Strollerderby : religion

California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Brett Singer — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:30:00 GMT

This was a tricky story to put into a headline. See, it's not a "gay curriculum" per se. That's what the opponents of the program, officially called LGBT Lesson #9, are calling it. A better headline is this one from KCBS news -- Alameda Approves Elementary Curriculum on Tolerance. The "controversial lesson plan aimed at discouraging bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes" was approved by the Alameda school board by a vote of 3-2.

Yes, 3-2. And it's only in Alameda, California. When I first saw the story on Fox News a few days ago (before the vote had occurred), I initially thought that this was state-wide. Because based on the tone of the reporting, one would think that something HUGE was going on.

Watch this fair and balanced (not) report from Fox News:

(If the embed doesn't work, please click here.)

Listen to the way Steve Ducey says "transgendered people" as if he were saying "horrible, evil nazis who would like nothing more than to eat your family dog."

The question the Fox report raises is whether or not it is "age appropriate" to teach K-5 kids about what they refer to as the "gay lifestyle." Also, "Opponents [of the curriculum] say that this is an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda," according to Fox. Next: those opponents want to recall the board members who voted for it. Then Steve Ducey wraps things up for us by saying "OK. Same sex penguins. Only in California." (Well, also in New York, at the Central Park Zoo. But hey, East Coast, West Coast, we're all heathens in the eyes of the Duce.)

So what is everyone so upset about? One item is the book "And Tango Makes Three," described by FoxNews.com as a book that is "about two gay penguins who raise a baby peguin, is the basis for grade school teachings on gay and lesbian lifestyles."

Right. Because that's what the point of the book is. To showcase the gay lifestyle. Because being gay is just a lifestyle choice, right? A choice made by irresponsible Sodomites who hate America and all of the values on which we stand.

The purpose of the lesson plan is to promote tolerance. And judging by the reaction, some tolerance is needed.

Another take on this is provided by KGO-TV, an ABC News affiliate in San Francisco. That report says that parents are upset that they will be unable to "opt-out" of the lessons if they feel that they go against their religious beliefs. They also say that "race and religion...can also lead to bullying," but those things are not discussed.

Here's the thing. I don't know the full extent of the curriculum being proposed. But tolerance for gay people is not taught the way tolerance for people of different races are taught. Wen I was in school, we learned about racial tolerance. I very clearly recall a film strip (remember film strips?) in which Bill Cosby said, "There's a Black man sitting in your loafers," and pointing out the racism in old movies ("When they got scared -- these dudes turned white!"). We read "Native Son." What we didn't do was discuss anything about gay people.

Fast-forward thirty a few years. My son is in school. He learns about racial tolerance. He has told me more than once that anyone who believes that one race of people is better than another race of people is "insane." He learns about the holidays of religions that he wouldn't otherwise be familiar with. But as far as I know, he hasn't read "And Tango Makes Three." Why not? Maybe because gay stuff still makes people uncomfortable. (The Onion had a headline that reflected this brilliantly. I can't find it but basically it said that the popularity of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" could attributed to the fact that gay people are so cute without all that gay sex. The Onion said it better than that.)

I admit that this is based on my own experience, but I think there's something to it. Is this particular curriculum the answer? I don't know. Will reading "And Tango Makes 3" in second grade cause the sky to be consumed in hellfire? Nope. Gay parents are out there (no pun intended). Why shouldn't kids know that?

What do you think? Is K-5 too young to learn about gay people? Or should it be treated as another path down the road to tolerance?

Source: Mercury News

Image: Amazon

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

SNL Mother's Day Skits

Morning News - Government Issues New Fuel Standards

Brett Singer — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

In an effort to reduce automobile emissions, the Obama administration is planning to issue "a new national standard for cars and light trucks that incorporates California’s tough auto-emission rules." The President will likely announce these new rules today (Tuesday). The New York Times says that "As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016." No one will have any money to buy them, of course. Well, maybe by 2016 we will.

Mel Gibson's girlfriend (not to be confused with his wife) has posed in lingerie. The New York Post has photos. Oh, and get this -- she's pregnant! (A commenter at the Daily News' web site says "mazel tov!" which is, frankly, hilarious.) Ah, Mel. How's it going, you anti-semitic hypocrite? Oops, did I say that out loud?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to get peace talks with the Palestinians back on track. BUT he won't endorse a Palestinian state. Bibi (that's Netanyahu's nickname, I didn't make it up) was at the White House to chat with President Obama.

