God forbid we use science

[Jester]

Sex education and where not to touch children are not the same thing. How is "Don't let anyone touch you here and here" sex education? "Apparently" means? How do you know what he "apparently means"? After quickly scanning the article I did not see anywhere where it said that Romney was against telling kids about not letting people touch them in inappropriate places or taking pictures of this type. Either way, even if he did say he was against that also, this is not sex education anyway. This is life education. But he did not say this anyway, so it's a small matter.

Let's do a quick review of the facts.

1) Obama supports educating kids as early as kindergarten on what is appropriate and inappropriate for adults to do to them.

2) Obama refers to this as "age-appropriate" sex education.

3) Romney calls him out for supporting "sex education" for kindergarteners.

If you disagree with calling this "sex education," then I could care less. Semantic quibbles. This is, as far as I can tell, what Obama means by the term, and what Mitt Romney is criticising.

-Jester

[the Langolier]

Let's do a quick review of the facts.

1) Obama supports educating kids as early as kindergarten on what is appropriate and inappropriate for adults to do to them.

2) Obama refers to this as "age-appropriate" sex education.

3) Romney calls him out for supporting "sex education" for kindergarteners.

If you disagree with calling this "sex education," then I could care less. Semantic quibbles. This is, as far as I can tell, what Obama means by the term, and what Mitt Romney is criticising.

-Jester

Actually that is VERY important difference in semantics. This is the problem with being "politically correct" - no one knows what the hell you are talking about. I read nothing in that article where it states Obama is referring what you stated it means. Your #1 is not sex education. It's sexual ABUSE education. Sex education doesn't focus on inappropriate touching - it's about learning about the reproductive system, what kind of sexual feelings are normal, bodily changes, sex drive, and safe sex. They may also teach about rape, to limited success. A person questioning whether or not they were raped is just as telling as questioning if you are awake or not during a dream: do you ever ask yourself that when you are awake?

What, do you actually think Mitt Romney would not want kids to know what abuse is? That's just silly.

More to the point however, kids quickly learn what touching is not appropriate, so this kindergarten "sex abuse ed" is not a wise solution to what the REAL problem is, which is trying to identify abuse and stop it early. Some sex education course in kindergarten would not serve that end. If kids didn't know the touching was wrong, it would eventually come up in conversation just as casually as anything else. It doesn't. Often victims will rationalize that it isn't abuse, or that their circumstances are special. This comes from the abuse itself and not the fact that thy do not actually recognize it. The problem isn't that they don't understand it's wrong, just that they don't internalize it - a classroom based general sex abuse ed would not be effective in accomplishing that.

EDIT: Also, can someone please explain to me what exactly science-based sex education is? And just how exactly are kindergartens supposed to understand something based in science when their scientific skills extended to being able to count to the number 50 (or beyond for the especially gifted)?

[Jester]

I read nothing in that article where it states Obama is referring what you stated it means.

From the article: "He [obama] said he was noting in his comments that he supported laws in Massachusetts and New Hampshire in which local communities and parents can decide how to provide children with information about sexual predators."

What, do you actually think Mitt Romney would not want kids to know what abuse is? That's just silly.

Because he's a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means, in the popular form, that kids think sex is about storks until they're 21. Any education, even about abuse, opens doors they'd rather keep closed.

Also, can someone please explain to me what exactly science-based sex education is?

Not-Abstinence-Only. One where you tell kids what's true as they are old enough to know it, rather than lying to them to promote a christian agenda.

... which is what Mitt Romney is doing, trying to feed red meat to the evangelical base, shore up his cred.

-Jester

[GhastMaster]

"Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney says

It might actually be right.

Two words: Private Schools.

[kandrathe]

Because he's a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means, in the popular form, that kids think sex is about storks until they're 21. Any education, even about abuse, opens doors they'd rather keep closed. Not-Abstinence-Only. One where you tell kids what's true as they are old enough to know it, rather than lying to them to promote a Christian agenda. ... which is what Mitt Romney is doing, trying to feed red meat to the evangelical base, shore up his cred.

I'm not a supporter of Mit. But, I think your obvious bigotry against the Christians is abhorrent. Do you really think "Because he's a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means, in the popular form, that kids think sex is about storks until they're 21." is a true statement? I think that is outrageous baiting and you know it. Why do you think that all evangelical Christians are ignorant buffoons?

