If sex did not exist, religion would have to invent it so it could prohibit the religious from engaging in it outside of marriage for any reason, within marriage for any reason other than procreation, and with anyone who happens to have the same genitals as they.
Very early in my life, while I was being raised and educated in the Seventh-day Adventist cult, it became clear to me that my genitals and what I did with them were very important to my pastor, my teachers, and everyone who ran the cult, including its long-dead founder and “prophet,” the alcoholic plagiarist Ellen G. White.
Ellen was a Victorian-era religious fanatic who claimed to receive “visions” from god. One of Ellen’s favorite topics was masturbation, which she called “self-abuse,” “self-indulgence,” or “solitary vice.” On page 63 of her 1870 book A Solemn Appeal, she wrote:
“Children who practice self-indulgence previous to puberty, or the period of merging into manhood or womanhood, must pay the penalty of nature’s violated laws at that critical period. Many sink into an early grave, while others have sufficient force of constitution to pass this ordeal. If the practice is continued from the age of fifteen and upward, nature will protest against the abuse she has suffered, and continues to suffer, and will make them pay the penalty for the transgression of her laws, especially from the ages of thirty to forty-five, by numerous pains in the system, and various diseases, such as affection of the liver and lungs, neuralgia, rheumatism, affection of the spine, diseased kidneys, and cancerous humors. Some of nature’s fine machinery gives way, leaving a heavier task for the remaining to perform, which disorders nature’s fine arrangement, and there is often a sudden breaking down of the constitution; and death is the result.”
All of this, she claimed, was shown her by god. Of course, we now know that masturbation is natural, healthy and beneficial. According to a 2003 Australian study, ejaculating more than five times a week makes men a third less likely to develop prostate cancer. In women, it helps prevent cervical cancer , clears up urinary tract infections and decreases the risk of heart disease and type-2 diabetes.
Was god simply unaware of these facts about the human body that he is supposed to have created when he warned Ellen G. White of the deadly dangers of wanking? I’m more inclined to conclude that she was a fanatic exploiting the ignorance of her day to draw people into a cult over which she could have power. Ellen, however, was not alone in these beliefs about masturbation, and those myths persist today, not only in the Seventh-day Adventist cult (which continues to see Ellen’s writings as the infallible final word in doctrine and scriptural interpretation) but throughout Christianity.
Why is religion so intensely interested in the sex lives of its believers – and even in the sex lives of people who have no interest in religion? It’s very tempting to conclude that religion simply doesn’t want people to enjoy themselves. But that’s too simple. The real reasons are a little more complex, and far more devious.
In his brilliant and highly recommended book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, Dr. Darrel W. Ray likens religion to a virus that will do anything necessary to survive and spread. One of the things it does to achieve these goals, he writes, is create a “guilt cycle” that binds the believer tightly to the virus — or, rather, the religion. It works like this:
“The guiltier you feel, the more you seek to assuage your guilt with the very thing that induced it in the first place. This creates a perfect feedback loop from which you cannot escape without outside help. Much like a computer that gets into a loop and freezes, your brain gets caught in a guilt loop that only gets worse.”
According to Ray’s illustration, you engage in BEHAVIOR (let’s stick to masturbation as an example) that makes you feel GUILTY, which then creates TENSION, which you then assuage by engaging, once again, in the BEHAVIOR (masturbation).
“As you are bearing this emotional burden of guilt, along comes the priest, rabbi or minister with the promise of help. He or she accomplishes this by breaking the loop and running it through the religion and back to you. It goes like this: ‘You can’t conquer this by yourself. Give yourself to god and he will help you conquer it. You will overcome your weakness and get forgiven for your sins. You will no longer have to live with this burden of guilt.’ The effect is some relief but at a high cost. Each guilt-forgiveness cycle imbeds the virus [religion] deeper and deeper, making it harder and harder to get relief.”
Every time that guilt returns, it becomes necessary to turn to the religion again for the needed forgiveness. This makes religion necessary to the person feeling guilty. An ingenious way of strengthening this need is to attach guilt to something that everyone has in common, a need shared by all. Sex.
Religion did that a looong time ago.