You know what's great about religious people? They're so tolerant. Like Charlotte Allen, who wrote the following in the Los Angeles Times: "I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores." Why do I think that Charlotte would be the first to shout "discrimination" if anyone said something against Christians? Feh.

Apparently Angelina Jolie is all angry at Madonna for trying to adopt another Malawian child. Assuming this is true, I have a question for Ms. Jolie -- when did you become the queen of the world? “Angie sees what she and Brad Pitt do as being about saving a child, but she thinks Madonna does it for publicity," an "insider" told Us Weekly. I really do wonder if these "insiders" and "sources close to the star" actually exist. Can gossip magazines just make stuff up like that? Even if they can, isn't it unbelieveably tacky? I know, dumb question.

File this one under "for what it's worth": Next time bloggers get accused of sensationalist journalism, let us remember how the news of Mitchell Weiner's death was reported here on Babble. Allow me to quote myself: CNN reports that a "New York middle school assistant principal who was hospitalized with the H1N1 virus died Sunday. BUT he might not have died of swine flu. Compare that to the New York Post: yesterday's front page headline was "SWINE DEATH." But if you bothered to read the story, the second paragraph said "Complications besides the virus likely played a part in Mitchell Wiener's death." Even the usually sober Bloomberg News went with "New York Has First Swine Flu Death." They quoted a hospital spokesperson as saying that "Wiener had swine flu and no other pre-existing medical conditions that the hospital knows of." BUT then CNN reported the following: "An assistant principal who died after being hospitalized with the H1N1 virus did have an underlying condition, the New York City's health commissioner said Monday." So who is the more responsible reporter? That would be ME. The blogger with no resources other than my rapier wit and hands that are either typing or changing a stinky diaper. HA! Take that mainstream media!

Finally, Woody Allen won $5 million from American Apparel. The Woodster sued the clothier with the creepy ads because they used his image without first getting permission. I'm no fan of Allen's personal life, but in this case he was right and I'm glad he won. I still wish he hadn't, you know, married his own daughter. But we're none of us perfect, I suppose.

Image: Amazon

The Chubbiest Cheeks You Will Ever See

More Stuff Hip, Urban Parents Like

Australian Kiddie Show Star Appears In Laddie Mag

12 Year Old Knocks Em Dead On Britain's Got Talent

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Swine Flu - Maybe We Won't Close School

Mom Tells State Don't Make Me Vaccinate

JeanneSager — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:04:00 GMT

It's one of only two states that won't allow parents to use religion as an excuse to avoid vaccinating their kids, and now West Virginia is facing a lawsuit from a mom who says she doesn't want her six-year-old daughter to receive the shots.

Jennifer Workman says it's a "sacrilege" to expect her to vaccinate her daughter. But wouldn't you know, this so-called religious excuse is coming from a mom who claims vaccines cause autism.

I say so-called religion in this case because it sounds awfully convenient. Workman describes herself as "bapticostal," a mix of Baptist and Pentecostal religions, and she's asked a federal judge to overturn the state's demands that her daughter be immunized before attending public school based on religious freedom.

But her real problem? Her elder daughter, teenaged Susanna, has autism. And she's afraid of vaccinating Madison because she believes the vaccines are to blame. Never mind the long line of studies that have discredited that theory. That's only a small portion of the problem here - because Workman isn't presenting this as a medical case.

She's clearly using religion to push through her agenda. And she's not alone. Two years ago, Babble reported on a hike in religious dispensations being requested by parents who didn't want to vaccinate.

But where our forefathers were talking the right to assemble and pray to your own God (or G-d or Allah . . .), to circumcise your kids, to not eat pork, to string a cross around your neck, they were also talking about personal rights as they affect one person. They weren't, however, talking about excuses couched in religious belief that void the social contract. Just as ritualistic killings can not fall under the guise of religion because it's an express harm to others, an unvaccinated child walking into a school building is a public health risk. Allowing these types of dispensations only increases that risk.

Should kids in West Virginia be forced to bow to a mother's attempts to skirt the law?