As Californians proliferate with rabbit-like efficiency, the state's residents are surprisingly of one mind about how to deal with overpopulation. Whether they're liberal Democrats or evangelical Christians, they favor sex education and access by the young to birth control. Surprising opinions on sex education

[Jester]

I think that is outrageous baiting and you know it. Why do you think that all evangelical Christians are ignorant buffoons?

I don't think they are all ignorant buffoons. Some of them are quite intelligent and knowledgeable. They just happen to be, for whatever reason, in the grips of an irrational dogma. I could care less, if they kept it to themselves. Sadly, there is a powerful political movement, in both our countries, to move this dogma into politics.

Any attempt to mould educational life around evangelical values is detrimental to the children. Kids should be taught knowledge, and given the freedom to do with it what they may, not railroaded into one lifestyle or another by denying them the truth.

The abstinence-only programs exist to please social conservatives. The largest bloc of those in the US are Christian Evangelicals, so I lay it at their doorstep. Sure, not all of them. Sure, not everywhere. But most of them, most places. I'm not being bigoted here: if you're an atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, Mars-Worshipper or Shaman, and you believe irrational things, I'll argue against you all the same. It just turns out that there aren't as many of those people in the US, combined, to match the evangelicals.

The stork is an exaggeration for comic effect. Baiting, if you like, and you can't tell me you've never done the same. What is not funny is that the actual teachings of abstinence-only sex ed aren't any better. These programs are innefective. These programs are dishonest. These programs skirt dangerously close to religious interference.

... and Mitt Romney is making an issue out of it to feed the base he desperately wishes he had, and badly needs to win the primary, and the election. So he jumps all over it. Pure political pandering.

He's not going to win California come hell or high water, so if even Evangelicals there have come to see sense on the issue of birth control, it doesn't matter one whit to Romney. His targets lie elsewhere.

-Jester

[Jester]

For clarification, the issue came up again last night in the Democratic debates.

Full question and responses from John Edwards (irrelevant) and Barack Obama.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Anne, and I work at a Planned
Parenthood in Pennsylvania.

My question is, we here at Planned Parenthood support
comprehensive sex education and I'd like to know if any of you as
candidates have talked to your children about sex and used medically
accurate and age-appropriate information?

COOPER: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: Well, Elizabeth and I have had sort of an unusual
experience for parents, because Elizabeth likes to say that was made a
member of AARP when she was pregnant with Jack, our last child.

EDWARDS: We have had four children. Our two youngest children
are now nine and seven. So we have been through the whole experience,
including kids who have grown up.

Yes, the answer is we have taught our younger children when they
were young how to look for the signs of wrong touching, any kind of
what would be sexual abuse, inappropriate touchng. And we have taught
our children as they got older, all -- I think, using medically
appropriate terms -- all that they needed to know to be properly
educated.

COOPER: Senator Obama, Mitt Romney has accused you this week of
saying that 5-year-old children should be getting sex education. Was
he right?

OBAMA: Ironically, this was actually a proposal that he himself
said he supported when he was running for governor of Massachusetts.

OBAMA: Apparently, he forgot.

(LAUGHTER)

And it makes the exact point that John made.

I've got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And I
want them to know if somebody is doing something wrong to them,
encroaching on their privacy, that they should come talk to me or my
wife.

And we've had that conversation, but not every parent is going to
have that conversation with their child, and I think it's important
that every child does, to make sure that they're not subject to the
sexual predators.

Just in case anyone was still wondering what Obama meant by "age-appropriate sex education." He has once again emphasized, as he did previously in response to Mitt Romney's comments, that what he means is information to help children deal with sexual predators.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

For clarification, the issue came up again last night in the Democratic debates.

Full question and responses from John Edwards (irrelevant) and Barack Obama.
Just in case anyone was still wondering what Obama meant by "age-appropriate sex education." He has once again emphasized, as he did previously in response to Mitt Romney's comments, that what he means is information to help children deal with sexual predators.

-Jester

I still don't want my sons school teachers being required to teach them about sexual predators. It's my job as a parent to prepare and protect them from the world, and I want to craft the message in a way that I feel is appropriate for their age. I don't want the nanny state to take away my parental duties.

