Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'

[Abbott]

The whole problem with this religion mixed with politics thing is that it gives people one more excuse to stop thinking critically and as a bonus they get to justify doing what they want by proclaiming it was really god's will all along.

That's nothing more then a guess as to what people are thinking.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm not sure what you guys are thinking my comment means, I will explain it. My point being that most of the anti-war folks are also dedicated pro-choice folks. So if you look at the Iraq war as aborting Saddam Hussein then war casualties are deaths that should easily be accepted and written off as near nothing as there are a heck of a lot less of them.

Thing is, I don't know anyone pro-choice that thinks an abortion isn't a big deal. I reckon most people who are pro choice don't like abortions either, they happen to dislike banning abortions more.

To run with your Iraq/abortion analogy, what everyone really needed was good sex education so we could've prevented the wholesale 'abortion' of Iraqis and US servicemen. Turns out handing over the sex education to zealots wasn't a great idea. Oops!

[Abbott]

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing...but of course we are straying from the subject of zealots...I think a band of Christians are looking to hit the Danish embassy this morning...oh forgiver me, that's Muslims.

[bruce90]

John McCain seems nice.

[dieseltaylor]

The pastor at her church in Wa.... whatever has an interesting line in God's concerns.

But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war “contending for your faith;” and said that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode.”

Western civilisation, Mahatma Ghandi thought it would be a good idea - I am tending to agree with him.

[ParaBellum]

Well, the first thing that struck me when I heard of Palin was that she's against sex education at school and that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. Sex ed including the basics of contraception IMO might be a tiny bit more effective than telling teenagers to just think of baby Jesus when nature calls...

[Subvet]

Would you have drawn the opposite conclusion if her daughter wasn't pregnant???

[ParaBellum]

The conclusion that she's somehow at odds with reality? Yup. Definitely.

[Bugged]

Would you have drawn the opposite conclusion if her daughter wasn't pregnant???

Being against sex education in this day and age is incomprehensible.

The fact that Palin's teen daughter is pregnant? Well, that's just icing on the cake. The irony is rich.

*has a sudden craving for devil's food chocolate cake*

[Condo]

She is not against sex education, she is against explicit sex education, which I tend to agree with. The media (and some people) are attempting to paint her family in a bad light because of her daughter's pregnancy, that is pretty disgusting behavior. She is a fine women and has done well for her home state, I think she would make an excellent VP.

[stoat]

Well, the first thing that struck me when I heard of Palin was that she's against sex education at school and that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. Sex ed including the basics of contraception IMO might be a tiny bit more effective than telling teenagers to just think of baby Jesus when nature calls...

How many 17 year old high school students do you think are out there that have never heard of contraception? If you don't want to get your girlfriend pregnant, wrap it up. You don't need a sex ed class for that.

Being against sex education in this day and age is incomprehensible.

I took 18 weeks of health class over three years in grade school, and another 18 as a 1 semester health class my sophomore year in high school. Care to wager how much of the curriculum was sex ed? None of it. Not a single day. Sex ed or even drug ed programs don't prevent kids from having sex or from doing drugs. I did hear a lot about how bad drugs and alcohol are, yet a large percentage of my classmates smelled of weed or were talking about the coming weekend's parties while this education was in progress. All sex ed classes achieve is to make class awkward for a time. Engaging in drug related or sexual activity has nothing to do with a class you take in school, and everything to do with the circumstances an individual places themself in and their judgement.

[Bugged]

Explicit sex education? That's a new one for me. I may have to put my google skilz to work on this.

[Bugged]

All sex ed classes achieve is to make class awkward for a time.

Toughen up, stoat. We've all had to live through it. It can be worth a few laughs. *remembers the sex ed scene from the movie Grease*

Engaging in drug related or sexual activity has nothing to do with a class you take in school, and everything to do with the circumstances an individual places themselves in and their judgement.

I have a strong belief that a woman who is against sex ed in school is closed-minded. When in the comfort of their own home, how much do you think that Palins talk about sex and the consequences of engaging in sexual activity? The ostrich with its head in the sand is what comes to mind.

It's still ironic that Palin's daughter is pregnant. Sure, being educated on something does not ensure that a person won't make mistakes. Chances are, Palin's daughter did know what she was getting in to. Truth is, I think teen pregnancy has more to do with a teenager wanting unconditional love and, not getting it from her parents, she decides that a baby will fill the void.