Morning News - Saudis Can Slap Their Wives

Brett Singer — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Let us begin with this sentence from CNN.com: "Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence." The judge "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," according to Arab News. Not that I agree, but I wasn't terribly surprised to read this, especially after the tale of the 8-year-old girl who had to try three times to get a divorce from a 47-year-old.

The Pope is in Israel. There's a joke there, but I don't know what it is. And if I did, I probably wouldn't make it anyway. Don't want to risk being struck by lightning or something.

Speaking of people who wear funny clothes (oops, sorry), the new Star Trek movie made over $75 million at the box office. Apparently this is the 11th "Trek" movie. Didn't realize that. I saw this latest installment (thanks to my wife who stayed with the children while I geeked it up at the movies) and thought it was great. Definitely things to complain about if you are so inclined, as in this hilarious video from The Onion News Network:

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

But it was a lot of fun. Not sure how it plays for someone who is unfamiliar with the ways of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest. Interestingly, the film made less than "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", despite the fact that Hugh Jackman's Wolvie movie was (a) leaked online a month early, and (b) received far worse reviews than "Star Trek", which almost every critic seemed to love. You probably shouldn't take your kids to see either one, however.

I'll just quote this headline: "Lance Armstrong says Sheryl Crow's biological clock doomed their romance." Then Lance went and got his next girlfriend pregnant. Nice.

Have you been following the story of the preacher who got caught romping with a woman? He's been called "Father Oprah"; his real name is Father Albert Cutié. Here's a 2006 article from BeliefNet that starts out with the now hilarious question "As a celibate Catholic priest, you've probably been asked this before. How can you give advice to married people and people who want to get married?" His answer? "You don't have to be mentally ill to be a good psychiatrist. I don't think you have to be someone who has a real problem in order to relate to people's problems." In other words, you don't need to be having sex to discuss sex with people. Except that he WAS having sex. OOPS! Maybe he's not a psychiatrist, but is mentally ill? The latest news is that Father Cutié (heh heh, his name is cutie) is "in love." He's also been removed from his church, and a rally in support of him turned "violent." A lot of religious folks think that preists should just be able to get married. I don't have a strong opinion about that, but I do think lying about being celibate is kind of a crappy thing to do. Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "don't lie"?

If you'll excuse me, I have to step outside. Hm. That's funny, the sun was out just a moment ago. Where did those clouds come form? AHHH!!!!!!

Images: Lightning - Guy-Sports.com, Star Trek - Amazon

Required Viewing for All Mothers

Classic Mother Songs For Mother's Day

Poll - Portia and Ellen Most Trusted Moms

Mother's Day Music: The Least You Can Do

What Would Jesus Build Out of LEGO?

JeanneSager — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:28:00 GMT

If your kids get this into LEGO, you might want to sign them up for the nearest seminary.

Proving the theory that LEGOs are good for the soul, a Protestant Church in Sweden has built a life-size Jesus statue . . . completely out of the itty bitty bricks.

Whether kids were actually part of the band of forty volunteers who spend a full year and a half on the sculpture, they don't say, but the kids in the congregation were allowed to run their hands all over the mega Messiah when he was revealed.

Extra cool? The church used donated bricks from families - and they managed to use all the colored bricks to build the core. I don't know about your LEGO collection, but white blocks don't play heavily into ours - so the fact that they found that many to make an all-white savior is kind of a miracle unto itself!

Image: AP

Choose Life License Plates Debate Heats Up

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:00 GMT

If you're a pregnant woman, do you want to get stuck in traffic behind a car sporting a "Choose Life" bumper sticker? What if it wasn't a bumper sticker but a license plate, supported in essence by the taxes you pay and the state government by virtue of their oversight of the department of motor vehicles?

It's a fight raging in the North Carolina House of Representatives right now, and one that's been cropping up in other states. Are choose life license plates allowing the religious right to get its hooks too far into government?

Judges in Illinois, Arizona and South Carolina have summarily dismissed the proposal to add them to the fund-raising options in the department of motor vehicles' repertoire, citing the topic too controversial. In North Carolina, the current debate is over whether "choose life" is a political issue because civic groups are eligible for special plates but political issues are specifically not allowed.