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” – Leviticus 20:13
“And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.” – Leviticus 20:18
That last one not only condemns the act of sex but manages to attach shame to another natural biological function, a woman’s menstrual cycle. It kills two birds with one stone!
I think the best reaction to religion’s need to demonize our sexuality comes from country singer Butch Hancock:
“Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things. One is that god loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, dirty thing on the face of the earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
Religion without sex is like The Wizard of Oz without the songs — it just doesn’t work. Sex is the one thing religion can use to control every single believer. Of course, this requires a contradictory double-message:
God in his infinite wisdom created your body, which is a temple.
Your body has wicked urges that must be denied.
Your body is a temple, but it’s got some evil nastiness in the basement! You must deny your natural bodily functions or you will fall out of favor with the god who created them! If religion can convince you of this, then it has you. Once it has convinced you that there is sin in the very functions of your body, it has claimed you for its own and any escape will require more than will and effort — it will require virtual reprogramming. Convincing people that their own biological functions are wicked might sound like a difficult task, but it’s really not. The work started thousands of years ago.
The book of Leviticus was written sometime around 1440 BCE, and since that time, it has been laying the groundwork for what we have today — a sex-negative environment in the United States that has been driven solely by Christianity. Leviticus — one of the most evil and bloodthirsty books of the bible — was directed at the Jews, of course, but Christians have no problem using it when it suits their purposes (which is most of the time). When they’re criticized for their Old Testament views, they’re quick to point out that they are a New Testament religion, but this is just a ruse, another way they wiggle out of reasonable discourse. Christians have been enforcing Old Testament sex rules from their beginnings and continue to do so today in the United States of 2010.
Christianity has attached guilt to sex, then prohibited sex outside of marriage and sex with anyone other than one’s spouse. But that sex — the sex that’s allowed — is intended only for reproduction. These days, most Christian sects will not say this directly, but when you look at their sex rules, that’s what it comes down to: Sex for procreation only.
When she wasn’t warning people of the dangers of playing with themselves, Ellen G. White was warning them about “marital excess.”
“Sexual excess will effectually destroy a love for devotional exercises, will take from the brain the substance needed to nourish the system, and will most effectively exhaust the vitality. No woman should aid her husband in this work of self-destruction. She will not do it if she is enlightened and has true love for him. The more the animal passions are indulged, the stronger do they become, and the more violent will be their clamors for indulgence. Let God-fearing men and women awake to their duty. Many professed Christians are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction.”
– Adventist Home, Ellen G. White
While it’s true that Ellen wrote that in the 1800s, this attitude still exists in Christianity today, although it is cloaked in more modern terms. Within Christianity, sex for pleasure exists for only one purpose — to create guilt that will strengthen the bond between the guilty and the religion.
Religion in general and Christianity in particular cannot survive in a sex-positive environment. The acceptance of sex as natural and healthy and pleasurable removes the oxygen Christianity needs to survive. Like any religion, Christianity must fully control its flock, and it cannot do that unless it controls the genitals of its flock. Where sex is treated realistically, as a natural and healthy part of being human, things like birth control are made accessible and comprehensive sex education is appropriately taught to young people. It is absolutely essential for the survival of Christianity that sex remain attached to guilt and sin.
But Christianity does not limit its rules to Christians. Here in the United States, it works hard to enforce its laws on a federal level and has had great success so far. This is a back door tactic aimed at the goal of transforming the United States into a Christian theocracy. The genitals of Christians alone are not enough to feed Christianity’s appetite for power – it must seize control of the genitals of all Americans.
Christians continue to repeat the lie that America is a Christian nation, when in fact it is a secular nation that provides freedom to all religions, or no religion. But to Christians, it seems that “freedom of religion” means that, as a religion, they have the freedom to do whatever the hell they please. If they can transform America’s laws and government into reflections of Christian dogma — which they have been doing at an alarming pace right under our noses — then their lie will become true.
