Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The leadership of whom? << The neo-con leadership. You seem to imply that a few columnists from the nat'l review define the term, all while actively waving away legitimate questions about conflicts with more traditional definitions of 'conservative' - namely, big government, intrusive government, and spiraling debt. None of these things are typically considered part of the conservative belief-set, yet all are the hallmarks of this administration. And this administration defines "neo-con" by their actions, not just some ink in a magazine. So the question is - how do you reconcile actions by our current neo-con government that fly in the face of what could be called 'goldwater' conservative values?
Originally Posted By woody >>I would disagree entirely. Motive has everything to do with it. They are opposed to making it mandatory for religious reasons that they cannot sustain or support, and has been shown repeatedly in the past, are patently false.<< How is a religious reason not supported or sustained? Religious reasons have been supported by the courts, policy, or personal preference especially on issues of medical care. What makes a religious reason false? It is a belief that one has. No one can say one's belief is false if one continues to believe in it. >>They want to dictate and attempt to control the behavior of others - in this case, sex among teenagers - because they find it distasteful and in opposition to their religious beliefs. It's a pretty terrible way to decide public policy.<< Why do you mention teenagers? They are not of age to make decisions on their own especially with medical care as dependents, which is different than the issue of sexual practices. We all know how liberals like to foist their immorality on others so what's the point? It would appear the argument is over the conservative (religious) or liberal (non-religious) view. There is no medium. You fail to notice that calling for non-mandatory treatment is the middle ground.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003, in a telephone interview.> So, to me, if you just make this one of the several shots that 9 year old girls get in school along with polio and the others, they'll never think of it in this way, and never get the "wrong message." Problem solved. (And, of course, parents could opt out the same way they can opt out of current vaccinations.)
Originally Posted By gadzuux I try to be respectful of the 'admins' and their task here. But I notice that the original post has had the 'meat and pototoes' excised from it. The part about 'focus on the family' and christian conservative groups and their opposition to this vaccine has been removed, as well as their stated reasoning that it's because it could encourage young girls to engage in sex. Why? That's the point! Without the rest of the original post, none of this makes any sense. Is the idea to not offend christian conservatives? But what if their views are offensive to more grounded types? In this case they're attempting to limit availability of health care that could save the lives of millions of women because of their nonsensical worries about teenage sex. Fortunately, those who have responded to the topic so far probably saw the original post in it's entirety. Anybody coming in to the thread now don't have all the facts available to them to make sense of the next 81 posts. I don't understand.
Originally Posted By woody >>Without the rest of the original post, none of this makes any sense.<< Which means you want the issue to be framed by the enemies of the theo-cons!!! I posted the Washington Post article that said the impetus to Focus On The Family came from their constituents, PARENTS. If you want to ignore parents, then go ahead and attack Focus On The Family.
Originally Posted By barboy "But what if their(Christian conservatives) views are offensive to more grounded types?" you know gadzuux I would like to preface something here: I respect your offerings-- you are polite and informed. Now that being said your statement above is unfair. You now have indirectly declared that conservative Christians are not as well grownded as others. I know some very well grownded and balanced Christians as well as a few who don't think for themselves and remain puritanically obstinate.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I posted the Washington Post article that said the impetus to Focus On The Family came from their constituents, PARENTS. << If true, so what? ALL groups are comprised of their members. So perhaps it's the membership within 'FOTF' that's fanning the flames on this. They still have to take responsibility for their actions. You don't really mean to assert that somehow this organization gets a pass because it's made up of parents, do you? >> Now that being said your statement above is unfair. << Let me elaborate. No, I wasn't trying to take a swipe at christians, but rather to refer to a 'counterpart' to those people who are motivated by their faith. The larger point is that if the portions of the original post were removed because christians find it offensive - two things - One - take responsibility for your actions. This is happening now - it's "news", it's "current events". The idea that christians may be offended by the actions of christian activist groups shouldn't be cause for censoring the news. And if criticism should come their way because of the actions of these groups, the problem isn't with the reporting, it's with the deliberate actions of those they choose to align with. It reminds me of beau being critical of the press for publishing the accounts of haditha while not having any comment about the actions themselves - just the publicizing of them. Do all self-identified christians support 'FOTF' in everything they do? Hopefully not. Did this post get censored because christians "might" be offended? Hopefully not, but I can't think of any other reason for deleting the relevant portions of post #1.