Again, there's no love for Mr. Romney here. I just would like you to refrain from brandishing the broad brush when talking about groups of people like evangelical Christians. There are some stand out caricatures on TV that attract alot of attention, but that is hardly a plurality of the group.

Again, from the NPR story I quoted before, "Fifteen percent of Americans believe that schools should teach only about abstinence from sexual intercourse and should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception." Evangelicals make up 0.5% of Christians in the USA, and have very diverse views like many other groups, like Mormons. Obviously, the 15% are more than just that very small group.

[Jester]

I still don't want my sons school teachers being required to teach them about sexual predators.

As with all sex ed, there is an opt-out clause, at least in most places. The "nanny state" has not yet gone so far as to force your kids to learn about inappropriate touches if you don't want them to. They don't even have to attend public school if you don't want them to.

It's my job as a parent to prepare and protect them from the world, and I want to craft the message in a way that I feel is appropriate for their age. I don't want the nanny state to take away my parental duties.

If every kid had at least one good, able parent, no country would need half of what they do in schools. But do remember that, far and away, the most likely sexual predators are a child's immediate family. And other parents are simply incompetent to teach their children anything, sad to say. Sometimes, you can't just flat out trust people simply because they're parents.

Again, from the NPR story I quoted before, "Fifteen percent of Americans believe that schools should teach only about abstinence from sexual intercourse and should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception."

Couldn't actually find where you linked to that, but a quick google came up with it.

Evangelicals make up 0.5% of Christians in the USA, and have very diverse views like many other groups, like Mormons. Obviously, the 15% are more than just that very small group.

I really have no idea where you pulled the 0.5% of Christians number, but it's incorrect. Evangelicals make up about 25% of the population of the US, which makes them more like 30% of the Christians. Add in all "born again" Christians, and you're up over 50%. Evangelicals are than enough to account for the 15%. They are also, not so coincidentally, a majority in most of the deep southern states, an area Mitt Romney desperately needs to swing if he's going to win the primary.

Also from the NPR article:

Just as the initial impetus for sex education in schools came from health advocates, the historical impetus for abstinence education has come from evangelical or born-again Christians.

The views of Evangelicals are diverse, yes, but much less so than most other demographic groups on social conservative issues. The politics of the pulpit swings a *lot* of voters. George W. Bush is ample evidence of just how much clout they can throw around, if they try.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If every kid had at least one good, able parent, no country would need half of what they do in schools. But do remember that, far and away, the most likely sexual predators are a child's immediate family. And other parents are simply incompetent to teach their children anything, sad to say. Sometimes, you can't just flat out trust people simply because they're parents.

But, teachers are immune from being sexual predators? Have you seen the news lately? It seems that non-family members are more likely to commit crimes against family members. See: Bureau of Justice Statistics -- Family Violence

I really have no idea where you pulled the 0.5% of Christians number, but it's incorrect. Evangelicals make up about 25% of the population of the US, which makes them more like 30% of the Christians. Add in all "born again" Christians, and you're up over 50%. Evangelicals are than enough to account for the 15%. They are also, not so coincidentally, a majority in most of the deep southern states, an area Mitt Romney desperately needs to swing if he's going to win the primary.

American Religious Identification Survey -- I would guess that whoever has cited your statistics has done so for their own purposes. Judge the accuracy for yourself, but it reflects what I've seen and experienced.

...the historical impetus for abstinence education has come from evangelical or born-again Christians.

Which totally omits the strong stand that the Catholic Church has for abstinence education. The more we dissect that NPR article, the more I see just how biased they are against that small Evangelical minority. I'm sorry I linked it now. :D

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

But, teachers are immune from being sexual predators? Have you seen the news lately? It seems that non-family members are more likely to commit crimes against family members. See: Bureau of Justice Statistics -- Family Violence
American Religious Identification Survey -- I would guess that whoever has cited your statistics has done so for their own purposes. Judge the accuracy for yourself, but it reflects what I've seen and experienced.Which totally omits the strong stand that the Catholic Church has for abstinence education. The more we dissect that NPR article, the more I see just how biased they are against that small Evangelical minority. I'm sorry I linked it now. :D

Perhaps the phrases "Abstinence Education" and "Catholic Church" shouldn't be used in the same sentence, right about now... considering some recent Papal edicts and 660 million dollars doled out from a single Archdiocese (with cases still pending).

