There is a program called the Silver Ring Thing that has as one of its goals promoting a reduction in teen pregnancy through abstinence. That’s all well and good.
In communities such as Edinburgh, teenage pregnancy has become epidemic. In some schools, being pregnant is almost a status symbol.
And, of course, there’s show-and-tell time when the pregnancy is over and the new teen mom brings her bundle of joy to school to show to her classmates.
The Silver Ring Thing is a nationwide Christian-based program that goes into churches and puts on shows that include music, comedy skits, and messages about staying abstinent. Participants are given silver rings and are asked to make a pledge to remain abstinent from sex until they are married.
The rings are inscribed with a Bible verse encouraging Christians to remain holy and refrain from sexual sin.
Well, that’s all fine a good, unless your belief system doesn’t identify premarital sex as a sin. And even if it doesn’t, I think most of us can agree that young teens that are still in school should not be having sex.
There really isn’t anything wrong with the Silver Ring Thing program, except for the way that it has been funded. The Bush administration has given the program more than $1 million over the past three years to fund its proselytizing activities. Teens who attend the program are invited to testify for Jesus.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government for misuse of public funds. Last week, the Bush administration agreed to stand down and put an end to taxpayer funding of the program.
“Public funds were being used to fund a road show, really, to convert teens to Christianity,” said Julie Sternberg, an ACLU attorney.
The ACLU has no problem with the program itself, as long as taxpayers don’t have to pay for it. And now, the program can continue with private donations as its source of income.
The Alliance Defense Fund represented the Silver Ring Thing program in court. It is a religious organization that represents its clients rights to, “hear and speak the truth,” as its Web site proclaims.
Also on its Web site, the Alliance Defense Fund states, “We rely solely upon God's redemptive grace for our existence, our vision, and our sustenance, trusting in His sovereignty as we seek to convey hope to all we serve.”
Promoting teen abstinence is laudable, whether it’s done using prudish religious dogma or encouraged with less formal pragmatism. But if public funds are used to fund teen abstinence programs, those programs should be strictly secular in nature.
The Alliance Defense Fund lawyers say that teens could choose between a religious program and a secular one. But since the programs are held in a church environment, and since the organization itself is Christian in nature, there was probably very little actual choice involved.
The ACLU victory is a tiny step in the battle to keep Bush from turning this country into a theocracy run by Christian fundamentalists like him. But it was a victory, nonetheless.
Americans who value true religious freedom need to keep plugging away to thwart further efforts by Bush to indoctrinate America with his own brand of morality.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Bill Would Make School Snacks Healthier
Many years ago, when I was in school, our cafeteria served a single line of food. A student could either eat what was on the line, or bring his own food from home. And our drink choices were even smaller. We had milk, white milk.
We had no vending machines until my second year of high school. And then our only choice of food product was yellow apples or red apples. We couldn’t purchase soft drinks, candy, cookies, cakes, chips, or flavored milk.
Today, students have a wide variety of food choices, both in and out of the cafeteria. Many schools have soft drink vending machines scattered throughout the building. Other vending machines sell potato chips, candy, and other sugar-ridden snacks.
Cafeterias offer a la carte items, including French fries, fruit flavored drinks that are not much more than flavored sugar water, and ice cream.
There is a growing problem with childhood obesity in this country. Not everyone believes that kids are getting fat because of what they eat at school, but it does contribute.
For that reason, the Indiana General Assembly is prepared this year to finally pass legislation that will help address the issue of what kind of junk food school children are allowed to purchase.
The Indiana Senate last week passed Senate Bill 111 that would place restrictions on what kind of snacks qualify as healthy and what percentage of unhealthy snacks vending machines are allowed to contain.
The bill is a good first step, but it is far from perfect.
For example, the bill requires that only 35 percent of snacks sold at school be of the more healthful variety beginning this year, going up to 50 percent in 2007. When given such a choice, which side of the vending machine will students be more likely to spend their money on?
A better bill would outright prohibit the sale of unhealthy junk food during school hours from vending machines and from the cafeteria. But such a bill would be unlikely to pass since it would be opposed by the snack food companies.
The Indiana Vending Council and Hoosier Beverage Association both support the bill in its current form. That should send up a red flag that maybe the bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Still, it’s better than nothing. And it does present kids with better options than they might otherwise have.
But even the so-called healthier snack foods may not be all that healthy. The guidelines provide that the healthier options must not provide more than 30 percent of their calories from fat, or 10 percent from saturated or trans fat. There is a 210-calorie limit as well as a 20-ounce limit for beverages, which do include the sugar-laden sports beverages.
In addition, to qualify, a snack cannot contain more sugar than 35 percent of its total weight. That still could add up to more sugar than what should be considered “healthy.” Caffeinated beverages and sugar-sweetened soft drinks are also not on the healthier snacks list.
