Religion, Sex, and Politics

To balance out my blog, in keeping with its title, I’ve been waiting for a story on sex that riled me up a bit. I got close on the story of the California mother of six who gave birth in January to octuplets. A single mom [corrected], she now has sole responsibility for 14 children, eight of whom are infants. There is no way those children are going to get the parental attention children need. And clearly, she has obligated others - including the taxpayers of her state - to help shoulder the responsibility and costs. But it’s so blatantly stupid that I didn’t comment... until now.

But here’s the story that got me going today: In the UK, the government has issued a new guide to help parents talk to their children about sex. And one of their pieces of advice is that parents should not tell their children what is right or wrong regarding sex. They should let the children decide for themselves.

The article in the UK Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk) dated Feb. 27, 2009, is titled:
"Parents should NOT tell their children what is 'right or wrong' about having sex, say ministers"

(Please note that "ministers" here does not mean clergy, but government officials!)

The article contains this passage:

But, while parents are warned against giving moral guidance, they are encouraged to get their children to use condoms and other contraception from the age of 13.

How ludicrous and dangerous that it's OK to give condoms but not guidance! Parents are not supposed to share their value system with their children (says the UK government)? The mature are not supposed to pass on wisdom about this life-altering topic to the immature? And if you hand your 13-year-old birth control and say nothing, you have just sent a fuzzy message about right and wrong without saying a word.

When I meet people who, as adults, are still searching and wandering and unsteady and desperate for a solid foundation - because no one in their childhood ever bothered to give them clear, solid, healthy values for living - I say, "he/she was 'raised by wolves.'" By that, I mean that this poor soul was left to be raised by the culture, left to the wild forces around them for guidance and truth. No wonder they, as adults, live in a constant state of desperation and chaos.

And the metaphor "wolves" certainly seems to apply when we surrender our children's values and decisions about sexuality to the culture and the voices who will be glad to step in and tell them what’s right and wrong, exploiting their bodies for someone else's profit.

So the government is telling us how to manage our values on sexuality? These are the same people who penetrate White House interns with cigars, who pick up homosexual partners in airport restrooms, who are listed as "Client #9" on some high-end pimp's list of regulars. The most casual of Google searches on government scandal turns up headlines like:

Sex For Oil Scandal At Interior Department
September 10, 2008

Senior diplomat resigns in sex scandal
April 28, 2007

Senator's Number on 'Madam' Phone List
July 10, 2007

And the very same attitudes that have led these UK government officials to want to usurp the parental role, or squelch the parental role, can be found among people in office in our own country.

Parents, your children need YOUR values and guidance. They don't need to be raised by "wolves," even if the wolves have a governmental title. No, they may not follow your values, or heed your guidance. But at least they will know where you stand and why, and that will provide them a solid foundation as they build their own lives, one choice at a time.

It made quite a splash (groan) when Olympic Swimming Champion Michael Phelps was caught on camera taking a bong hit. And it seems it will be costing him mega-bucks in sponsorships. I certainly don't wish him ill, but I guess parents have to be relieved that we have an example of an athlete whose improper actions really do have real-world consequences.

To his credit, Phelps publicly expressed embarrassment and regret. We might hear some say, "Yes, but was he sincere." I'd prefer in all such cases to assume sincerity. I am not qualified or able to judge the state of someone else's heart. Behavior is somewhat objective, but the level of remorse can only be judged by God.

And, on some level, I actually feel bad for the guy, for several reasons. First, I have done more than my share of dumb, career-altering things. But I've never been famous enough to warrant being watched 24/7. Nor did my years of peak stupidity occur in the days of cellphone cameras. As the old folks say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

It wasn't a long, planned-out offense, like a congressman's carefully crafted plan to line his own pockets with secret, under the table deals, a la Duke Cunningham. It appears to have been an "in the moment" lapse in judgment. We've all been there.

And, hey, don't forget that of our most recent Presidents, two of them admitting to smoking marijuana (though one didn't inhale), and the President in the middle spent years battling alcohol abuse. And those facts didn't cost them the Presidency. So I hope there is redemption around the corner for Michael.

I am also not qualified to say with authority which sins are "big" sins and which are "little" sins, but I have to think that abusing marijuana is a much less serious offense than abusing another human being. And there are plenty of famous people - sports figures and others - who use and abuse their fellow human beings regularly. It's just so much harder to photograph that.

So, Michael, thank you for being specific, prompt, and accountable in taking responsibility and apologizing for your indiscretion. I hope I will do as well in my next moment of stupidity.

Those of you who know me know I am a conservative. I believe in fiscal restraint. I believe that government is just as often the problem as it is the answer, so I am for a very limited government. Because of that, I haven't been all that thrilled with Republicans lately, and I'm certainly no fan of the Democrats' gigantic and bloated "bailout" legislation. (That in the interest of full disclosure.)

Nevertheless, I am in favor of giving our new President a fair shake. I care little about what politicians say. It's what they actually do that matters. So I was willing to reserve comment until he had done a few things.

But I cannot express my complete disdain and outrage over two of our new President's appointments: Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, and Tom Daschle as head of Health and Human Services. Even with Daschle's resignation, it doesn't mitigate the fact that Obama pressed forward on these nominations even after it had come to light that they had failed to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes. The same people who will talk about raising our taxes, because of a need for revenue and out of compassion for those who have less, have demonstrated that they feel no obligation to follow the law and do their share. It seems compassion, for them, is dipping into the pockets of others, but guarding their own.

I am reminded of the story I heard of Paul and Linda McCartney in England. When government revenue was down, they publicly spoke out in favor of higher taxes as a patriotic duty and the compassionate thing to do. But when Linda McCartney died, we learned that he family had "worked the system" using her U.S. citizenship to avoid the 40% death taxes on her multi-million dollar estate - a nice speech about paying taxes, while they got lawyers to protect their assets from taxation. (I did verify this story.)

I am completely unconcerned with a person's party affiliation. But I am absolutely concerned with whether or not the people leading our government and spending our money do or do not have the integrity to pay the same taxes they require us to pay, and whether or not they show the same compassion for those with less that they lecture others about.

For heaven's sake, Geithner will be in charge of the IRS - the people who would freeze our assets and prosecute us if we did even a fraction of what he has done.

Mr. President, your complete lack of concern about these blatant breeches of basic integrity show me that integrity doesn't matter to you. And that saddens me most of all. As a follower of Christ, that's "Change I Cannot Believe In." What follower of Christ, what lover of righteousness could?