[Jester]

But, teachers are immune from being sexual predators?

Irrelevant. No matter who is abusing kids, the idea of "sex ed" at that age is to protect kids from it. If one teacher fails to teach it, and abuses kids, that is monstrous, but of no consequence as to whether the teaching of basic defense against abuse is a good idea. Indeed, one would hope that previous teachers set a standard, and told kids what is appropriate, to help prevent such abuse by later ones.

Have you seen the news lately? It seems that non-family members are more likely to commit crimes against family members.

Violence within families would be both underreported, and also not newsworthy. Man abuses son? Happens every day. Not going to make CNN. Deranged paedophile on the loose? Front page news in most cities.

See: - I would guess that whoever has cited your statistics has done so for their own purposes. Judge the accuracy for yourself, but it reflects what I've seen and experienced.

That study does not say what you think it says. Either that, or we are going by *very* different definitions of what constitutes an Evangelical christian.

0.5% are the number who self-describe as "Evangelical", to the exclusion of calling themselves, baptists, pentecostals, methodists, protestants, generic Christians, etc...

It says nothing about the actual number of people who fall under any given definition of "evangelical". Many of the other churches on that list, the Baptists and Charismatic churches especially, fall easily under Evangelical Christianity. The number, as I would gauge it using that list, is about what I said it was: 25%.

And, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't even matter. Baptists are as much supporters of abstinence-only as the rest. As are pentecostals, and methodists, etc... If it makes you feel differently about the argument, substitute "fundamentalist" for "evangelical" in my previous statements. It's just semantics, really.

-Jester

[Lissa]

See: Bureau of Justice Statistics -- Family Violence
American Religious Identification Survey -- I would guess that whoever has cited your statistics has done so for their own purposes. Judge the accuracy for yourself, but it reflects what I've seen and experienced.

According to Wikipedia, it's 26.3% of the religious population of the US is evangelical. You can be evangelical even if you belong to a Church that does not state they are Evangelicals. Evangelicalism is more about how you believe and it can cross over to other denominations.

[Jester]

According to Wikipedia, it's 26.3% of the religious population of the US is evangelical. You can be evangelical even if you belong to a Church that does not state they are Evangelicals. Evangelicalism is more about how you believe and it can cross over to other denominations.

Wikipedia also has a list of churches who belong to the National Association of Evangelicals in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Asso...r_denominations

It contains Pentecostals, Baptists, Reformeds, Wesleyans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and (suprising to me) Mennonites, among others.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Wikipedia also has a list of churches who belong to the National Association of Evangelicals in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Asso...r_denominations

It contains Pentecostals, Baptists, Reformeds, Wesleyans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and (suprising to me) Mennonites, among others. -Jester

Yes, but we are talking about people and their beliefs. Not a church membership list, or those churches that have joined an association. In the context of the NAE, the concept of "evangelical" means that the denomination embraces the concept of Christians sharing their faith with others (being open about what they believe), and sometimes also proselytizing (actively seeking to convert people outside the sect or religion). So what I am saying is that Baptists may be evangelical, but not all Baptists are evangelical. It is more worthwhile then to ask people what they believe, rather than telling them what to believe based on which church they attend(ed). When you blame the impetus for abstinence education on evangelicals (using the broad brush strokes), to me that is akin to blaming the impetus for fascism on Italians or Germans. Some evangelicals probably do believe in abstinence only education, but not all of them and maybe not even a majority of them. What we need is a survey of people who believe in abstinence-only education for all age groups. When you say " If it makes you feel differently about the argument, substitute "fundamentalist" for "evangelical" in my previous statements. It's just semantics, really." then I think we agree that there is really no accurate way to predict who is an evangelical unless you survey people about their beliefs on both evangelicalism, or fundamentalism, or being born-again and also then ask them about their views on abstinence only education in schools across various age groups. Based on the number of Christians who do opt out of public education, I would guess they object to more than just the sex education program.