No matter how you cut it, there's still a stigma attached to teen pregnancies. And people will always look to the parents and the teen's homelife for answers.

[Condo]

During her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign, Sarah Palin responded to a question on sex education programs with the answer: "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

[stoat]

I have a strong belief that a woman who is against sex ed in school is closed-minded. When in the comfort of their own home, how much do you think that Palins talk about sex and the consequences of engaging in sexual activity? The ostrich with its head in the sand is what comes to mind.

I have no idea how much they talked about it, nor does that really matter. You can't tell me that an American teenager who goes to a public high school and who presumably watches television isn't educated already, and isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some guy could possibly lead to a baby.

It's still ironic that Palin's daughter is pregnant. Sure, being educated on something does not ensure that a person won't make mistakes. Chances are, Palin's daughter did know what she was getting in to. Truth is, I think teen pregnancy has more to do with a teenager wanting unconditional love and, not getting it from her parents, she decides that a baby will fill the void.

Claiming that Sarah Palin doesn't love her children conditionally is an interesting line to take. And perhaps times have changed, but I see teen pregnancy as having mostly to do with hugely horny teens not taking the time to put on a condom or check if their partner is taking the pill. Teens having sex is nothing new, but of the peers I have that have children already or on the way, I can assure you that the baby is an unintended consequence.

[Bugged]

I have no idea how much they talked about it, nor does that really matter. You can't tell me that an American teenager who goes to a public high school and who presumably watches television isn't educated already, and isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some guy could possibly lead to a baby.

My point is not whether or not sex ed 'does the trick'. To be against sex ed in schools speaks to the type of person who is opposing it. When I learned of Palin's objection to sex ed, I immediately formed an opinion of someone who is closed-minded, old fashioned, unrealistic, etc. She does not strike me as someone who is forward thinking or proactive. Yep, I got all that from learning that she opposed sex ed (whether it be explicit or non-explicit).

Learning that her daughter is pregnant was an "ahhhh moment". No shocker there.

Claiming that Sarah Palin doesn't love her children conditionally is an interesting line to take.

To be clear, I was referring to unconditional love. And it was from the viewpoint of the daughter (as the receiver), not the parent (as the giver). Big difference. I did not say that Palin doesn't love her children unconditionally.

Teens having sex is nothing new, but of the peers I have that have children already or on the way, I can assure you that the baby is an unintended consequence.

What can I say to this? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. I take your assurance that the baby was an unintended consequence for the guy involved, but it'll take a lot to convince me that all the young women who get pregnant do so "accidentally".

You're right that there's nothing new about teen pregnancy and I'm sure you'll believe me when I say I've known a young woman or two who has found herself *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* "accidentally" pregnant. You said that there isn't an " American teenager who ... isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some [one] could possibly lead to a baby", then why does teen pregnancy exist?

I don't buy the argument that young men are too "hugely horny" to use a condom or that young women can't get a prescription for the pill when they decide to become sexually active.

Responsibilty isn't always an easy concept for teens, in general (don't flip your wig, stoat), to grasp. Making it easy for teens to get their hands on birth control is a must. Condoms are stocked right between the facial tissues and the cold meds in the 7-11 convenience stores in my neighbourhood. So why are teens still getting pregnant? It makes me wonder just how many "accidental" pregnancies aren't accidental at all.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I believe the accidentally-on-purpose is, though not as rare as one might think, still a minority in the reasons behind such things. I think it's largely cultural.

In an environment where there is sexual repression and embarrassment, condom use has certain stigmas. If you carry condoms, you are a whore. In a society where recreational sex is a no-no if you want the boyfriend to put them on you don't trust/love him. Whereas in a more liberal society, asking for condom use is just a sensible precaution to the potential risk. Very few are uptight about it and take it as an affront. If it's an overcast day when you leave the house you take both an umbrella and a condom because it could rain and you might like to ****, and the decision is about on the same level.

[stoat]

My point is not whether or not sex ed 'does the trick'. To be against sex ed in schools speaks to the type of person who is opposing it. When I learned of Palin's objection to sex ed, I immediately formed an opinion of someone who is closed-minded, old fashioned, unrealistic, etc. She does not strike me as someone who is forward thinking or proactive. Yep, I got all that from learning that she opposed sex ed (whether it be explicit or non-explicit).