Its proponents, of course, say it's political in the sense that it is free speech. That's why the pro-life Children First Foundation has taken the State of New Jersey to court over the plates - citing the state for denying them their Constitutionally protected rights. They've pointed out that individuals pay for the right to have the special emblems on their plates, an extra fee that goes to help support the department of motor vehicles as a whole - so pro-choice people aren't technically funding a pro-lifer's message. If anything, they'd be benefitting from it with the funds raised that offset our taxes.

But it's hard to separate license plates, issued by a government entity, from the emblems printed on them. Even if a pro-lifer paid for that emblem to be there, it still stands that the government allowed them to put it there, even took their money to do so. What's next? Nazi symbols printed on license plates? If this is a matter of free speech, than why not? Although I am very decidedly pro-choice, I am not equating the general pro-lifer with Nazis.

But I would ask whether pro-lifers are ready to have the government supporting pro-choice emblems printed onto their license plates, at the behest of the state. A bumper sticker bears the opinion of the driver, a license plate is representative of government.

And my baby, my body don't belong there.

Image: WRAL

Are Your Children Playing With Lucifer’s Testicles?

SunnyChanel — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:34:00 GMT

You know what I’m going to do this coming Sunday? I’m going to let my child play with Satan’s testicles and chances are, you may too. I personally never think of myself as a God forsaken heathen but it looks like me, along with millions of Americans, are on the road to hellsville with the Devil’s balls firmly in hand.

Are Your Children Playing With Lucifer’s Testicles? is a Christian Bible based tome that “teaches parents how to easily explain to their children that Easter (as it is celebrated by the Unsaved) has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ but is actually a holiday celebrating lewd and sexually explicit pagan rituals of fertility.”

"Easter Eggs are one of the wiliest tools of the Devil," Daniel Cameroon, the writer of the book declares. "Pagan kids didn't have anything to do on Easter Sunday because their mommies and daddies were stuck in a false temple all day, naked and writhing around with their neighbors in Satanic orgies of the flesh. You see, parents had to come up with a way to occupy their children while they were away from home, praying and fornicating under the altar of Satan. And since they didn't have babysitters back then, they gave their kids eggs to play with and sometimes paint.” He continues to state, "But the reason they chose eggs had nothing to do with any sort of fertility or fertilizers (as some misguided Christian historians would have you believe). Nope, it was because of Lucifer's testicles! Glory to God!”

Oh the fun! Can't wait to color, dye and crack open some of my own Lucifer's Testicles. Do you think Easter Eggs are the tools of Satan?

Source via Source

UPDATE: Betty Wu let us know that this is actualy a parody from Landover Baptist. en.wikipedia.org/.../Landover_Baptist

Kids Sing Religious Song, Parents Sue

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:35:00 GMT

There are songs that mention religion, and there are songs that are religious. When a song is named "In God We Still Trust," and features the words "Bible," frequent references to "Him," and the word "believe," wouldn't you think that falls into the latter category?

Apparently, it doesn't matter. At least not to a Florida public school where a third grade teacher was training her students to sing the song by country group Diamond Rio for their end-of-year program. The kids had the song memorized when one made mention of it to Mom and Dad. When the parents complained, the teacher told the kids they wouldn't have to sing it if it violated their beliefs, but told them they would be excluded from participation in the program. Sounds like punishing kids for their beliefs to me.

The superintendent yanked the song just before the parents filed a lawsuit, which they filed anyway, looking for compensatory damages because (according to the suit), teaching the song "amounts to religious indoctrination and interferes with the parents’ right to raise their children according to their own beliefs."

I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but what's upsetting here is the defense from the school. They're acknowleding they're aware of separation of church and state, but they say a religious song is different. The lawyer for the St. Johns County School Board said choruses are traditionally exempt from the rules against public prayer in school. According to a report in a Jacksonville newspaper, the attorney said, "Courts have held that a choral curriculum can be expected to include religious songs because a significant percentage of choral music is based on religious themes or texts."

In general, I agree. I sang Hanukkah songs when I was a kid in school, and I'm Catholic. It never bothered me because they were historical (and honestly, I thought the festival of lights was pretty cool!) and not heavy on religious rhetoric. There was no "we will believe in X, Y and Z."