Here is a good link to a healthy approach to the topic. Center for AIDS Prevention Studies -- and I notice they are politically astute enough to not point their fingers at any one group of people. I think the topic is as complicated as they alude, abstinence education makes sense for 12 year olds, but for a high school senior it probably does not make sense. So, what role do the parents have in public education? Your answer is to opt out of public school, and I agree with that for other reasons, like finding a school with a focus on academic achievement.

So, an anecdote for you... My dearly departed Dad, who was a red necked protestant Christian blue collar truck driver and voted a straight Democratic ticket his entire life believed that to teach high school aged children about sex was like handing a running chain saw to a five year old. He would not have described himself as an "Evangelical", even though he believed in evangelism. I think the word "Evangelical" as used in the US today (and how you seemed to use it) to describe a conservative right wing Republican religious movement characterized by Bob Jones University, Jerry Falwell, and the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

So, here also from wikipedia,
"However, the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, Sign Followers, you name it. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals (yes, there are a few) tend to be Democratic." Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well. Evangelicalism"

[kandrathe]

According to Wikipedia, it's 26.3% of the religious population of the US is evangelical. You can be evangelical even if you belong to a Church that does not state they are Evangelicals. Evangelicalism is more about how you believe and it can cross over to other denominations.

I saw that study too. I think we need to analyze the study further. 26.3% was further broken down by traditionalist, centrist or modern. If we assume that the 12.6% traditionalists, with then only the conservative ones, 8.9%, (only 70% of them were Republicans) who we are thinking are being targeted by Mit Romney. If it was a ploy by Mit for votes, then I beleive he was targeting the traditionalists who are predominantly Republican also in non-evangelical, and Catholic faiths as well.

[Jester]

Yes, but we are talking about people and their beliefs. Not a church membership list, or those churches that have joined an association. In the context of the NAE, the concept of "evangelical" means that the denomination embraces the concept of Christians sharing their faith with others (being open about what they believe), and sometimes also proselytizing (actively seeking to convert people outside the sect or religion). So what I am saying is that Baptists may be evangelical, but not all Baptists are evangelical.

... and no matter how you slice it, it adds up to a heck of a lot more than half a percent.

It is more worthwhile then to ask people what they believe, rather than telling them what to believe based on which church they attend(ed). When you blame the impetus for abstinence education on evangelicals (using the broad brush strokes), to me that is akin to blaming the impetus for fascism on Italians or Germans.

Being Italian and being German are not chosen. Nor are they belief systems. Being an Evangelical Christian is both.

Far be it from me to blame them exclusively. Fundamentalists of all creeds are on board to put this particular bit of religiosity into American schools. If fundamentalist Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Quakers, Shakers, Candlestick-Makers, or whatevers are supporting the Evangelicals in this, then they are all to blame. It's just that the Evangelicals are the largest group, the most vocal, and the best organized.

Some evangelicals probably do believe in abstinence only education, but not all of them and maybe not even a majority of them.

Maybe not a majority. Maybe a majority. Probably, around half of them, with most of the other half being "no opinions", and a handful of "against". It would be interesting to see statistics on the matter, but one doesn't need detailed data to figure out that abstinence-only is primarily by, of and for Evangelicals (going with the 25% number.)

What we need is a survey of people who believe in abstinence-only education for all age groups. When you say " If it makes you feel differently about the argument, substitute "fundamentalist" for "evangelical" in my previous statements. It's just semantics, really." then I think we agree that there is really no accurate way to predict who is an evangelical unless you survey people about their beliefs on both evangelicalism, or fundamentalism, or being born-again and also then ask them about their views on abstinence only education in schools across various age groups.

Yes. Quite difficult to say *exactly* who is an Evangelical. Much easier to say it's about 25% of people, by most reasonable definitions one could write. Rather deceptive to say it's 0.5%. Unless you pick a totally unreasonable definition, there's no way that number is even close.

About half of Americans describe themselves as "born again." Does that mean 50% are Evangelicals? That's not a totally unreasonable description, but probably not selective enough. About half of those self-describe as belonging to a faith that is Evangelical, broadly speaking. I would say that's a perfectly appropriate broad definition, which yields about 28%. Still probably a little high, but pretty close. I think my number is a perfectly accurate ballpark figure, and in any case, perfectly describes the group of people I was initially talking about, whatever you personally care to take "Evangelical" to mean.

Based on the number of Christians who do opt out of public education, I would guess they object to more than just the sex education program.