While I'm not sure if this is the case with Gov. Palin, I know that there are a fair number of parents that would prefer to teach their own child the birds and the bees. They prefer to introduce that information to their children in a more controlled environment than marching them in to a class where they listen to old Mrs. Floppy-Arm-Skin talking about coitus and autofellatio or whatnot, or pushing a government standardized soft porn video into a VCR and letting that do the teaching while she flips through the latest JC Penney catalog. Preferring one's own brand of education to that of the state is not always the sign of a closed-minded, unrealistic, reactionary fuddy-duddy. Parents home school children in every other subject all the time. And is it really that far out to believe that a parent may want sex kept out of their child's school like others want religion kept out? Of course, both of our cases are based on unproven suppostions.

Learning that her daughter is pregnant was an "ahhhh moment". No shocker there.

I think this is unfair. Everyone is quick to point out when the child of strict parents gets pregnant. Sure, kids with strict parents act out. But there's no ahhhh moment when parents that don't give a damn about what their kids do wind up with pregnant children, or when kids from anywhere else in the strict-to-lax spectrum get preggers. I don't even think that there is irony here. If Bristol was an abstinence advocate, or had taken one of those vows of chastity and then gotten pregnant, that's ironic. But this would hardly be the first time a child didn't hold a parent's point of view, or acted outside the realm of their idea of a model child.

To be clear, I was referring to unconditional love. And it was from the viewpoint of the daughter (as the receiver), not the parent (as the giver). Big difference. I did not say that Palin doesn't love her children unconditionally.

What can I say to this? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. I take your assurance that the baby was an unintended consequence for the guy involved, but it'll take a lot to convince me that all the young women who get pregnant do so "accidentally".

I meant unconditional, but left off the prefix. And I find it hard to believe that teenage girls are so desperate for love that they go on the hunt for baby juice to make a little bundle of life changing love of their own. The girl who thinks her parents don't love her is high on the list of candidates to get drunk and laid in a closet at a homecoming party, but I don't think all that many girls want a baby before they're out of high school.

You're right that there's nothing new about teen pregnancy and I'm sure you'll believe me when I say I've known a young woman or two who has found herself *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* "accidentally" pregnant. You said that there isn't an " American teenager who ... isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some [one] could possibly lead to a baby", then why does teen pregnancy exist?

Sure, it does happen. I know girls that have gotten pregnant and married at 17, but it's hard to know the breakdown of whether the marriage was because of the baby or not.

I don't buy the argument that young men are too "hugely horny" to use a condom or that young women can't get a prescription for the pill when they decide to become sexually active.

Responsibilty isn't always an easy concept for teens, in general (don't flip your wig, stoat), to grasp. Making it easy for teens to get their hands on birth control is a must. Condoms are stocked right between the facial tissues and the cold meds in the 7-11 convenience stores in my neighbourhood. So why are teens still getting pregnant? It makes me wonder just how many "accidental" pregnancies aren't accidental at all.

I see teen irresponsibility on a daily basis, so I can hardly take exception. And condoms aren't hard to acquire. As you mentioned, they can be found in any convenience store. Pills are another story. There are parents that don't like the idea of their daughter being sexually active, and thus refuse to go along with the practice, and it's not always possible for high school girls to pay for the drugs themselves. But I'm not a girl, and I see this issue from the other side. That being said, there are a lot of guys that carry condoms in their wallets, either because they want to imply that they're getting some, or because they actually are. I'm not keeping records, nor do I look for stories, but I would have to say that the ratio of protected sex to unprotected sex is very high. Very few high school guys want to have children when they're 17 or 18. That's for after college, when the wild oats have all been sown. And because man seed is required for the making of a baby, most guys tend to cover their bases. The guys I know that have gotten girls pregnant are for the most part those least suited to be fathers. They're the ones that don't bother with condoms either because they don't like the feel or it would interrupt their game, or whatever other excuses they dig up afterwards. What I'm saying is that even if the girl wants a baby, the guy can still choose to use a condom. And I think instances of both individuals wanting children because their mothers didn't hug them enough are suspect at best.

[costard]

The Roman Catholic church has only just (this year) recognised the sense in any form of contraception other than abstinence - its not hard to believe that practicing Catholics will take a generation or so to begin following the change as a matter of course (I have no idea which sect of the Judaeo-Christian church the Palins or their friends belong to). The taboos associated with sex and its discussion are deep seated within most societies, again, time and education will eventually effect a change here.

