In the words of the great philosopher, Borat Sagdiyev, “Sexy time!”

Macleans recently ran an interesting, if a tad lengthy, article on sex education in public schools.  According to the article, a great number of schools in Canada and the United States are making significant changes to their sex ed programs.   Where once the focus was on STIs, pregnancy, and contraceptives, some public schooling institutions are ostensibly switching to what Macleans’ Lianne George says are curricula “guided by a philosophy of inclusive, non-threatening, pleasure-focused sex education.”  In short, safe-sex has taken a back seat to good sex.

A number of Toronto schools have been visited by Carlyle Jansen, founder and proprietor of Good For Her, a women-focuses sex shop in downtown toronto.  Ms. Jansen has filled in where public school teachers have left a void.  And understandably so, sex ed. in most schools isn’t it’s own program, and so is often undertaken by teachers who know more about Chemistry or English than teenage sexuality.

In her workshops, Jansen covers the gamut.   Everything from blow-jobs to plush pink vulva puppets to dildos is fair game. Clearly, this ain’t your momma’s sex ed. class.  Jansen, however, would disagree that the focus has shifted from safe sex.  She says that, hidden beneath lessons on how to give good head, are safer-sex messages.  “What we have found,” says Jansen “is if you talk about how to prevent STIs, youth tune you out… There are safer-sex messages implicit in what we say, but it’s within a package that’s more interesting to them.”

Jansen isn’t the only one pioneering the shift from safe sex to great sex.  A Washington-based non-profit organization called the Coalition for Positive Sexuality supplies frank sex information for teens.   The site advises teenagers on a variety of sexual matters.   One page provides a fairly explicit list of “sex alternatives,” which includes suggestions like watching pornography or engaging in mutual masturbation.  The Coalition’s site also delves into the controversial issue of abortion, with a markedly pro-choice lean.  “Any reason we have for choosing abortion is a good reason. These are our bodies and our lives. No one has the right to force us to have a baby, or to punish us for liking sex,” reads the site.  It later admonishes pregnant teenage girls to avoid Pregnancy Crisis Centres and abortion alternatives, referring to these non-profits as “bogus clinics” that will “try to scare you out of having an abortion.”

But not everyone agrees with this new shift in sex education.  Dr. Miriam Grossman, a former UCLA campus psychiatrist and author of “You’re Teaching What?” is one fairly prominent dissident voice.  Dr. Grossman feels that sex ed. has been “steeped in liberal ideology.”   She says that if educators want to get serious about children’s sexual health, they must concern themselves with “fighting herpes and syphilis, not sexism and homophobia.”  Grossman believes that there is a “catastrophe” evidenced by climbing STI infection rates, and she believes that this catastrophe has been brought on by too much sexual permissiveness; too much education, as opposed to too little.

Jansen and Dr. Grossman are just two examples of conflicting ideologues.  Sex ed. has, historically, been a difficult subject, complicated by vast religious, social, moral, and medical viewpoints.   And, largely, the onus has fallen on teachers to navigate that minefield of differences.  Even more complicating is the fact that parents, too, have different viewpoints on how far is too far – or, not far enough.  Additionally, sex ed. programs that are too in-depth or advanced can sometimes make the less sexually-experienced students feel inadequate.   And, even more complicating, you have first-generation immigrants who come from nations where female genital mutilation is practiced; coming from a culture that practices FGM to one where dildos and clitoral vibrators are commonplace can leave students culture-shocked.

Regardless of your persuasion, whether you agree with Grossman or are more of a Jansenite, I think we can all agree that leaving such the huge responsibility of educating young people about their bodies to public institutions alone is erroneous.  The focus, I feel, should be on educating parents, who can then filter, to their discretion, what they want their children to hear, and when.  Parents often don’t know how (or don’t want to) bring up sex ed. with their children, and so equipping moms and dads with the knowledge to do so would work wonders, and would provide a more balanced education that isn’t too permissive, nor excessively lacking in it’s scope.