30 years ago, Jerry Falwell created the “Moral Majority” (which, by the way, was neither). He gathered together a coalition of Christian sects — even pulling in the Mormon faith, which, until that time, was vehemently rejected by Christianity as a non-Christian cult, but, hey, there’s strength in numbers, right? — and began to talk politics on a national level. Using intimidation and strong-arm tactics, Falwell and his minions blustered and browbeat politicians into bringing religion into the national conversation, forcing them to declare their religious beliefs (which violates the Constitution’s prohibition of religious tests for the nation’s leaders), and bullying them into enforcing Christian rules as much as possible by being anti-sex, anti-choice, anti-science, anti-intellectual, and fighting a “war on drugs” that has failed miserably.
Aided by groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, the coalition made the Republican party the political arm of the Christian religion and made “conservative” a code word for “Christian.” They developed stealth tactics to get Christians into local, state and federal elected offices. For the most part, these candidates kept their religious zealotry quiet until they got into office, then began working tirelessly to promote a Christian agenda. Now, 30 years later, they have become entrenched in the American political system and are eating away at the Constitution like termites in a wood pile. Nowhere have their efforts been more obvious than in the area of contraception, abortion and sex education.
Conservatives — remember, that’s code for Christian — claim that comprehensive sex education and accessible methods of birth control like condoms and the pill encourage teenagers to engage in sexual relations earlier than they would otherwise and before they are ready. They prefer abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education, which rejects birth control, demonizes abortion, and eliminates a broad discussion of sexuality in favor of a very familiar teaching that can be summed up in one line:
NO SEX UNTIL YOU’RE MARRIED!
All of this, of course, is absurd.
Let’s take the idea that comprehensive sex education and/or the accessibility of birth control encourage teenagers to have sex. This suggests that teenagers need encouragement to have sex. As we all know, those teens are just sitting around with long faces, dying of boredom, because the thought of having sex has never occurred to them. The idea of rubbing their bodies together and involving the use of their hands and tongues has not crossed their minds for a moment. Sex? What’s that? I mean, it’s not like teenagers have any natural urge to engage in sexual activity. It’s not like they’re the hormonal equivalent of Chernobyl, or anything, right? They’re just hanging around playing video games, talking on the phone, and wondering what’s for dinner.
Along comes comprehensive sex education and accessible methods of birth control and excited teenagers exclaim, “Hey! Why didn’t somebody suggest this sooner, dammit? We could’ve been fucking our brains out all this time!” Suddenly, teenagers are focusing all their attention on newly engorged parts of their bodies they didn’t even know they had before somebody filled them in! Now everywhere you look, girls are getting pregnant, boys are comparing notes, sexually transmitted diseases are rampant, and the moral fabric of America is destroyed!
Damn you, you immoral secular humanist liberal perverts!
Yeah, right.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage is not sex education. It is anti-sex and abandons factual information in favor of outright lies that instill guilt and fear. It teaches young people nothing about sex — nothing truthful, anyway, although it gives them information that is blatantly untrue – it simply tells them not to do it until they get married. And it’s not new.
In an effort to prevent comprehensive sex education from tipping teenagers off to the existence of their otherwise unknown, dormant sex drives, the United States government has been using taxpayer dollars to support abstinence-only-until-marriage programs ever since the whole thing sounded like a good idea to Ronald Reagan in 1981. There was absolutely no existing research on the effectiveness of these programs back then, but Reagan was convinced by his conservative Christian cronies — like those in Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” — that it was the right thing to do.
According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS), there are three funding streams for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The first is the Adolescent Family Life Act:
“The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) was quietly signed into law in 1981 as Title XX of the Public Health Service Act without hearings or floor votes in the U.S. Congress. In addition to providing support for pregnant and parenting teens, AFLA was established to promote ‘chastity’ and ‘self-discipline.’”
We’re talking about federally funded chastity, here, folks! The second is what is commonly referred to as the Welfare Reform Act:
“The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF), better known as ‘welfare reform,’ was signed into law in 1996. The welfare reform law added Title V, Section 510(b) of the Social Security Act which established a new funding stream to provide grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Similar to AFLA, this program was enacted quietly, without public or legislative debate. … With the passage of the Title V abstinence-only program came an eight-point federal definition of ‘abstinence education.’ All programs that receive abstinence-only-until-marriage funds must adhere to this definition which specifies, in part, that ‘a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of all human sexual activity’ and that ‘sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.’”