Realizing that snack foods by themselves have not made our children obese, but that lack of exercise has also played a role, state legislators also added a physical activity clause to the bill. It doesn’t actually mandate any kind of activity, but it does require schools to provide time for it.
The bill still needs to be passed by the full House and then be signed into law by the governor. But since every group that might have opposed it seems to support it, most lawmakers see no problem for the bill in the House. And a governor’s office spokesperson said the governor agrees with the bill in its current form.
So, unless something unexpected happens, school kids will have some healthier snack choices come September. We can hope they choose to take advantage of them.
We had no vending machines until my second year of high school. And then our only choice of food product was yellow apples or red apples. We couldn’t purchase soft drinks, candy, cookies, cakes, chips, or flavored milk.
Today, students have a wide variety of food choices, both in and out of the cafeteria. Many schools have soft drink vending machines scattered throughout the building. Other vending machines sell potato chips, candy, and other sugar-ridden snacks.
Cafeterias offer a la carte items, including French fries, fruit flavored drinks that are not much more than flavored sugar water, and ice cream.
There is a growing problem with childhood obesity in this country. Not everyone believes that kids are getting fat because of what they eat at school, but it does contribute.
For that reason, the Indiana General Assembly is prepared this year to finally pass legislation that will help address the issue of what kind of junk food school children are allowed to purchase.
The Indiana Senate last week passed Senate Bill 111 that would place restrictions on what kind of snacks qualify as healthy and what percentage of unhealthy snacks vending machines are allowed to contain.
The bill is a good first step, but it is far from perfect.
For example, the bill requires that only 35 percent of snacks sold at school be of the more healthful variety beginning this year, going up to 50 percent in 2007. When given such a choice, which side of the vending machine will students be more likely to spend their money on?
A better bill would outright prohibit the sale of unhealthy junk food during school hours from vending machines and from the cafeteria. But such a bill would be unlikely to pass since it would be opposed by the snack food companies.
The Indiana Vending Council and Hoosier Beverage Association both support the bill in its current form. That should send up a red flag that maybe the bill doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Still, it’s better than nothing. And it does present kids with better options than they might otherwise have.
But even the so-called healthier snack foods may not be all that healthy. The guidelines provide that the healthier options must not provide more than 30 percent of their calories from fat, or 10 percent from saturated or trans fat. There is a 210-calorie limit as well as a 20-ounce limit for beverages, which do include the sugar-laden sports beverages.
In addition, to qualify, a snack cannot contain more sugar than 35 percent of its total weight. That still could add up to more sugar than what should be considered “healthy.” Caffeinated beverages and sugar-sweetened soft drinks are also not on the healthier snacks list.
Realizing that snack foods by themselves have not made our children obese, but that lack of exercise has also played a role, state legislators also added a physical activity clause to the bill. It doesn’t actually mandate any kind of activity, but it does require schools to provide time for it.
The bill still needs to be passed by the full House and then be signed into law by the governor. But since every group that might have opposed it seems to support it, most lawmakers see no problem for the bill in the House. And a governor’s office spokesperson said the governor agrees with the bill in its current form.
So, unless something unexpected happens, school kids will have some healthier snack choices come September. We can hope they choose to take advantage of them.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
What Does it Mean to be Christian?
I'm a Christian.
The above sentence is not only a declaration of what I believe, it also should raise a red flag. If someone starts off a sentence with "I'm a Christian," especially when in a confrontational situation, it could be that they are trying to not only convince you of their moral superiority, but that they are attempting to assuage their own doubts about their position.
More typically, a person who calls himself or herself a Christian does so with the intent of evoking superior moral character, so that whatever comes after must be weighed against not only their personal opinion, but the collective opinions of God and the Christian community. So why bother to debate at all, since in their minds, they have already won.
I'm a Christian, but not in the same sense that most Christians, especially fundamentalists, might imagine when they hear the word. In other words, I am not a bible-thumping, proselytizing, Jesus freak.
I'm only a Christian for lack of a better word. I believe that Jesus was a great man and I believe it would generally be a good idea to base one's life around his teachings, as long as those teachings are applied to the maturation level of present-day society, and not necessarily to the agrarian, and sometimes barbaric, society that existed in Jesus' day.
Is Jesus the son of God? In one sense, perhaps we all are children of God, so that makes Jesus one, too. But he had, arguably, a much better understanding of God than most of us do even today. He was one of those very few special people who got it. And he was trying to teach it to the masses who didn't.
Jesus is a path to Heaven, if such a place exists. And I believe it does, but not as depicted in the pages of the bible. I also believe that Jesus is but one path to enlightenment. There may be many others.
The bottom line is, with my brand of Christianity, which I assert is no less bona fide than what might be considered mainstream Christianity, nobody knows the mind of God. Maybe Jesus came close. But possessing that knowledge is a rare gift that Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other persons of religion have not acquired.
