I can't hear you
In my post the other day about the evolution dust-ups I mentioned at the very end my feelings about how the two sides of the argument are so far apart they can't hear each other. It's true of course in any dispute that engages people on a deep and non-rational level. I came across a good example of what I'm talking about via Ed from the excellent Dispatches from the Culture Wars. The example features a quote from a user of the ARN Design Forum message/discussion board.
The writer (Douglas Bender) is responding to a question about so-called 'abstinence only' sex-education, and his response is fascinating. He says, essentially, that the risks to the souls of the individuals engaging in premarital or promiscuous sex are perhaps more important than the risks to their physical well-being (pregnancy, disease, etc.); therefore "one should not teach them ways to destroy or taint their souls in 'safety.'"
In other words, if you're going to go out and do something that my religion says will endanger your souls, boys and girls, you're going to have to risk your body and your future to do it. These people don't much care that their misbegotten anti-sex education concept is not effective at preventing pregnancy nor at slowing the spread of sexually transmitted disease -- nor even that it doesn't do much to reduce the numbers of young people who go out and have sex, with or without the appropriate knowledge. What they care about is that they don't appear to be placing the immortal souls of our youth in peril -- a peril in which only they believe.
And we try to argue with them saying that their programs aren't effective and that kids are going to do it anyway, and we trot out our statistics and our examples of lives shattered and bodies ruined, but they don't care. That's not the problem, in their world. They don't want a secular society in which the public health system and the public education system work to prevent and/or address the real-world consequences of (in this case) raging teen hormones. They want sinners to be punished -- even if the "sinners" don't subscribe to their particular set of beliefs.
The middle ground is going away fast. There is less room every day for reasonable people to disagree and discuss and try to resolve anything. And it doesn't help matters when we dismiss the increasingly militant christian right as merely stupid and uninformed.
Don't even get me started about gay marriage.

5 comments:
"And we try to argue with them saying that their programs aren't effective and that kids are going to do it anyway, and we trot out our statistics and our examples of lives shattered and bodies ruined, but they don't care."
Of course we don't. We hate people, and revel in their suffering. But don't tell anyone. Seriously, though - are you really that clueless about genuine Christianity? It's hard to believe, but it appears that you are. Beyond this, though, I'd like to ask you for some references to all those "statistics" that show that "abstinence only" sex education is destroying more lives than it "saves". No one is arguing that "abstinence only" sex education is going to be 100% successful - i.e., no one is claiming that it will prevent even one case of pre-marital sex from happening; although you appear to think that is what Christians think. Which reminds me: Would you claim that the use of condoms and "safe sex" is 100% "safe" and effective? If not, why aren't you railing against the uncaring nature of people who promote "safe sex"?
"That's not the problem, in their world. They don't want a secular society in which the public health system and the public education system work to prevent and/or address the real-world consequences of (in this case) raging teen hormones."
"Raging teen hormones". As if that was the only cause of dangerous sex. You do realize, I assume, that people have dealt with "raging hormones" pretty much SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HUMANITY, HOWEVER ONE DEFINES THAT. It's only since SOCIETY became more LIBERAL and LAX in their MORALS that "raging teen hormones" have been "allowed" free reign. The legalizing of abortion (and making it a profitable business for Planned Parenthood and participating doctors), the development of modern media and the successively weakening moral restraints on its content (note the smut now commonly allowed even on prime-time television), has had absolutely NOTHING to do with the problems associated with "raging teen hormones"...nooooo, it's all about biology, and has nothing to to with moral character or restraint. Besides, morality is just relative, right? (Trick question.) ;)
"They want sinners to be punished -- even if the 'sinners' don't subscribe to their particular set of beliefs."
Let them all BURN in.... Oops, sorry. That's not what I meant to say - I just couldn't help myself. I guess I got some of my "hormones" in a rage. Actually, Christians DON'T want sinners punished - they want to seem them saved from their sins. But would it be wise for, say, a parent to NOT warn their child about playing with a hot stove? Or would it be wiser for a parent to tell their child to not play with a hot stove (until their old enough), but turn around and tell them, in effect, "Well, we know you aren't going to listen to us, so here's what you do when you decide to disobey: We've bought these cool fire-proof mittens, and here's a neat heat-resistant bib, so have at it. There's a fairly good chance you'll burn the house down, and you'll learn to not respect our authority, but we wuv you and don't want you to get burned. Now, go and play."?
Those who should not be having sex should not be encouraged, even implicitly, to have sex. There are teens who are not yet able to drive who go ahead and take "thrill rides", endangering themselves and others. Should our response be, "We know a fair number of you are going to take thrill rides before you're prepared, so we've decided to give you a few lessons so we feel safer, and you think you're ready. That way, all our consciences are lulled into a false sense of ease."? Wouldn't it be more likely that doing this would actually ENCOURAGE those who might otherwise have refrained from taking joy rides to embark on such a journey ("Hey, I'm safe - I watched an hour-long video.")?
"they're old enough", not "their old enough"
Sheeesh...
"i.e., no one is claiming that it will prevent even one case of pre-marital sex from happening"
should read,
"i.e., no one is claiming that it will prevent ALL cases of pre-marital sex from happening"
"to to"
should be,
"to do"
"seem them"
should be,
"see them"
(Oh, will this never end? Where is the "Edit" function?)
Post a Comment