The third funding stream is Community-Based Abstinence Education:
“In October 2000, the federal government created yet another funding stream to support abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Under this third funding stream, originally known as Special Projects of Regional and National Significance – Community-Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS–CBAE), the federal government awards grants directly to state and local organizations. Until Fiscal Year 2005, SPRANS – CBAE was administered within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, however, this funding stream was moved to HHS’ more conservative Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and is now referred to simply as Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).”
Title V abstinence-before-marriage-only allowed the states to decide which programs would be awarded funding. But CBAE eliminates that step and allows HHS to give this money directly to these community programs. They’ve cut out the middleman and now allow the federal government to decide where this money goes. CBAE funding will only be given to programs that teach the eight-point government definition of “abstinence education.” This has given conservative lawmakers much more control over the money available to these programs. In some cases, this control has gone to their heads. Some of these lawmakers have tried to block money from going to educational media programs and after-school programs because, according to SEICA, “such programs dilute the abstinence message, do not sufficiently focus on marriage, and violate the intent of Title V’s eight-point ‘abstinence education’ definition.” But it gets worse:
“In fact, in early 2006, ACF released a new funding announcement for CBAE programs. With this call for new proposals, ACF promulgated a series of assaults on logic, science, and individual dignity, and CBAE programs have become that much more ideologically driven. The new funding announcement views sexual abstinence prior to marriage as the magic elixir to a more perfect life. Sexual abstinence before marriage is credited with leading to a happier life, including having a healthier marriage, having more money, having healthier future children, being more ‘responsible’ parents, being honorable and having integrity, attaining a better education, having fewer psychological disorders, avoiding drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, committing fewer crimes and staying out of prison, and having a longer life span. The problem with ACF’s proclamations, however, is that they have no basis in sound evidence and very little grasp on the reality endured by the vast majority of America’s youth.”
By now, you might be wondering exactly what this “eight-point abstinence education definition” is. Here are the things these federally-funded programs must teach:
Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, P.L. 104–193
For the purposes of this section, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:
A. has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B. teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C. teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D. teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
E. teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F. teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
G. teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
H. teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
For the record, I personally have no problem with the last two points on this list. The other six? Preposterous twaddlecock. Not only is there no reliably conducted research to back up any of these points, but there is plenty of existing research that refutes them. But let’s not let that get in the way of using taxpayers’ dollars to teach our young people what Jesus expects of them.
Oh, sure, there’s no mention here of Christianity or god or Jesus or the bible — but you can be sure that this list of eight “definitions” does not come from experts in human sexuality. It comes straight out of the Christian rulebook, and what’s behind it is not fact-based scientific research in human sexuality or behavior. What’s behind it is the message that Christianity has been pounding into the heads of human beings for thousands of years:
SEX IS BAD! SEX IS WRONG! SEX IS DIRTY! SEX IS A SIN!
If you’re a parent who doesn’t like the idea of this message being taught to your children, then you know what? That’s just too fucking bad. Because this isn’t being taught by pastors or Sunday school teachers or in private schools — this is being funded by your government with money that comes out of your pocket, and they don’t care what you think about it. Why do you think this was done quietly without any public or legislative debate? They didn’t ask for your opinion or anyone else’s. And your money is being used to fund these programs in spite of overwhelming evidence that what they’re teaching our young people is not only wrong but doesn’t work.
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. did a study on the effectiveness of abstinence-only-until-marriage education. The results were released in a 2007. From a SEICA report about the study:
“(The study) found no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence. In addition, students in the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar number of sexual partners as their peers not in the programs, as well as a similar age of first sex.”
But it’s even worse than that. While there was no evidence of increased rates of abstinence, the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs misinformed young people about things like methods of contraception. From the report:
“Program group youth, however, were less likely than control group youth to perceive condoms as effective at preventing STDs. Compared with control group youth, program group youth were less likely to report that condoms are usually effective at preventing HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea, and herpes and HPV. Furthermore, program group youth were more likely than control group youth to report that condoms are never effective at preventing these STDs.”