The difference between most other Christians and me is that I will readily admit to not knowing anything about what God wants of us, if anything. I do not know the nature of God, and therefore, cannot base my life around what I think he might be like.
I believe that Jesus is a conduit to eventual enlightenment. And in that sense, he is a conduit to salvation. I believe to be "born again" is to become enlightened. And in that sense, most of those who profess to being born again are just the opposite of my definition of the phrase.
Most born-again Christians have given their lives and souls over to their image of Christ, and in doing so have given their minds as well. When you give up your mind to a cause or conviction, you've given up the search for enlightenment, because in your own mind, you've already achieved it.
So, yes, I'm a Christian. But I'm an agnostic Christian, using the term's root meaning of "without knowledge." And being without knowledge one cannot, and should not, judge others.
But Christians, by their very nature, are judgmental. Maybe they don't mean to be, or maybe they don't even realize it, but they are. Otherwise they would never see a need to profess "I am a Christian."
Since most churches have a doctrine based on their interpretations of the bible, they are by nature exclusive. By embracing a doctrine, they have taken up a position that this is what they believe and others may, and probably will, go to hell (although none are likely to say that with the possible exception of the extremely fundamentalist Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses).
And that's why I do not attend any church. I am not a religious person, but a spiritual one. And spirituality is a very personal and private thing to me. I don't believe in the merits of public prayer, nor do I want anyone to volunteer to pray for my soul, as if they held some power over it. That offends me.
It has been said that the greatest threat to Christianity is a Christian thumping the bible. I believe that to be true with all my heart. Christianity may one day self-implode. That wouldn't be such a bad thing. If it would mean an end to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world, it can't be all bad.
The above sentence is not only a declaration of what I believe, it also should raise a red flag. If someone starts off a sentence with "I'm a Christian," especially when in a confrontational situation, it could be that they are trying to not only convince you of their moral superiority, but that they are attempting to assuage their own doubts about their position.
More typically, a person who calls himself or herself a Christian does so with the intent of evoking superior moral character, so that whatever comes after must be weighed against not only their personal opinion, but the collective opinions of God and the Christian community. So why bother to debate at all, since in their minds, they have already won.
I'm a Christian, but not in the same sense that most Christians, especially fundamentalists, might imagine when they hear the word. In other words, I am not a bible-thumping, proselytizing, Jesus freak.
I'm only a Christian for lack of a better word. I believe that Jesus was a great man and I believe it would generally be a good idea to base one's life around his teachings, as long as those teachings are applied to the maturation level of present-day society, and not necessarily to the agrarian, and sometimes barbaric, society that existed in Jesus' day.
Is Jesus the son of God? In one sense, perhaps we all are children of God, so that makes Jesus one, too. But he had, arguably, a much better understanding of God than most of us do even today. He was one of those very few special people who got it. And he was trying to teach it to the masses who didn't.
Jesus is a path to Heaven, if such a place exists. And I believe it does, but not as depicted in the pages of the bible. I also believe that Jesus is but one path to enlightenment. There may be many others.
The bottom line is, with my brand of Christianity, which I assert is no less bona fide than what might be considered mainstream Christianity, nobody knows the mind of God. Maybe Jesus came close. But possessing that knowledge is a rare gift that Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other persons of religion have not acquired.
The difference between most other Christians and me is that I will readily admit to not knowing anything about what God wants of us, if anything. I do not know the nature of God, and therefore, cannot base my life around what I think he might be like.
I believe that Jesus is a conduit to eventual enlightenment. And in that sense, he is a conduit to salvation. I believe to be "born again" is to become enlightened. And in that sense, most of those who profess to being born again are just the opposite of my definition of the phrase.
Most born-again Christians have given their lives and souls over to their image of Christ, and in doing so have given their minds as well. When you give up your mind to a cause or conviction, you've given up the search for enlightenment, because in your own mind, you've already achieved it.
So, yes, I'm a Christian. But I'm an agnostic Christian, using the term's root meaning of "without knowledge." And being without knowledge one cannot, and should not, judge others.
But Christians, by their very nature, are judgmental. Maybe they don't mean to be, or maybe they don't even realize it, but they are. Otherwise they would never see a need to profess "I am a Christian."
Since most churches have a doctrine based on their interpretations of the bible, they are by nature exclusive. By embracing a doctrine, they have taken up a position that this is what they believe and others may, and probably will, go to hell (although none are likely to say that with the possible exception of the extremely fundamentalist Pentecostals or Jehovah's Witnesses).
And that's why I do not attend any church. I am not a religious person, but a spiritual one. And spirituality is a very personal and private thing to me. I don't believe in the merits of public prayer, nor do I want anyone to volunteer to pray for my soul, as if they held some power over it. That offends me.
It has been said that the greatest threat to Christianity is a Christian thumping the bible. I believe that to be true with all my heart. Christianity may one day self-implode. That wouldn't be such a bad thing. If it would mean an end to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world, it can't be all bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)