 Both Geert Wilders and some LiveLeak staff received a variety of threats of death and violence.

July, 2008:
Army Spc. Jeremy Hall’s “sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.”11

June, 2002:
Michael Newdow, a TIME Person of the Week, received multiple death threats for his attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was recited every morning at his daughter’s public school. 12 (As a side note, I met Mr. Newdow during that time period, and heard him discuss his various issues. He has also advocated for the removal of “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency,13 and he has won the Freethought Hero Award.14 )

October, 2006:
Robert Redeker is “a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled “Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?”" “Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. “I’m a homeless person,” he complains. “I exercised a constitutional right, and I’m being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic.” Redeker is only the latest in a lengthening list of Europeans who have been subjected to death threats from Muslims outraged by criticism of their faith and prophet.”15

1988:
Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued against him for his publication of The Satanic Verses.16

November, 2004:
Mohammed Bouyeri shot Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director and critic of Islam, eight times, killing him, and then nearly decapitated him by cutting his throat. Then Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh in the chest. A few weeks prior to the murder, Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon, calling van Gogh a “criminal bastard” and beseeching Allah to inflict an incurable disease upon him. 17

These examples are frightening and real, and they can all be Googled rather easily. But are the numbers of threats against the rational much higher? Have you ever received a threat of violence, death, or other retaliatory act for something you’ve done or that you’ve believed in? Please share!

If you’ve received a threat, did you take it seriously? How did you react to it? (did you reply, post the message, contact the authorities?) Regardless of whether you’ve received a threat, do you have any advice or suggestions for those who do?

Is this a trend we should be worried about?

  1. Pharyngula, “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ [<]
  2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php [<]
  3. Did I Get a Woman Fired? Answers in Genesis Busted. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [<]
  4. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html [<]
  5. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [<]
  6. Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker, AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ [<]
  7. Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution, Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html [<]
  8. Rowling bids her boy wizard goodbye, USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-19-rowling-potter_N.htm [<]
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [<]
  10. LiveLeak Remove “Fitna” After Death Threats, GBG Atheist News. http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/03/liveleak-remove-fitna-after-death.html [<]
  11. Atheist soldier sues Army for ‘unconstitutional’ discrimination, CNN.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html [<]
  12. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html [<]
  13. Michael Newdow’s “In God We Trust” Lawsuit Dismissed, Austin’s Atheism Blog. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/13/michael-newdows-in-god-we-trust-lawsuit-dismissed.htm [<]
  14. Freethought Hero Award, Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://ffrf.org/awards/special/2004_newdow.php [<]
  15. Did a Critic of Islam Go Too Far?, TIME.com. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1541776,00.html?cnn=yes [<]
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie [<]
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 [<]

Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God

Friday, July 4th, 2008

One of Barack Obama’s Factcheck web pages is devoted to disclaiming any and all rumors that Obama is Muslim.1 Obviously it’s critical for a presidential candidate to dispel the kinds of accusations that would negatively impact a campaign. Obama, however, doesn’t stop with quashing rumor — he devotes a tremendous amount of time and effort swinging the religious pendulum hard in the opposite direction. That direction is Christianity, presumably because while being accused of worshipping a single creator god (from one particular origin) is heinous, bragging about worshipping a single creator god (from a different, but related origin) is not only perfectly acceptable, but also a key component required to obtain the U.S. presidency.

Examine the fear-tinged rejections of Islam, on Obama’s web page, compared to the praises of Obama’s fealty to Jesus Christ: (all quotes from the footnoted website; emphasis mine)

Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian

OBAMA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A MUSLIM

Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Issued A Statement Explaining That “Senator Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, Was Not Raised As A Muslim, And Is A Committed Christian.” “Obama’s campaign aides have emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and downplayed any Islamic connection. The Illinois senator was raised ‘in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother,’ his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement in January after false reports began circulating that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Koranic school, as a child. ‘To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago,’ Gibbs’ Jan. 24 statement said.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/16/07]

Obama “Beckoning” Felt At Trinity United Church Of Christ, “Submitted Myself To His Will, And Dedicated Myself To Discovering His Truth And Carrying Out His Works.” Obama said, “So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.” [Speech, 6/23/07]

Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.

HE NEVER ATTENDED A RADICAL MUSLIM SCHOOL

CNN Reporter: I’ve Been to Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Obama’s Indonesian Elementary School Is Nothing Like That. On January 22, CNN Reporter John Vause reported, “I came here to Barack Obama’s elementary school in Jakarta, looking for what some are calling an Islamic Madrassa, like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.. I’ve been to those Madrassas in Pakistan and Wolf, this school is nothing like that.” [CNN, Situation Room, 1/22/07]

What if he had attended a radical Catholic school? I know a number of Catholics who would argue that their Catholic school and upbringing was radical. Would that exempt him from the presidential race, or would it enhance his chances at winning?