Is it possible that these programs could be deliberately misinforming teenagers about the efficacy of contraceptives? Let’s take a look at some excerpts from published materials that are used in these abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (provided by SEICUS):
“There are always risks associated with it [premarital sex], even dangerous, life-threatening risks such as HIV/AIDS. Using contraceptives does not change this for teenagers.”
– FACTS Middle School, Student Handbook, p. 50
This is a bald-faced lie. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
“Couples who use condoms for birth control experience a first-year failure rate of about 15% in preventing pregnancies. This means that over a period of five years, there could be a 50% chance or higher of getting pregnant with condoms used as the birth control method.”
– Choosing the Best PATH, Leader Guide, p. 18
“At the least, the chances of getting pregnant with a condom are 1 out of 6.”
– Me, My World, My Future, Revised HIV material, p. 257
More bald-faced lies. According to the June 1999 issue of Consumer Reports (page 46), Studies in Family Planning, January/February 1990, volume 21, number 1 (page 52), Contraceptive Technology, 17th revised edition (New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1998, pages 328-329), and many other sources, when used properly and consistently, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy.
“AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.”
– Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Teacher’s Guide, Unit 5, p. 19
Another bald-faced lie. According to the CDC, “Only specific fluids (blood, semen, vaginal secretions, and breast milk) from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV.”
“Game Plan does not promote the use of contraceptives for teens. No contraceptive device is guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Additionally, students who do not choose to exercise self-control to remain abstinent are not likely to exercise self-control in the use of a contraceptive device.”
– Game Plan, Coach’s Clipboard, p. 27
How can you even respond to such a nonsensical statement? The claim that “students who do not choose to exercise self-control to remain abstinent are not likely to exercise self-control in the use of a contraceptive device” barely qualifies as an opinion let alone a fact. There is absolutely nothing to support such a claim. As Christopher Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Telling human beings — especially young people who are curious and bubbling with hormones — to abstain from sex is to tell them to ignore their own biology. Anyone who actually expects them to abstain from sex is either mentally disabled, has forgotten what it’s like to be a teenager, or has some other agenda to enforce — and all signs point to the third option. More on that in a moment. Telling them to abstain is bad enough, but to deliberately lie to them about contraceptives in this day and age is to endanger their lives. But that’s what these abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are doing — deliberately lying to teenagers.
The above excerpts from abstinence-only-until-marriage “educational” literature are just the tip of the iceberg. Here are a few more.
“Girls need to be aware they may be able to tell when a kiss is leading to something else. The girl may need to put the brakes on first in order to help the boy.”
– Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Student Workbook, p. 96
“A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts??”
– Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 94
That’s right, girls – it’s all up to you. Keeping that wily penis under control is your responsiblity because you’re the one who woke it up in the first place. And if something goes wrong – if you end up getting pregnant or raped – then it’s your own damned fault!
“One thing that sex education and the media fail to communicate is the power of sex. Spies, who are trained not to give away government secrets, even lose their sensibilities and give in to the power of sex, often because of what a woman is wearing.”
– WAIT Training, Workshop Manual, p. 86
Excuse me? Did you say ‘spies?’ No, seriously … spies? Is this a joke? Is this based on research? Did someone do a study to see what makes spies “lose their sensibilities?” What about superheroes? Do they lose their super powers when they see a woman in hot clothes? How about space aliens? Or Bigfoot? Hey, I can play this wackjob game, too, you know!
“Abortion is not the best choice because it unfairly penalizes the baby for the bad decision the baby’s parents made.”
– Sex Respect, Teacher Manual, p. 7
“Teacher’s Question: What are the possible consequences of choosing to have an abortion?
Suggested Answers: Feelings of regret, shame, sadness, guilt; physical complications for girl; continued feelings of shame, sadness, regret; death of fetus.”
– Choosing the Best LIFE, Leader Guide, p. 31
“The unborn infant is a unique never to be repeated human”
– Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Teacher’s-Guide, Unit 9, p. 35
Hmm. Shame, guilt, regret … this is starting to sound awfully familiar, isn’t it?
“Men sexually are like microwaves and women sexually are like crockpots … a woman is stimulated more by touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted by a man’s personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted.”
– WAIT Training, Workshop Manual, p. 37
“A young man’s natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone … females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well.”
– Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11
That’s right, girls – those aren’t real sexual fantasies you’re having, you’re just being conditioned to pretend you’re having sexual fantasies. Because as we all know, women don’t have sex drives.
Whenever you have absolutely no research or factual information to back up what you’re saying, it’s always a good idea to keep a bunch of stereotypes on hand. In the two examples above, we have some tried and true gender stereotypes that are always helpful in clouding a discussion when there are no supporting facts available.
“These are simply natural consequences. For example, if you eat spoiled food, you will get sick. If you jump from a tall building, you will be hurt or killed. If you spend more money than you make, your enslavement to debt affects you and those whom you love. If you have sex outside of marriage, there are consequences for you, your partner and society.”
– Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11
“The only safe sex is in a marriage relationship where a man and a woman are faithful to each other for life.”
– Game Plan, Student Workbook, p. 38
“Teenagers who are sexually active in high school will find that their schoolwork suffers.”
– Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Student Workbook, p. 41
Question: What are the risks of being sexually active?
Answer: Teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, low self-esteem, loss of reputation, feelings of being used.
– Choosing the Best PATH, Teacher’s Guide, p. 6
“Each time a sexually active person gives that most personal part of himself or herself away, that person can lose a sense of personal value and worth. It all comes down to self-respect.”
– Choosing the Best PATH, Teacher’s Guide, p. 7
What about gay teenagers? There seems to be nothing here for them. Abstinence-only-until-marriage does not even acknowledge the existence of gay teenagers. And even if it did, they would be up shit creek without a paddle, because they aren’t allowed to get married! They have been ostracized from this discussion and left to fend for themselves. In a lot of ways, they’re probably better off.
Are you starting to get a feel for what’s being conveyed here? These aren’t facts. None of this is meant to inform teenagers about their sexual options. The only options being given here are shame, guilt, disease, low self-esteem … or abstinence. Add all of this stuff up. Do the math. What do you come up with?
This is stealth Christianity. Everything being taught by these abstinence-only-until-marriage programs is straight out of the Christian sex rulebook. They don’t mention Jesus or god or the bible or salvation, but abstinence-only-until-marriage is made up entirely of Christian guilt. Attach guilt to sex and everybody feels guilty, and as soon as that guilt sets in, Christianity steps up and says, Hey, we can help you with that. And then it’s got you.
Even better for the Christian religion, this guilt is being aimed at young people. Before their minds are fully developed, before they’re able to think critically, these young people are being taught that sex is bad, their bodies have wicked urges, and they must be ashamed of and resist them. If you can instill this in them early, it will follow them for the rest of their lives.
Best of all for the Christian religion, it doesn’t even have to do this in a religious way. Religion turns a lot of people off; as soon as they know someone is trying to foist religion onto them, they become immediately unreachable. This isn’t being offered as religious teaching — in fact, it isn’t even being offered. This is Christian guilt and shame that has been federally mandated, Christian dogma that is being funded by your tax dollars and shoved into the minds of children in public schools.
It started with Ronald Reagan and has been continued by every president since then. You might think a Democrat like Bill Clinton would put a stop to it, but that’s what you get for buying into the illusion of the two party system. You might think Barack Obama — the first president to acknowledge nonbelievers in his inaugural address while pointing out that America is a nation of many religions and no religion — would do something about this very unconstitutional state of affairs, but you would be way off in thinking that.
Earlier this year, during the battle that raged over health care legislation, everyone was so busy analyzing it and arguing and speculating about it that nobody noticed the $250 million extension for abstinence-only-until-marriage education that was slipped into it like a ruffie being slipped into a supermodel’s appletini. From a March 31, 2010 Huffington Post article by Advocates for Youth President James Wagoner:
“Lost in the shuffle of analysis of the new health care reform legislation, is the fact that Democrats included over $250 million for failed Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The funds had been inserted in the health care reform legislation by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) during Senate Finance Committee consideration of the bill.
“Never mind that these programs place the health and lives of young people at risk by denying them medically accurate information about condoms and birth control. Never mind that an exhaustive eight-year evaluation by Mathematica published in April, 2007 showed that these programs have ‘no impact on teen behavior.’ Never mind that 22 states had rejected TitleV funding in the past because they did not want to spend precious matching funds on programs that don’t work. Never mind that Speaker Pelosi condemned these programs at the Netroots conference in 2008. Bottom line is they are back, and Democrats seem none too eager to own up to who threw young people under the bus!”