But this isn't an old song with a passing reference to religion. It's a song released on an album in 2006 by a contemporary band. And it talks heavily about believing and following God (click here to watch the music video and see for yourself). And if the teacher told kids who didn't believe that they couldn't participate in the school program, that's religious persecution.

What do you think? Are the parents overreaching or are they right to be upset?

Image: AnswerBag

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

Brett Singer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Christianity Today has an excerpt from Kate Gosselin's book "Multiple Blessings":

"I'll say it again: Like most little girls, I had dreamed of the day when I would meet my husband, have children, and settle down to live a happily-ever-after kind of life."

Is that what "most little girls" dream of? Getting married and having kids? Am I living in some fantasy world where women have moved beyond the notion that this is what they should do? I realize that Kate isn't saying "all little girls" or even "women belong at home in the kitchen." And most of the rest of the excerpt (I didn't read it all) talks about Kate and her faith, which is a different topic. But isn't this notion that little girls dream of getting married (perhaps in a princess gown) and making babies kind of 1950's? Is "today's Christian woman" (the slogan on the website) the same as yesterday's Christian woman? What the heck, Kate?

Oh, and while you're up, could you get me a beer? Thanks babe.

Source: Christianity Today

TV Is Neither Good Nor Bad For Babies

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Expose Puts Another Spin on Jon and Kate Plus 8

God's Army

Five Minute Time Out: Kate Gosselin

Expose Puts Another Spin on Jon and Kate Plus 8

JeanneSager — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:28:00 GMT

If you're a fan of the Jon and Kate Plus 8, you might be shocked by the venom reserved by some parents for spewing at the Gosselins. Then again, if you read last weekends Philly Mag, you might be joining them.

In case you haven't seen it, it's the "normal" TLC show, the story of a couple who underwent fertility treatments because the mom (Kate) suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome, which made getting pregnant the natural way impossible. The first time around, they came out with twins. The second, with sextuplets. Hence the "Plus 8" in the title.

Since a 2005 one-hour special garnered massive attention, the entire family and all their doings has been on TLC week in and week out on a regular series, showing life with multiples can be hectic but relatively normal. Relatively.

Frankly, I don't watch every week (I actually don't watch much TV myself), but I've seen more than my share of episodes in the off hours. My daughter got us into it - I was cuddling in bed with her one evening, flipping channels while she half dozed in the crook of my arm, and she noticed little kids on the screen. She asked me to "go back, I wanna see the kids who are cold." The Gosselins were out skiing - hence the cold. My occassional tune-ins since have been mostly out of curiousity - their younger kids aren't much older than my daughter, and it's fascinating to get a glimpse at how other kids her age act. Suffice it to say, I was never a Gosselin hater.

After reading the expose in Philly Mag, I'm still not as venomous as say Glamour's Christine Coppa . . . or the legion of commentors on either her blog or the Philly Mag piece. BUT I've certainly got my eyes open.

Open to how much "God" really does play a role in the Gosselin household - even as they attempt to differentiate themselves from their TLC counterparts, the Duggars, with a limit on the Christian speak. Check out their Website. God this. God that. There's nothing wrong with belief in God or even talking about God, but in all the episodes I've watched, I've never once seen Kate and Jon talk about religion. And apparently they make frequent visits to churches, where they allow the church to pass around the basket for a "free love offering." They also charge the churches big money to come out - not just airfare but first class airfare plus a hefty speaking fee. That's Christian?

I was also disturbed to see that the family put up a request list on the Web (akin to Nadya Suleman's already defunct donation Website) before they got the guarantee of a paycheck from TLC. Remember, they had fertility treatments - they knew what they were in for.

Some things plain old did not shock me. The Gosselin house is ranked eighth out of one hundred forty-nine cable shows for product placement these days. Jon got free hair plugs. Kate got a free tummy tuck. They get free toys, free trips to baseball games, free trips to Hawaii. It's all wrong, says Coppa and the parent commenters because it means the Gosselins are exploiting their kids. I tend to disagree. Most of us pay for these things (minus the plugs and tummy tuck), and the Gosselins get it for free. Jealous? Yeah - so are a lot of commentors it seems. Coppa too.

