The Dangerous Christian Right
The Christian Right is obviously a danger, or at least that's what the MSM (Main Stream Media) would have you believe. For example, have a look at this article on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521/bs_nm/bizfeature_merck_vaccine_dc_1
Merek has come up with a vaccine against a number of sexually transmitted viruses that cause cervical cancer (note that cervical cancer is extremely rare when two virgins marry and are faithful to each other). Some members of the Christian Right have expressed concerns that this vaccine could cause people to think promiscuity is safe. Maybe this is a valid concern, or maybe it isn't. But the real danger is not the Christian Right. I would say the real danger is Merek, who is campaigning to make this vaccination mandatory for children who wish to attend public schools. Yes, you read correctly. While all other mandatory vaccinations are to prevent diseases caused by casual contact, this one is to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. When a vaccine against AIDS is developed, will it be mandatory? Just crazy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521/bs_nm/bizfeature_merck_vaccine_dc_1
Merek has come up with a vaccine against a number of sexually transmitted viruses that cause cervical cancer (note that cervical cancer is extremely rare when two virgins marry and are faithful to each other). Some members of the Christian Right have expressed concerns that this vaccine could cause people to think promiscuity is safe. Maybe this is a valid concern, or maybe it isn't. But the real danger is not the Christian Right. I would say the real danger is Merek, who is campaigning to make this vaccination mandatory for children who wish to attend public schools. Yes, you read correctly. While all other mandatory vaccinations are to prevent diseases caused by casual contact, this one is to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. When a vaccine against AIDS is developed, will it be mandatory? Just crazy.
posted by Shawn Abigail at 10:35 p.m.
5 Comments:
Call me crazy, but cervical cancer doesn't necessarily come from sexual activity, and neither does AIDS, so if a vaccination is available, I'd say you'd have to be an insensate moron to deny it to children. Unless somehow one gets off on the thought of a child dying from AIDS contracted non-sexually.
Obviously the author of this post has never had cancer at a young age. I, on the other hand, have, and I think these comments are about as Christian as mass genocide. Quality thoughts, preacha man!
Hi Blake,
I must have hit a nerve in my comments over on Christian Conservative. You posted a long reply there, added a couple of comments to my blog (where you called be an insensate moron), and criticized me on your blog (calling me a "tool"). Very gracious indeed. I'll reply, but if you respond, please try to respond to what I'm actually saying and not to what you think I'm saying.
Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women under the age of 40 who are not sexually active or who are in a mutually monogamous relationship. It is the fact that most cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus that has allowed Merek to create a vaccine.
No I am not criticizing Merek for creating a vaccine. I think the vaccine is a good thing. And I said that the Christian Right may or may not have valid concerns about promiscuity. What I am criticizing is the idea that this vaccine should be mandatory for all school children. I have two reasons for my concern. First, it seems to be driven primarily by Merek's profit motive. Second, as a Christian I am worried by an attitude prevelant in the world that says, "Children are going to have sex whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it, so we may as well try to shield them from the consequences of their actions." From a Christian point of view, sex should wait until marriage, and I think this should be encouraged.
As for the vaccine, I think it should be available to any adults who want it, and if adults want their children to have it, that's fine too. They can go see their family doctor and get the vaccine, rather than lining up at school.
The last part of your posting is somewhat odd. You seem to be suggesting that only people who have had cancer can comment on this issue. I guess using this same logic, only homosexuals should be able to debate same sex marriage, and only people who are part of a religion should be able to discuss religious issues, etc. I think you added this comment because you are upset with my comments on Christian Conservative, not because it represents your actual viewpoint. You strike me as someone who is thinking hard about the issues of life. Even if you have an "edge", you are not willing to stand for the pat answers. The idea that I can't comment because I haven't had cancer and that my view is akin to mass genocide seems to lack the logical thinking you have demonstrated in the past.
You take some decidedly impersonal comments from me and made them personal. If you took any offense from that, I am sorry: I will explain myself and attempt to divest myself of that, because evidently I don't communicate myself well.
On the first count, I said, "if a vaccination is available, I'd say you'd have to be an insensate moron to deny it to children." I didn't say you specifically were an insensate moron, I was speaking generally - or attempting to. I should have used the impersonal pronoun "one" there, and that probably would have been more clear. That is my fault. I assumed a reader would take it one way, and it's my fault for not being clear.
I never equated you with mass genocide, I stated that this kind of thinking is as Christian as mass genocide. I probably could have been far more charitable in my choice of words, which needlessly provoked some hard feelings, and I do apologize to you for that. However, I never limited this discussion to survivors of cancer. That's your interpolation; I merely observed that had one experienced that disease, you might have a different perspective, so kindly consider that particular perspective.
What I will say is that if this vaccination was for an airborne virus, or a virus obtained by eating spoiled foods or something, there would be no discussion of this whatsoever, and if the vaccination were not forced upon children, there'd be howls of bloody murder as they died. But apparently sex is all dirty and bad and if you contract a horrible disease like AIDS or cervical cancer sexually, you've got it coming to you and deserve it. I believe that's a horrible way to think, and if it were your daughter or son or wife or friend who had any of those diseases, you'd be pretty hacked off if you knew there was a way of preventing it and they didn't get it, no matter how they contracted it. I know I would.
Do you notice the trend of me constantly pointing out "double standards"? Maybe I've got a point? Worthy of consideration, at least.
"Second, as a Christian I am worried by an attitude prevelant in the world that says, "Children are going to have sex whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it, so we may as well try to shield them from the consequences of their actions." From a Christian point of view, sex should wait until marriage, and I think this should be encouraged."
But the fact is, many children (or at least teens) ARE going to have sex regardless of what Christians want, so I would think it would be better to protect them than to stick our heads in the sand and hope they don't.
And to want to use a deadly disease like AIDS or cervical cancer as an object lesson for some sexual ethic is somewhat barbaric. On a good day. On a bad day, it's just inhuman.
Post a Comment
<< Home