How does this throw young people under the bus? By giving them inaccurate information about condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, by keeping them ignorant about their own sexuality. Sex education classes that lie to students about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases and tell students that having sex outside marriage will destroy their lives — and even society! — is like a home economics class that tells its students the kitchen is dangerous and will kill them, so they should stay out of it no matter how hungry they become. It also makes about as much sense. This kind of “sex education” results in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Why would our government enforce taxpayer-funded programs that result in the exact opposite of what proponents of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs claim?
Because underneath all the moralizing and guilt-tripping, underneath all the unsupported claims made by the people who support these programs, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies are the GOAL of abstinence-only-before-marriage programs!
Before you roll your eyes, let me explain.
Telling teenagers not to have sex until they get married and then expecting them to obey is not only unreasonable, it is completely untethered from reality. From a December 19, 2006 article on the website of the Guttmacher Institute:
“The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to ‘Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,’ by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage. …
“‘This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,’ says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. ‘The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.’”
If premarital sex is the norm, then it’s not true that it causes people to have low self-esteem, emotional problems, and difficulty remaining faithful to one person later, all of which are taught to students by abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Take a step back and place a religious template over this, and suddenly everything falls into place.
Christianity claims that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Christianity claims that abortion is not only immoral but the murder of precious unborn lives. In the Christian religion, whenever the subject of sex comes up, you are faced with two conflicting orders — 1.) Don’t have sex, and 2.) Have that baby no matter what.
What do abstinence-only-until-marriage programs teach? 1.) Don’t have sex, and 2.) Have that baby no matter what.
The diseases and pregnancies that result give Christianity what it needs to survive in an increasingly secular United States of America: Guilt and children.
Premarital sex — especially if it results in a sexually transmitted disease or an unwanted pregnancy — creates guilt that your local Christian church will offer to rid you of if you’ll just come to church and be a part of the Christian family. Unwanted pregnancies result in children, which Christianity desperately needs to propagate itself.
According to studies by Nazarene Church Growth Research and the International Bible Society, 83% to 85% of all Christians “make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth.” After the age of 14, the chances that someone will convert to Christianity decline rapidly as a person ages. That means only a very small percentage of Christians are converted as adults rather than being raised in the religion. The great majority of Christians are born into their religion and indoctrinated from infancy onward or, at the very least, are convinced to “make their commitment to Jesus” at a very young, vulnerable age, before they can think critically and analyze Christianity reasonably.
From an Advocates for Youth article titled “Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the U.S.—Why the Difference?”:
“Regularly since 1998, Advocates for Youth has sponsored study tours to France, Germany, and the Netherlands to explore why adolescent sexual health outcomes are more positive in these European countries than in the United States.
“Rights. Respect. Responsibility.® The study tour participants – policy makers, researchers, youth serving professionals, foundation officers, and youth – have found that this trilogy of values underpins a social philosophy regarding adolescent sexual health in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Each of the three nations has an unwritten social contract with youth: ‘We’ll respect your right to act responsibly and give you the tools you need to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.’”
According to Advocacy for Youth, this method has worked out very well. Teen pregnancy in the United States is more than six times that of the Netherlands, nearly four times that of Germany, and triple the rate of teen pregnancy in France. The teenage birth rate in the U.S. is nine times higher than the Netherlands’, almost six times higher than France’s and more than four times higher than Germany’s. In every category — the rates of teenage abortion, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and the use of condoms and birth control pills by teenagers — the United States compares abysmally to these European countries.
Why? Because in those countries, sex is treated like a natural function of the human body, a biological and emotional need that is not a source of shame or guilt, something that is not a sin. Instead, it is incorporated into the everyday lives of the citizens in a way that allows them to engage in it responsibly and as safely as possible.
But not in the United States, where Christianity has infiltrated the government and used it to pervert sex.