But as someone who has worked in journalism for the past decade, I know advertising is a necessary evil. The newspaper I work for wouldn't be published without it! And I wouldn't get a paycheck. The Gosselins "pay" by allowing cameras into their homes. The advertisers get a spot on a top-rated cable show. That's advertising folks - that's how it works. Rather than paying with funds, advertisers sometimes pay with product. And if they didn't pony up the product, when the kids played with a (Mom- and Dad-purchased) Wii, you can bet that would get cut off the show by the folks at TLC. It doesn't mean the kids wouldn't get these things, and frankly, the big companies should HAVE TO pay somehow - either with product or money. Would it be better if TLC reaped all the benefits instead of the family?

I also confess to not being all that upset that the family charges for autographed pictures. They're celebrities. Ever been to a meet and greet at a concert? Didn't you pay for that? How about the autographed tees and pictures at one of the merchandise kiosks? You paid for that too, didn't you? Although Coppa compares the Gosselins charging to her chance meeting with the OC's Mischa Barton - who posed for a picture and didn't charge, snapping your own pic with a celebrity is different from a signed celebrity photo. Those cost money to produce, and take time to actually sign. Personally, I wouldn't buy one - but if people are willing to pony up $20 for pictures of the Gosselins, that's their problem - not Jon and Kate's.

There's plenty more - some bad, some not-so-bad in the Philly Mag piece. It's extensive and well-researched, so I'd recommend reading it all the way through.

When you're done, come back and let us know - did it change your mind about the Gosselins?

Image: Discovery Store

Also on Babble:

God's Army

Five Minute Time Out: Kate Gosselin

Parents Pick Common Sense Over Religion

JeanneSager — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:43:00 GMT

I knew I couldn't be alone. Although America is still mostly a Judeo-Christian society, it turns out parents are eschewing Biblical ideals in favor of good old-fashioned experience and going from the gut.

A new survey from the LifeWay Research, the research arm of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention says only one fifth of American parents turn to religion for guidance as they raise their kids. Ninety-six percent of parents say they want - and strive - to be better parents.

Of course, coming out of a Christian organization, the findings are being used to criticize parents. In fact, Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research, likens those of us who refuse to turn to religion for guidance as "toddlers."

The inference that religion holds the only answer to parenting has always rubbed me the wrong way. Let me be clear - for some parents, it provide answers. There's nothing wrong with families who turn to their Bible (or for that matter their Koran) for guidance. But there ARE other answers, including the "lead by example" method that this survey shows a majority of parents have embraced.

We look at what our parents did and pick and choose what worked and what didn't. It's time-tested and parent-approved. It's called evolution, folks, and it works.

McConnell's statements are perhaps most bothersome because of a frequent envelope that's arrived on my doorstep, filled with the "good news of the Lord." They started directly after I wrote in my weekly column for my local newspaper that I was struggling with how to tell my daughter that her babysitter's husband had passed away. The first one was accompanied by a note, instructing me to turn to my Bible to learn how to be a better parent. They became more frequent after I wrote a piece in support of gay marriage, apparently as a reminder that this person doesn't think I'm making any progress.

I was raised in a Catholic household, and although I have my qualms about some of what I was taught, there was one thing of which I'm appreciate to this day. I was brought up in a church that preached modeling behaviors rather than foisting beliefs on others. I was raised to believe that kids need are good role models.

In other words - we, the parents, the former kids, were raised by our best role models for parenting. Using those examples to parent - whether it's doing what they did or using their actions as examples of what NOT to do - is the very best way to parent.

What do you think?

Image: Throne of His Glory

RENT Too Risqué For Some Schools

Playdate: Anti-Racist Parent Offers Philosophical Commraderie and Practical Advice

Parents Ignoring Back to Sleep Campaign

Foster Mom Loses Job When Muslim Charge Converts

JeanneSager — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:26:00 GMT

A Muslim teenager's conversion to Christianity has prompted British officials to strip her evangelical foster mother of all responsibilities after ten years fostering kids for the government.

The woman, who has fostered eighty kids in the past decade, says she's being persecuted as a Christian. What's more - she says she tried discouraging the girl, now seventeen, from switching religions.