OBAMA IS A PRACTICING CHRISTIAN

Obama Has Been A Member Of Trinity United Church Of Christ For Twenty Years. Monroe Anderson stands up for Reverend Wright’s ministry, “For the past two decades, Barack Obama has been a faithful member of the congregation at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.” [Chicago Sun-Times, Monroe Anderson, 3/25/07]

Obama Was Baptized And Attends Church Once a Week When He is Able. In the Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, “I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.” In 2004, he “attend[ed] the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.” When asked about his decision to be baptized, Obama said “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. “I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth.” [Audacity of Hope, p.208, Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04; AP 6/28/06]

Obama Reads The Bible, Finds Time to Pray On Campaign Trail. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “Obama says he reads the Bible, though not as regularly as he’d like, now that he’s on the campaign trail. But he does find time to pray. ‘It’s not formal, me getting on my knees,’ he says. ‘I think I have an ongoing conversation with God… I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why I am doing it.’” [Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04]

Obama Held His Personal Bible When He Was Sworn-In As A U.S. Senator. “…Even before the makeshift office was up and running in the basement of a Senate building, even before he raised his hand Tuesday to take the oath of office as the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was already a political rock star and a celebrated new face in Congress. He arrived Tuesday, his first official day in the Capitol…. In the circles he runs in now, celebrity status is checked at the cloakroom door…When it was finally time to take the oath, he held his personal Bible, as family from as far away as Kenya watched from the visitors’ gallery above. His daughters, Malia, 6, and Sasha, 3, in velvet dresses and patent leather shoes, bounced in their chairs when he looked up and waved.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/5/05]

Questions, Mr. Obama: What does the Bible actually say? Why do you read it? Why did you hold a bible when you were sworn in? (I thought our government was secular). Why are you using that fact as a positive indicator of your ability to run this country? What does the Bible say about slavery, Mr. Obama? Are you going to have a copy of the “Ten Commandments” placed on display in the White House? Could you make an executive decision that you think goes against “God’s will”? What is God’s will with regard to non-believers? That’s in the Bible, right? Why read the Bible, profess worship for the alleged dictator of that work, and then not actually follow the clear commands within it? Do you, Mr. Obama, know what the punishments for violating the Ten Commandments are? Would you enforce them while holding the presidential office? If not, why devote so much time and energy to show the citizenry of the U.S. that you are a faithful Christian, follower of Jesus, and worshiper of the Christian God, to whom you have “submitted” your “will”?

Ah, here are some answers:

TRINITY TENETS ARE “TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM SCRIPTURE” AND EMPHASIZE “COMMITMENT” TO GOD, COMMUNITY, FAMILY, WORK, SELF-DISCIPLINE AND SELF-RESPECT

Obama Says Black Values System Must Be Understood as a Whole. “Obama said it was important to understand the document as a whole rather than highlight individual tenets. ‘Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect,’ he said. ‘Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement…So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help.’” [Chicago Tribune, 2/6/07]

Obama Says Argument Against “Middleclassness” Taken Directly From Scripture. “In his published memoirs, Obama said even he was stopped by Trinity’s tenet to disavow “middleclassness” when he first read it two decades ago in a church pamphlet. The brochure implored upwardly mobile church members not to distance themselves from less fortunate Trinity worshipers. ‘As I read it, at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from Scripture: ‘To whom much is given much is required,” Obama said. [Chicago Tribune, 2/6/07]

Wait, those aren’t answers. Has anyone asked Senator Obama the kinds of questions I posed? Or even come close? Why does the nation think it’s unimportant to ask such questions? Is it fear of reprisal? Is it that everyone who could possibly ask such questions is prevented from doing so? Where are questions like that in formal debates? Doesn’t the Muslim American community have an interest in asking these questions? What about the Buddhists, the Hindus, the deists, the other Christian sects, the undecided? There’s quite a large chunk of this nation that does not represent a Christian population. Why do we consistently throw softball questions at candidates? Why do we, by default, accept the status quo that “Christian” means “good”? Obama says he’s for change. I believe it, but regarding religion and the way Christianity is put on a pedestal in the United States, I believe he’s for perpetuation.

