That evangelicals are ready to follow Mitt Romney down the fairy tale narrative rabbit hole to his "family values" scorched earth of opportunistic individualism in the name of pro-life beliefs is one of the greatest political not to mention religious ironies imaginable.
They're going to hear about orgasms but won't have any idea that when they're mature enough to handle the responsibilities, an orgasm is a magical feeling you can share with someone you love on a Hawaiian shore just as the sun sets. Or even in the bathroom with someone you just met at Starbucks.
Christine J. Gardner convincingly argues that the abstinence movement works against the most profound Christian values of selflessness and sacrifice and instead adopts rock concert style techniques of pop culture as a tool to get people to turn against that pop culture.
As a rabbi, I find the reluctance to talk clearly about sex rather odd. In Talmudic tradition, human sexual behavior is discussed with the same unflinching analysis as matters of commerce. It's part of life.
While a lot was happening around the edges this past week, we're going to concentrate on Obama's campaign messaging. The general election is underway, and the Obama folks are busy crafting the language he's going to use to run on.
Abstinence-only programs don't exist "for the kids," or because of risks. They exist almost wholly because Republicans -- and Democrats in Tennessee -- are trying to placate a religious minority, even if it means exposing teens to greater harms.
It is time for Wisconsin's legislators to learn to accept reality. The fact that young people have sex is not changing. What must change, however, is the return to comprehensive and honest sex education for our youth.
The ordinance will not be very effective at influencing the overall depiction of sex in imagery and media. This outcome is all the more lamentable because encouraging condom use is so important. Let's look at the facts.
The consensus as I've experienced as a researcher is that (1) ignorant political attacks will not affect our ability to get work done, and (2) it is not our job to help the public understand our work. I think both claims are wrong, and potentially dangerous to the future of science.
Rick Perry could be an effective leader. He is able to cause people to rally behind him. But it is incumbent on the president of the United States to make decisions based on evidence. Sticking to a personal ideology when it is contradicted by evidence is a dangerous.
Instead of providing fact-based information, Perry's program uses fear and Jesus -- over-emphasizing the risks of STDs leading to cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and death -- together with Christian morality.