Not named because of legal reasons, the foster mother told the British Daily Telegraph that she offered the girl alternatives to living a Christian lifestyle, despite her own church-going practices. The caregiver attends an evangelical church and says family services was aware the girl had chosen to attend with her. They were OK with it, until the girl was baptised.

"I offered to take her to friends or family. But she said to me from the word go: 'I am interested and I want to come [to church]'," the woman told the Telegraph. Her case against the government - an attempt to regain her "job" as a foster mother (which did provide her income), is being funded by the Christian Insitute, which has charged the government with violations of both the girl's and women's right to religious freedom.

I'd tend to agree that a child of sixteen making a religious conversion is markedly different from a child of five or six (it's one reason I've always argued for baptism later rather than at birth). Teens have some sense of the gravity of decisions, and they're also relatively open to change. Teenagers like to make big decisions and take some control of their own lives. The fact that this girl had a troubled childhood, pushing her out of her home and into foster care, would understandably make her more willing to make a change in her life - especially one that would please a caregiver.

Does that mean the caregiver MADE her do it? Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe this could have all been avoided if the government either a. placed her in a home with a Muslim foster family or b. provided some means for the child to attend Muslim services, then checked up to see why she wasn't attending. At sixteen, she could have answered for herself.

She has answered for herself since. The girl is back with her own parents now and says she supports her former caregiver. She's staying a Christian, and she doesn't regret it.

So what do you think?

Image: BeliefNet

Bart Simpson-Scientologist

Brett Singer — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Telemarketing is annoying. Robocalls, telemarketing via robot, even more so. But a robocall that promotes a cult using the voice of a cartoon character popular with kids?

Very very bad.

Nancy Cartwright is the voice of Bart Simpson. She is also a Scientologist who reportedly gave more than $10 million to the religion/cult in 2007. (Wow. Voice acting pays better than I thought.) If she wants to give her money to an organization that promises to rid her body of aliens (or whatever it is that Scientologists believe), that's her right.

Nancy, however, wants more people to realize the benefits of Dianetics and giving your money away. Listen to this:

First I have to say that I have no idea what the hell she is talking about (man). "I'm now auditing on new OT VII." "OT" doesn't mean "occupation therapy"; it stands for "Operating Thetan." Which is "a spiritual state above Clear." Which means... you know what? I'm going to stop there because I don't even want to know. This stuff makes my brain hurt.

Why even write about this? Because it annoys me that Cartwright is using a character that kids might identify with to promote this nonsense. Personally, I think Scientology is a cult. But even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a religion, it's still wrong. Obviously she thinks that using Bart's voice on the call is the equivalent of a kid running for student council president putting "Free Beer! Now That I Have Your Attention..." on her posters. (Which I think was something Homer did in a Simpsons episode.) Who is likely to be intrigued by hearing that voice? A kid who likes The Simpsons, right? "Hey dad! I just heard that the lady who does Bart Simpson's voice is going to be appearing someplace. Something about aliens. Sounds cool. Can we go?"

Is this line of thinking overwrought? Maybe. But Fox disavowed the call, so they clearly saw something wrong with it. I don't know if they can do anything to Cartwright; she didn't release a video with Bart's image or something else that was obviously a copyright violation. I hope that somebody sits Nancy down and explains to her that she's entitled to believe whatever she wants, but when she starts using Bart's voice to convince other people to believe in the same thing, she may find out that there are a lot of actors who can do a damn fine Bart Simpson impression.

(For lots of reasons why people think Scientology is not only creepy but dangerous, check out this site.)

Source: Gawker , Village Voice

Image: The Sun

Wife Set Husband's Genitals On Fire, Charged With Murder, Endangering Life

Baby Bikini and Pregnant Man Top 2008 Weird News List

Kids Explain How Babies Are Made

VIDEO: O'Reilly Upset About Two Year Old Bashing Bush

Bizarro News: Flaming Squirrel Sets Elementary School on Fire

Indian Children Married off . . . to Frogs

JeanneSager — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:26:00 GMT

Far be it for me to poke fun at someone else's religion (I have enough problems with my own). But I draw the line at illegal child marriages.

Especially when seven-year-old girls are married off to frogs.

And by frogs, I don't mean the type who will one day be kissed and turn into princess. We're talking the "it ain't easy being green," ribbit, ribbit variety.