The Social Gospel

I’m reading the Gospel of Mark in Dr. William Barclay’s “Daily Study Bible” series. Dr. Barclay wrote these some years ago, and they are studies of Books of the New Testament with commentary and discussion. I picked this one up at a free book exchange, and I really plan on trying to find the rest, they’re amazing Biblical commentary in pretty simple terms. Of his series, Barclay wrote, “I decided I must dedicate my life to making scholarship available for the layman, so that he may know better his Bible, his God, and his Saviour.” Dr Barclay was a Church of Scotland minister and Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.

Anyway, I’m reading Barclay’s commentary and dissection of Mark 1:25-29. This passage reads:

And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed. And Simon and those who were with him searched for him, and they found him and said to him,”Everyone is looking for you.” And he said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. (ESV)

Dr Barclay basically discusses that Jesus never had words without action, and that Jesus gave so much (not even talking about the Cross yet! ) that he scarcely could even find the time to pray.

Barclay then beautifully writes, “Missions do not only take the Bible; they take education and medicine; they take the school and the hospital. It is quite wrong to talk about the ’social gospel’ as if it were an extra, or an option, or even a separate part of the Christian message.”

I, for one, agree. The “social gospel,” or, helping people, is important. No, works cannot get us into heaven. We are, and always will be, unworthy without Jesus’ blood. But faith without works is dead and useless. (James 2:20)

Not only is the “social gospel” important and a Christian duty, it is also a tool for evangelism. Hardly anyone is ever converted by debate, but by love, selflessness, and self-sacrifice for the good of others. These things cannot be debated, or ignored. They cannot be graded, measured, or quantified. They cannot be disputed. They can only be seen and, more importantly, felt.

Jesus did not sit in a study by the fire, puffing away on a pipe and musing. He went out among the rich and the poor, the believers and the non-believers, and showed them and what it is to love. He says to Christians, “They will know you follow me by your love.” (John 13:34-35) Would Jesus know we were His followers if, hypothetically, he could only base that assessment on our actions?

Jesus is the Good News, and we are ordained by Him to share it. Do we, as the body of Christ, go out into the world of non-believers bearing love and Good News? Or do we go spreading something else?

Religion and faith as social adhesives

A few months ago, I wrote an article on Halifax’s transit company, Metro Transit, and their refusal to run the “Atheist Bus Ads” of Humanist Canada.  The article is available here on the blog, entitled “Metro Transit won’t use your ads? Big deal. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.”  I also published the article as an editorial in Acadia University’s student paper, the Athenaeum. (You’ll note the latter incarnation of the piece is titled differently.)

Fortunately, my efforts weren’t entirely for naught, as Acadia student Andrew Williams responded to my article with a letter to the paper.  I originally planned to respond to Mr. Williams’ opinions specifically in a follow-up in the Athenaeum, but I got busy and time ran out.  This blog post was generated, partially, from what I originally was working on in that response, and for that I thank Mr. Williams.

In his letter, Andrew Williams writes,

“If it’s the common ground you’re worried about, perhaps you should look at Christianities or Islam’s long history of attempted reconciliation. Oh wait, there isn’t a long history because both religions are shockingly intolerant of anyone who goes against them.”

This appeal to the violent pasts of religion is not a new one.  Most Christians are aware of the insidious brutality of the Spanish Inquisition, the cruel barbarity of the Crusades.  While the concerns raised by Williams and others are legitimate, it is important to note that these injustices are by no means indicitive of what it truly means to follow Christ.  To quote Christian thinker, apologetic, missionary, and teacher Shane Claiborne, “Perhaps one of the most powerful things the contemporary church could do is to confess our sins to the world, to humbly get on our knees and repent for the terrible things we have done in the name of God”

You’ll find that many congregations, knowingly or not, have followed Claiborne’s advice.

In fact, the recent Notre Dame Congregational Study provides some interesting statistics, which Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle outlines in his blog.  According to the study, Christian congregations “account for half of the volunteer sector in the U.S.”

Driscoll also writes that:

• 94 percent of congregations have a social service ministry; 84 percent have an educational or counseling ministry; and 78 percent have an evangelistic or religious outreach ministry.