Originally Posted By woody >>Do all self-identified christians support 'FOTF' in everything they do? Hopefully not.<< Again, you ignore the reason for my posts. If the vaccination controversy gotten you mad, this isn't the example because these christian parents wanted FOTF to act. FOTF advocates for children, parents, and families. They don't get involved with EVERYTHING. >>Did this post get censored because christians "might" be offended? Hopefully not, but I can't think of any other reason for deleting the relevant portions of post #1.<< Evidently thinking too highly of your significance.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> FOTF advocates for children, parents, and families. They don't get involved with EVERYTHING. << They advocate for their narrow viewpoint of morality. Remember their complaints about the opening ceremonies of the summer olympics being 'vulgar' because they portrayed pregnancy and had some implied nudity (it wasn't really - just plastic castings that were worn to simulate greek sculpture). And their concerns aren't just about their membership - they want everybody to live within the constraints that they set. They don't want TV programs to have swear words, or depictions of sexuality. They don't want anyone having sex outside of marriage, and certainly not outside of conventional heterosex. And of course they want us all to come to jesus. This is not some benign organization just looking out for the welfare of little kids. >> Evidently thinking too highly of your significance. << So you suppose my original post was reduced to take me down a peg? No wonder you believe the things you do.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <Remember their complaints about the opening ceremonies of the summer olympics being 'vulgar' because they portrayed pregnancy and had some implied nudity (it wasn't really - just plastic castings that were worn to simulate greek sculpture).> Aw jeez, makin' an outcry over art...man, they'd *really* be flustered and raise an outcry if they ever actually read any Greek myths!
Originally Posted By woody gadzuux: That's very funny. For a minute there, I thought you said Focus On The Family should stop being a Christian organization. Do you really think morality should not include those things? If you think Christian morals are too strict, there is amorality, but NEVER call it morality. It isn't. All kids should not be viewing sexual depictions. Nice for you to say it is just fine and dandy.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy This thread reminds me of the ol' "teach 'em about/hand out condoms in schools" thing from the '80s...
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> All kids should not be viewing sexual depictions. << The responsibllity for what kids see belongs with the parents. You're big on empowering the parents, right? But these folks don't want it anywhere. It offends them just by existing, whether they ever see it or not. By federal law, every tv sold in the past twelve years or so has a "V" chip which allows parents to control what can be viewed within the home. Isn't that good enough?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Fortunately, those who have responded to the topic so far probably saw the original post in it's entirety. Anybody coming in to the thread now don't have all the facts available to them to make sense of the next 81 posts.<< This explains a lot. I came into this thread late and was very confused.
Originally Posted By alexbook ^^--Well, to be fair, I'm often very confused, but this time there was a reason for it...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder One thing I still can't understand is how Focus on the Familyt thinks young girls are going to think "cool, no cervical cancer, now I can have wild animal sex." I mean really, where's the nexus between the two?
Originally Posted By mele Maybe because the vaccine also protects against genital warts? But did they even mention that part of it?
Originally Posted By ecdc "How is a religious reason not supported or sustained? Religious reasons have been supported by the courts, policy, or personal preference especially on issues of medical care." Because religion, by its very definition, is illogical. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but one person's religion is another person's superstition. Hence my opposition to determining government policy based on religion, and hence the founding fathers' same opposition. Unless you're arguing U.S. policy should be based on the Koran? "What makes a religious reason false? It is a belief that one has. No one can say one's belief is false if one continues to believe in it." But one can say it's a lousy reason to base government policy on. If Tom Cruise starts telling us tomorrow that Zenu has returned and is coming in seven years to destroy earth and we have that much time to build an intergalactic laser to stop him, then Cruise is welcome to his opinion. But the moment the government starts spending our tax dollars to build that laser, I'm going to have a problem with it. In other words, motive based on religion isn't necessarily wrong, but it's certainly suspect. By way of example, the religion I grew up in insists drinking any alcohol at all is a sin. Doctors and scientists now disagree and suggest a glass of wine a day can be good for one's health. Those adherents to my religion are more than welcome to disagree and continue to abstain from drinking. But basing policy on their belief by enacting prohibition would be wrong and forcing one's religious belief on others who don't share that belief. Other religious beliefs find support among the scientific and medical communities. Most religions oppose physical abuse of children; I'm happy to back them up because there's more to go on than just "cause my god said so". "We all know how liberals like to foist their immorality on others so what's the point?" A dig not worth commenting on, and we certainly don't all "know" it. Again, one person's immorality is anothers morality. You don't have all the answers Woody, just because you choose to believe in what I would deem a superstition. "There is no medium. You fail to notice that calling for non-mandatory treatment is the middle ground." No I don't. What I fail to notice is FOTF making a cogent argument that isn't based on unverifiable religious paranoia about teen sex. I don't so much have an issue with whether or not it's mandatory - that perhaps should be up to parents. I do have an issue with FOTF arguing that whether or not it's mandatory should be determined by their religious concerns - concerns many of us don't share or believe in. Again, it's a terrible (and unconstitutional) way to determine government policy, any more than saying there should be a new law that three times a day we all have to face Mecca and pray.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So the question is - how do you reconcile actions by our current neo-con government that fly in the face of what could be called 'goldwater' conservative values?> As I implied in post 77, I don't believe our current government can be considered neo-cons. It's not really reasonable to expect a strict allegience to a set of principles and have a "big tent" majority; some compromises have to made.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Post 97 contains the words "Tom Cruise"...ADMIN material if I ever saw it! ;-)