The taboos exist for good reasons - disease control, the cost to the society of supporting single parents, the gestalt of valuing the intimacy of the sexual act. The idea that a more informed individual will make far better life choices is easy to refute on an individual basis, less so on general terms. Teenagers take risks - irresponsibility programmed into their behaviour. In this fashion they discover boundaries and learn about the world they live in. Legislating against this is bound to fail - thus the sense in informing the child and providing him/her with the knowledge of work-arounds to problems they will encounter. Promoting a willfull ignorance in your populace is tantamount to inviting it to behave in a socially destructive fashion. Leading by example achieves a great deal - but if the example is counter productive (or worse, hypocritical) expect the followers' behaviours to be counter-productive.

[Bugged]

While I'm not sure if this is the case with Gov. Palin, I know that there are a fair number of parents that would prefer to teach their own child the birds and the bees.

Why not teach it in schools? Is the subject really so offensive that it can only be talked about at home? That's the kind of thinking that gets people in trouble in the first place. Go ahead and start teaching kids about the birds and the bees at home. Do it before the older kids at school start teaching them fallacies.

My opinion is that sex ed starts at a young age in the home; back in the days of "Mommy, what is this/what are those?" Obviously I'm not talking about educating a child about the 'act of sex', but rather I'm referring to laying the groundwork for open discussions in years to come.

If memory serves me right, I was quite well-informed about a lot of things by grade four. I remember being quizzed by some grade fivers after school one day and feeling awkward about answering their questions because I wasn't really sure in my answers. I ran it all past my folks later that evening to see if I got the answers correct. To my surprise, and to theirs, I was pretty bang-on with my answers. As kids, we take in far more than we're conscious of, I guess. Times have changed a lot and I suspect grade 2 is the new grade 4.

Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that by the time I was in sex ed class, most of it was old news. I don't know at what grade sex ed starts in schools these days but my only concern would be that, like anything else being taught, sex ed needs to be age-appropriate.

Again, if someone is opposed to sex ed being taught in school, I tend to think of them as more than just a little backwards. It's a natural thing that's part of growing up and learning. Is it really so naughty that it can't be discussed in a classroom? We're not in the 1950s anymore.

... talking about coitus and autofellatio or whatnot, or pushing a government standardized soft porn video into a VCR and letting that do the teaching while she flips through the latest JC Penney catalog.

Wow! Sex ed has really, REALLY changed since my day. Coitus? Autofellatio? Soft porn? Is it really like that nowadays? Oh wait, you don't know cuz you posted above that you didn't have sex ed. Nevermind.

Preferring one's own brand of education to that of the state is not always the sign of a closed-minded, unrealistic, reactionary fuddy-duddy.

So Palin, and like-thinkers, can pull their kids out of that class on the days that it's taught but don't dictate to everyone else that they can't have it just because a few don't want it. Fight ignorance.

Of course, both of our cases are based on unproven suppostions.

I know that I'm speculating but I can only base my opinions on what the media has reported. Unless I learn otherwise, and I won't hold my breath (I understand she's against women's choice too), I'll stick to thinking that Palin is living in the dark ages.

[Bugged]

I've heard about this particular glitch.

[Herr Kruger]

Sex ed in schools is a great thing! The more information you have, the better. It's makes one better equipped to deal with situations.

[Michael Emrys]

*has a sudden craving for devil's food chocolate cake*

Always a good thing.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

That's nothing more then a guess as to what people are thinking.

No, actually, it is a fact based upon close observation. Religious beliefs foster thinking along channels that preclude and discourage deviation by eliminating alternate ways of perception. The believer thinks and acts along these dogmatic and institutionalized lines of approved thought and action so long that he gets into a type of mental and behavioral rut and can't rise over the top of it to see outside of his own belief pattern. The reality is the rut behind him and the rut ahead of him. On either side are insurmountable obstacles to seeing anything any other way. Religion encourages him to keep his head down, look, backwards for inspiration and forward along the rut he's already trod (along with his predecessor believers) for the route to the future...and the same old results and outcomes...which are all "gods will" after all.

I don't see people in that position "thinking" at all...I see them following scripts and feelings, with nary an original thought. They have "found" the answer, why look farther or think any deeper?

[Abbott]

I don't see people in that position "thinking" at all.

When one pretends that is their position on every thought then I can understand why some do not see.