• 44 percent of congregations reported mission and service trips, 32 percent offer prison ministry, 30 percent offer street evangelism, and 22 percent provide college campus ministry.

• 81 percent of congregations help others through food pantries or soup kitchens, 73 percent through cash assistance for the less fortunate, 68 percent through clothing donations, 43 percent through assistance for seniors, 43 percent through service trips to poor communities, and 40 percent through home repair for those in need.

• In 2006, about 56 percent of congregations gave money to U.S.-based organizations providing relief and development overseas. 33 percent gave donations directly to programs or organizations in foreign countries, and 35 percent reported that people from their congregation went on short-term mission or service trips overseas. About half of congregations supported other types of mission trips or missionaries overseas.

• Congregations gave about $7 billion in 2006 to support the needy in foreign countries. About $3.8 billion of this amount went directly to overseas causes.

Clearly, from looking at these figures, we can see that religious congregations and fellowship are not remnants of an out-dated, archaic system, but significant players in the alleviation of poverty and suffering in our world.

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” – 1 John 3:17-18

And what of the nigh infamous response of the Nickel Mines Amish?  After their children were slaughtered by a gunman, they responded with love and kindness, forgiving the family of the shooter and opening a charity fund for them.  According to reports, one of the Amish men who lost his daughter in the shootings held the father of the perpetrator in his arms for about an hour while the man sobbed.  Clearly, this is true justice, not fed on vindictiveness or vengeance, but on mercy and love.  This, then, is another prime example of the “reconciliation” that Mr. Williams was talking about.

Miss California’s answer shows a great amount of guts and chutzpah

Well, this issue has got a lot of different people up in arms, so I’d be remiss not to comment on it. Miss California Carrie Prejean is coming under fire by a number of groups for one of her answers at the recent Miss USA pageant.

Internet blogger and celebrity gossip magnate Perez Hilton sat on the panel of judges, and during the Q and A period, posed the following question to Miss Prejean:

“Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

To which Miss California replied:

“Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” she said. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Perez Hilton called the comment the “worst answer in pageant history.”  Not only is this simply not true, it raises the question of whether or not Mr. Hilton saw the 2007 Miss America pageant where Miss South Carolina gave the most infamous of non-answers.

Miss Prejean showed admirable fortitude when she challenged what is steadily becoming the orthodoxy in Western culture, and even more admirably, she did so respectfully.  Gay bashers and the rioters in California who assaulted evangelical Christians and Mormons alike should take a page from Miss Prejean’s book.  She held true to her own moral views, without slamming them down the throats of others. Pageants are notorious for superficiality and fakeness, and Miss Prejean’s candid answer was a welcome beacon of authenticity in a sea of pretentiousness.

One has to consider, too, the sheer irony of Mr. Hilton calling out Miss Prejean for her viewpoints.  For those of you unfamiliar with Perez Hilton, his blog reads like a tabloid on steroids.  He insults, ridicules, and attacks public figures, spewing vitriol where he sees fit.  One of his most notable recurring “jokes” is to edit photos of celebrities, politicians, and public figures that he does not like so it appears that they have semen dripping out of their mouths, or cocaine under their noses.  Is such a man’s commentary on moral, political, and social issues even relevant?  More over, how did someone with such a destructive, vindictive personality manage to become a Miss America judge?

According to ABC News, Hilton stated, “She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that.”

Miss Prejean concurred, “It did cost me my crown.. I wouldn’t have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself and that’s all I can do.”

Carrie Prejean, Miss California

Your opinions of gay marriage aside, you cannot help but look at Miss Prejean and see that this is what public dialogue and democratic participation are all about.  Miss Prejean should be applauded for her confidence to state her culturally unorthodox opinion, and her sensitivity and love to do so respectfully and non-judgmentally.

While Miss Prejean may not have one the title of Miss America, she certainly deserves credit for taking a step in the right direction for freedom of speech for EVERYONE, not just the mainstream.

Update on the Galloway situation

While Canadian Border Services banned MP George Galloway from entering Canada, and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney agreed with the decision and chose not to intervene.