  1. http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php [<]

Sexual Education and the Implications of Senate Bill 155

Sunday, February 10th, 2008

Every year, the U.S. experiences as many as 850,000 teen pregnancies. Those under the age of 25 contract an average of about 9.1 million STDs. 70% of females and 62% of males lose their virginity by the age of 18.1 In a study commissioned by Congress, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. concluded that abstinence-only programs have no effect on the age students first have sex and no effect on their number of sexual partners.2

Clearly, education is the key. When northern Virginia began requiring “family life education” as part of their public school curriculum in 1987, teen pregnancies dropped by fifty percent, and teen abortions went down sixty percent.3 Students receive instruction in “family living and community relationships, abstinence education, the value of postponing sexual activity, the benefits of adoption as a positive choice in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, human sexuality, human reproduction, dating violence, the characteristics of abusive relationships, steps to take to avoid sexual assault, and the availability of counseling and legal resources, and, in the event of such sexual assault, the importance of immediate medical attention and advice, as well as the requirements of the law and the etiology, prevention and effects of sexually transmitted diseases. “ Yet, an important aspect of sexual education has been missing from this curriculum, i.e. information on birth control.

Last Wednesday, February 6th, the Virginia Senate rejected a bill, SB 155, which would have added to the curriculum the requirement for education on the various methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate’s education and health committee cleared the bill with a 9-6 vote, but on the floor the bill narrowly missed passage with a vote of 17-22. It seems common sense that our children should be given proper information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and a recent survey showed that 82% of parents in the U.S. support programs that would discuss these methods,4 so why was this bill rejected?

Republican lawmakers accused the FDA-approved list of contraception of being too broad and unreliable. “Quite frankly, this list is rather staggering in terms of its scope, and in terms of its relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness,” Sen. Mark D. Obenshain said, referring to a spermicide on the FDA list that is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The spermicide he was referring to does have a comparatively high failure rate,5 but that is exactly the reason we need to educate students on these methods. Does the Senator really believe that the potential failure rates would not be discussed alongside the benefits? That, of course, would be one of the most important aspects for students to learn about. The patron of the bill, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, responded, “How better should our children be introduced to this laundry list? Should they go into the store, whether it’s the CVS or some other place, and guess at the efficacy of these products or guess how to use these products or guess as to whether these products are appropriate or not, or should they learn it in a classroom setting?”6

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, one of two Democratic Senators who joined with Republicans to kill the bill, said he worried about Catholic students in public schools. “This was one of those efforts where the intent was right, but it could get in the way of families’ beliefs,” Houck said. This is a poor argument, as parents have always had the right to remove their children from the program if they feel it is inappropriate or conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The “Some Families” Foundation, while rallying for opposition to the bill, wrote in an action alert, “The bill…would replace current abstinence-based Family Life Education programs with a controversial contraception-only curriculum.”7 This is a blatant untruth! All the current teachings of the benefits of postponing sexual activity would remain in place. The education on contraception would merely be an addition to the existing criteria. In an action alert email, they stated, “This bill is the highest priority legislative initiative for Planned Parenthood. That pro-abortion group had close to 500 people here yesterday to argue for its passage. Some of their activists were still in high school. Are we going to let them go into our schools to recruit the next generation of pro-choicers without putting up a fight? These are our children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and great grandchildren. No! We cannot let them win this critical battle. The education of our children is too important to trust to ineffective and dangerous contraception-based programs.” Ineffective and dangerous? Study after study confirms the inefficacy of abstinence-only education. Teenagers are going to have sex. To think that telling them “No” is going to somehow stop them from behaving contrary to their nature as human, sexual beings, is both naïve and the real danger to our students.

Based on the blaring inconsistencies in the opposition’s arguments and their willful ignorance of the hard evidence against them, could there be another, underlying reason for their vicious attack on this bill? In October 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine submitted plans to close a budget shortfall. One of the ways in which he accomplished his goal was to eliminate a $275,000 matching grant for a federal program which provided funds for fourteen nonprofit groups that taught abstinence only, making Virginia the fourteenth state to refuse to support abstinence-only education. Kaine’s communications director, Delacey Skinner, stated, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based.” Kaine cited recent studies which have found that in order to truly protect teenagers against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.8 Social conservatives reacted very angrily to the Governor’s decision and accused him and Planned Parenthood of hiding the decision until after the November election. Their accusations were unjustified, as Kaine’s budget amendments had been public for six weeks prior. Considering the close timing between these two incidents, it seems highly likely that Republican’s residual anger over the Governor’s decision had a considerable impact on their decision to reject SB 155.

Statistics aside, studies aside, evidence aside, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to provide accurate, useful information to our students at a time when they need it most. When students are well-informed, they can make well-informed decisions. Withholding that information is tantamount to lying to our children and can only cause confusion and detrimental consequences. Please take the time to write to our politicians and express your support for comprehensive sexual education for our students. We owe it to their futures.

-Laura

  1. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm [<]
  2. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf [<]
  3. (Sen. Barker, D-Fairfax) http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/measure … nia-senate [<]
  4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603764/ [<]
  5. http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html [<]
  6. http://www.examiner.com/a-1206268~Contraceptive_education_bill_killed.html [<]
  7. http://www.vbdems.org/?p=2177 [<]
  8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01716.html [<]