Free Republic

This is not necessarily to you MeanDog, but for the group in general.

I find this to be one of the more amusing strings going on as of yet. This seems to be a pi$$ing match between skunks, although I do find one particular woman to be rather learned in what she is referring to. Bottom line seems to be "who gives a rat's butt?".

If there is one subject more controversial than politics, it certainly has to be religion. Strangely enough, religious beliefs are about the only things that cannot be either proven or disproven in any logical manner. Faith is simply belief in something that cannot be proven - that does not mean by default it can be disproven. People have taken great umbrage at this post, obviously, and have absolutely exhausted themselves in attempting to defend their opinions (which are not actually their own, rather the dogmatic decrees of whatever particular denomination they belong to - of which sadly so few understand the reasons and origins of such).

I consider myself a Christian (well, I am trying to be one everyday - somedays I fall short of my goal), but all of this stupid bickering is mere folly. I could care less if Mary remained a virgin, was even a virgin or whatever. I could care less if Jesus had cousins, brothers, pesky in-laws, and whatever else. So what? Does any of this amount to any bit of a difference in the incontrovertable fact that this is the single most influential man to ever walk the earth? I don't care if he got here via the cabbage patch or a wild nite on the town. These details will most likely never be conclusively proven, mainly out of sensitive prejudices and obstinance. Even so, they are inconsequential anyway.

Very dear friends of my family are Jewish, and this was uttered by a Jew during a Christmas party at my home - I will never forget it. During the blessing of the meal, a Jewish follower said the following "Thank you, God, for sending Jesus - how awful the world would be without him." That is pretty darned powerful. Christ did not have such an impact on the world because Mary was supposedly a virgin for life, or whether he had biological brothers or not. Christ had such an impact because of the message he brought, and the hope that he gave us. Who cares about hashing out the details of over 2000 years ago? The details of such mean nothing to me, but his message means everything.

Let the historians, theologians, the Vatican, Jerry Falwell and whoever else bicker endlessly over that which makes no difference. I on the other hand, choose to follow the teachings of Christ, in the hope and faith that I will come to know him in this life, live a life as he would be proud of, and spend eterntity with him in the hereafter.

If there ever was a classic case of failing to see the forest through the trees......

Cheers,
WKH

Well, sure abstinence is the only sure fire way to prevent the transmission of STDs. This is however, painfully unrealistic. Abstinence should be taught BY PARENTS, and I have absolutely no clue what the public and private schools are involved in this for - I thought the primary focus was teaching academic material. Nowadays that seems to be little more than an occasional afterthought.

Like it or not, people are going to continue to have unprotected sex, no matter what laws we pass or whatever the Vatican edicts. Self-destructive behavior is certainly nothing new under the sun. Ideally, these people who engage in such activities should ultimately be held accountable for their actions (unfortunately, leftists think that everyone else is responsible for the stupidity of others, and should therefore foot the bill). Yes, and unlike the left, I don't believe that the spread of AIDS is because of lack of federal funding.

A related phenomenon is that of prohibition. It didn't work in the 1930's and it certainly isn't working now. I would dare say that prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Given the estimated 117,000% profit margin (Cato Institute) in the drug trade, the character of people involved, and the insatiable demand for product, this is a no brainer. "Just Say No" was about as bright a response to the problem of drug use (which really was not so much a problem as it is today since prohibition and the emergence of the lucrative black market) as is the same ostrich approach to sexual abstinence. It is simply not rational and will create more problems than it ever attempted to solve.

The best method to addressing the issue is to remain rational. People are going to have sex, whether you or I like it or not (I personally don't care what they do, just as long as I don't get the bill for it). I am not particularly pleased at the idea of my teenage neice possibly being sexually active, but I am even more frightened of her contracting a deadly disease. Therefore, acknowledging that what is in theory logical but seldom practical, this 'abstinence only' may offer us some self-sense of 'moral riteousness' but given the nature of human behavior will end up as a failure entirely.

This is not to say that abstinence should not be taught as the primary defense against STDs, as it is the only sure-fire method to keep from contracting such. But reality is different. "Just Say No" has done little if anything to curb the appetite for illegal drugs, as I suspect it has done for the wave of STD's we now face. I really don't see educating our children about ways to protect themselves sexually is any "green light" to becomming sexually active, if explained that abstinence is the best method. However, should you screw up (no pun intended), at least take some degree of action to protect yourself from making the situation a life threatening disaster. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but at least it is somewhat practical.

I wished we lived in a perfect world, but sadly we do not. I do not see Utopia around the bend anytime soon, so perhaps it is better just to deal with reality as it presents itself as best we can. "Safety Nazis" as I refer to them, exist on both the right and the left. The safest place for anyone to be in the world is solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. That certainly would keep us all safe from ourselves and each other with a rather high degree of certainty - but is this a manner in which you would choose to "live"?

This is an ongoing email by some nut at Northwestern. Have fun. He was even so thoughtful as to respond line by line! What a wonderful hope for the future. Their email is www.boycottaf.com - I am sure they would love to hear from you!