Galloway, with the help of his supporters, took the case to the courts (which are apparently back-logged for Canadians, but a foreign dignitary with suspected terrorist sympathies can get his case done in a matter of weeks.)  The court upheld the decision as well, and so now Galloway’s talks will have to be beamed in electronically from America, a back-up plan that Galloway and his fans created almost immediately following the MP’s denial of entry into Canada.

Funny how a lot of Canadians smear America for being authoritarian, and then this happens.

Is free speech going to the Gallow…ays?

British Member of Parliament George Galloway has been banned from coming to Canada to give a series of talks across the country on war prevention and the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. Mr. Galloway is the sole elected member of Britian’s Respect Party, which has ties with the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the International Socialist Group, and other left-wing organizations and parties. Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney supported the judgment taken by border officials to bar Mr. Galloway from entering Canada.

According to a spokesperson for Minister Kenney, Galloway is being suspended not for his political views, which are staunchly far-left, but because he has donated funds to Hamas, the current governing party in Gaza. Hamas has been labeled as a terrorist group by the Harper government, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bans those who provide material support for terrorist groups from entering the country.

Proponents and allies of Galloway are rejecting this notion, arguing that the donations were humanitarian in nature, and done under the banner of the Red Crescent, and aid organization affiliated with the Red Cross.

Many people have been criticizing the Harper government’s decision to ban Galloway from entering the country, from Liberal leader Michael Ignatief to New Democratic Party MP Olivia Chow, and a variety of others. They are calling the ban politically-motivated and defending the cause of free speech.

While free speech is important, and it’s defense admirable, these allies of Mr. Galloway have not been as vocal in other instances where the right to free speech has been challenged.

Where were the supporters of Galloway when now-Prime Minister Delegate of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu was banned from speaking at Concordia because of violent, militant protestors? Where were the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech when CUPE tried to silence Israeli professors? Why aren’t the masses crying out at the censorship of campus pro-life groups, such as the Campus Pro-Life club at the University of Calgary? When Concordia forced Hillel, a Jewish student club, to shut down, why didn’t the masses speak out as they are now? When a pro-life seminar put on at Saint Mary’s was harassed by protestors, why did the administration side with the protestors and not the student group who were following the rules and regulations?

The lack of defense for these issues was, like Mr. Galloway’s ban, politically motivated. While I am sure there are many people who disagree with Galloway’s ban and the plethora of examples I gave above, the majority of Galloway’s allies are left-wing or centre-left, and therefore the censorship of pro-life or pro-Israel persons does not concern them.

Free speech defenders on both sides of the political spectrum are wanton in their usage of the old idiom, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” often misattributed to the French philosopher Voltaire but actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. However, recent history has shown us that this is not the case. Not only are most people (and public officials) unable to “defend to the death” an opposing view, they cannot be even bothered to defend it, period. I’m not saying that we should all be free speech watchdogs or anything, but Hall’s idiom gets thrown around far to much for a society that will only bestir itself when a) someone who shares their own views is being censored, or b) to score political points for condemning the actions of a rival. Opposing Harper has become so important to so many left, centre-left, and moderate Canadians that we can’t even be consistent in our condemnations. When Fox News pundit Greg Gutfield made a comment that insulted Canadian soldiers, many called for censorship of him.

The calls for Galloway to be let in coming from Liberal and New Democratic MPs are just as politically-motivated as the Harper government’s original barring of him in the first place. While there is nothing wrong with playing “politics as usual” and trying to score political points for combating censorship, it shouldn’t be dressed up as a defense of the ideals of free speech when that clearly is not the case.

Making good of a bad situation

Photo Taken from http://hackaday.com

This. Is. Awesome.

So a guy loses his finger, and what does he do?

Whine and complain? Nope.

Find somebody to sue?  You’d think, but no.

Instead, he sees a window of opportunity in his loss, and added a prostethic one, complete with a USB drive.

With the economy on a downward spiral, with banks and large corporations and small businesses going under and cutting back, it’s important that we model the creative adaptation of this young man, and realize that in our time of loss and uncertainty, there is an opportunity to find some good… Or something.