While Dr. Darrel W. Ray’s idea of looking at religion as a virus is an excellent one, religion — any religion — also can be seen as a parasite. It attaches itself to the host and takes and takes and takes. It needs money, it needs people, it needs acceptance, reverence and respect, and to propagate itself it needs children and it needs to instill guilt and shame in everyone around it. More than anything, it needs power. It takes credit for things it does not do and holds itself up as something necessary and authoritative, something to be revered — as something it is not. In return, it gives … nothing. Well, it gives nothing positive. It provides plenty of guilt and shame and fear and condemnation and division and bigotry. In nurtures ignorance while it suppresses facts. It hinders progress while it condemns real knowledge. It vilifies the natural and glorifies the unnatural. It kills the soul with the self-loathing it instills. It marginalizes and demonizes anyone who meets with its disapproval. It craves war while it tells the lie that it comes in peace.
If you ignore what Christianity says about itself and the things it does and look only at the results of its actions, you quickly see that a large gap separates the two. Whenever it talks about itself — what it stands for, what it does, what its motivations are — Christianity is lying. To see this, all you have to do is hold Christianity to a verse from the very book on which it claims to be based:
“Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
Matthew 7:16
The fruits of Christianity bear no resemblance whatsoever to the claims of Christianity.
“What have been Christianity’s fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
– James Madison (Fourth U.S. President)
Ignore Christianity’s words and look at its fruits. Everything it does — absolutely everything — is done to protect and propagate itself and to gain power and money. Look closely at the things it does as charity. The charity comes with conditions. Ever been to a Christian homeless shelter or soup kitchen? If you want the shelter and food, you have to take the religious guilt, condemnation and indoctrination, too. When Christian missionaries go to a third world country, do they educate the children with real-world knowledge and work toward making the country self-sufficient and productive? No. They immediately indoctrinate the people in the religion. Any food and medicine provided is conditional on acceptance of the religion. No third world country has ever been brought out of poverty and ignorance by Christianity. Ever. If anything, conditions worsen as Christianity makes the populace dependent upon it and its teachings.
It’s the same here in the United States. Christians say that sex is immoral and they are concerned for the salvation of America’s young people. Not true. They are attaching guilt to something that is natural and healthy in order to make people dependent on their religion. They say they want teenagers to abstain from sex to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Not true. They want those diseases and unwanted pregnancies because they produce the guilt Christianity needs to retain power over people and the pregnancies produce the children it needs to survive. They say abortion is immoral and they care about the unborn humans it kills. Not true. They see those unborn babies as the future of their religion. They represent young, defenseless minds that can be captured and indoctrinated before they are developed enough to rationally examine Christianity and make an informed choice about it. These are the things Christianity needs in the United States. It wants the government to provide them and you to pay for them.
All of this is true of any religion/parasite. But in the United States, the parasite is Christianity. It has attached itself to the government and it is now sucking from it money and power. If it is not stopped very soon, then it won’t be long before it consumes our public school system and replaces facts with myths, enlightenment with fear, and textbooks with bibles.
Next time you hear a conservative complaining about government programs he identifies as “socialism,” ask him how he feels about socialism for Christianity. Because that is exactly what abstinence-only-before-marriage programs are — socialism for Christianity. And there are plenty of other forms of socialism for Christianity currently in effect, as well. Christians say they oppose socialism. Not true. They’re all for it — as long as it is socialism that gives their religion power and money.
Christianity’s latest socialist victory? $250 million of your money have been picked from your pocket so the parasite can thrive. And there is only one person can do something about it.
You.
“Stealth evangelizing”, (fundamentalist proselytizing) groups are forming all around the country intending to sneak “under the radar” at public school events with the intention of evangelizing to the children once they get in the door. 
Sarah Palin is using the “mama grizzly” theme in her new ad, big female protector of her children, however where are her cubs? Why are her children never around her except for when she wants to prop them up for a photo shoot? I’m not against working moms at all, but I am against someone being hypocritical and using her offspring for her own gain and pretending to be something she is not. Someone else is raising her kids while she is on the road and her husband is working, and she has money to pay nannies, sitters, whoever to care for her little darlings. All she really cares about is her own political gain. 
After much consideration about the upcoming “Draw Muhammad Day” tomorrow, I have decided to join others like 