There is a whole laundry list. Needless to say, I don't find much on it very admirable. Seems to me more like indoctrination than education.

Here is a good link to a healthy approach to the topic. Center for AIDS Prevention Studies -- and I notice they are politically astute enough to not point their fingers at any one group of people.

Good thing I'm not running for office, so I don't have to be politically astute. I get to call it like I see it.

What was presented there seems like a reasonable opinion on sexual educaton. One might point out that it is almost entirely in line with what Barack Obama has been saying, and totally contrary to Mitt Romney's opinion on the matter.

I especially like this quote:

Delivery of politically palatable-rather than effective-curricula may serve the interest of adults, but will cheat many young people.

Education that focuses on the effective education of the children, and not the will of the parents. T'would be nice.

I think the topic is as complicated as they alude, abstinence education makes sense for 12 year olds, but for a high school senior it probably does not make sense.

Abstinence-only education is a code phrase. Telling kids that they should probably hold on a few years before having sex at age 12 is fine and good, but it's not what people mean when they say "abstinence-only". Every program does, and should, include abstinence as one effective option for ensuring safety. What abstinence-only programs do is ensure the kids "learn" a series of lies about other options to ensure a standard of "moral purity" that the government has no business at all enforcing, through education or otherwise.

The Penn and Teller 'Bulls%$t' episode on the topic is fun, and not a little disturbing, unless one likes the idea of saccharine lies.

So, an anecdote for you... My dearly departed Dad, who was a red necked protestant Christian blue collar truck driver and voted a straight Democratic ticket his entire life believed that to teach high school aged children about sex was like handing a running chain saw to a five year old. He would not have described himself as an "Evangelical", even though he believed in evangelism.

On the issue of Voting Democratic, the rise of the Republican party as the party of religion is fairly recent, mostly a part of the reinvention during the Reagan era. Look at the voting patterns in the Baptist South, through time. That tells the story right there. People whose opinions were formed prior to that time do not necessarily form a representative sample for the modern political scene. Even then, an individual is not a demographic. It is the collective behaviour of people that is of interest here, not whether any given person votes this way or that.

I think the word "Evangelical" as used in the US today (and how you seemed to use it) to describe a conservative right wing Republican religious movement characterized by Bob Jones University, Jerry Falwell, and the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

And those people, and those who subscribe to similar beliefs, make up (give or take, depending on the definition) 25% of the population of the United States. I'm still not seeing how your initial disagreement clarifies anything, or meaningfully contradicts what I have said.

Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well.

Yes. They just happen to lean very strongly to the right. We'll see when that changes. I don't think it will be very soon.

-Jester

[Jester]

I saw that study too. I think we need to analyze the study further. 26.3% was further broken down by traditionalist, centrist or modern. If we assume that the 12.6% traditionalists, with then only the conservative ones, 8.9%, (only 70% of them were Republicans) who we are thinking are being targeted by Mit Romney. If it was a ploy by Mit for votes, then I beleive he was targeting the traditionalists who are predominantly Republican also in non-evangelical, and Catholic faiths as well.

Is that the only distinction you're making here? That, despite the huge bloc of "traditional evangelical" that are so overwhelmingly republican (8.9% of 300 million people is a massive group for a primary), Mitt Romney is also targetting other conservative religious groups?

Well, yeah. Of course.

-Jester

[eppie]

QUOTE
Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well. UNQUOTE KAndrathe



QUOTE
Yes. They just happen to lean very strongly to the right. We'll see when that changes. I don't think it will be very soon.

-Jester UNQUOTE

For some reason the right wing always comes out on top if politics are involved. It is not just the republicans in the US claiming Christianity, you also see it in many other countries where Christian parties only bother with things like abortion, euthanasia and sex-ed, while they just seem to forget the socialist part of religion.

[Hammerskjold]

>But, teachers are immune from being sexual predators? Have you seen the news lately? It seems that non-family members are more likely to commit crimes against family members.

The news, especially if you're talking about the general mainstream media, like others have pointed out is not interested in crimes that does not have 'Stranger Danger' on it.


A link from someone I respect, because he seems to know what he's talking about.

http://www.protect.org/articles/vachssNe...ctory.html

From

http://vachss.com/av_dispatches.html