In a ceremony in a remote Indian village last week, seven-year-olds Vigneswari and Masiakanni were dressed in traditional bridal saris and carried to sit in front of a Hindu priest who bound their hands and prayed over them and the frog grooms. The practice is rooted in the story of a Hindu god, and parents now choose children who have yet to hit puberty to be wed to frogs in order to save their small villages from disease.

Bizarre? Yes. Cultural? That too.

But while I can accept there are vast differences between what we accept as "normal" in America and what is de riguer in India, this particular practice isn't merely a cultural oddity. It's dehumanizing for these poor girls, who are forced into bizarre rituals that will forever mark them. Imagine years later attempting to marry only to have to tell your prospective spouse you have once been through the official religious ceremony before . . . with a frog. That's assuming the frog marriage doesn't stand - back in 2003, when an Indian girl was forced to marry a dog, tribal officials said that she would be free to marry again as an adult.

The frogs were thrown back into the pond, so these kids don't have to live the farcical "man and wife" situation that would result from an interspecies marriage, or any child marriage for that matter. But what does this do to their still forming personalities and emotions?

I suppose the kids could be proud that they were chosen to "save" the village, but it's just as easy to see how they could identify themselves as their parents' sacrificial lambs. And just as easy to imagine what will happen to their psyches when the "wedding" doesn't actually ward off disease.

So how about we let them dream about frog princes and keep connubial dreams Kermit free.

Image: Picture Book

Dad Finds Daughter Abducted During Bosnian War

JeanneSager — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:01:00 GMT

It's been sixteen years since Muhamed Becirovic saw his family, abducted by Serbian soldiers at the start of the Bosnian war. But the Bosnian Muslim - now living in Germany - never gave up hope.

Now Red Cross workers, using DNA samples, have reconnected the father with one of his two little girls, now living with a foster family in Serbia. Senida was nine months when last seen by her father; she's now sixteen and goes by the name Mila.

She's also a Serbian. And a Christian.

She's known nothing of her father for the past sixteen years, nothing of his life or her heritage. Now she faces the biggest question of all - should she stay with what she knows? Or join her biological father in another country, taking on a new life?

It's the kind of story that tears at a parents' guts. Becirovic has rebuilt his life since losing his wife and two daughters after fighting broke out while he was working out-of-town, and ethnic Serbs took control of his hometown. By the time he finally got to his home, the building was demolished, his family gone. He's spent more than a decade and a half trying to find them, even if that meant discovering they were among the bodies dumped in the mass graves created during the Bosnian war. He's also since become a permanent resident of Germany, remarrying a German woman and fathering another daughter.

But a third daughter can't possibly replace his elder two. Finding Senida would seem like a dream come true.

But what of Senida? She's no longer a baby, and she says she doesn't want to move to Germany. “Of course I am very happy to have found my family and my roots. But at the moment it is all too much for me," she told the Sunday Times.

Is it fair for a child to be uprooted from everything that she knows? With the long history of the region, pitting Serbs against Bosnians and Christians against Muslims, it's hard to say how much of this child's biological heritage can really take hold over what she has been raised to believe. It's akin to a child raised evangelical Christian in America suddenly learning she's an Orthodox Jew - and her biological parents believe nothing of the born again, Jesus loving faith she's been raised to hold so dear. Doesn't nurture trump nature in this case?

By the time kids reach a certain age, biology can hold only so much sway in their lives. Heritage is more environmental and less what one is born with at sixteen. Not to mention the utter lack of relatable moments between father and daughter in this situation because of such a large chunk of their lives spent apart.

For the Becirovics, what should be one of the happiest days of their lives is fraught with confusion. Unfortunately, they're still a family torn apart by war.

Image: USIP

Dad Gives Away 500 Lobsters For Cystic Fibrosis Awareness

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back to Native American Mother

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

JeanneSager — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Sometimes being a Catholic is all about ducking your head in shame and saying, "this is not my life."

Because the boys in the Vatican - you know the ones, they don't have sex - have come out with another decree about the woman's body. This time, it's the way our contraceptive pill is harming everyone else, and men worst of all.

As if we didn't know already that each little round pill popped out of the foil packet was destroying the world 28 days at a time by preventing the creation of more Catholic babies, now it's apparently sending toxins out to destroy the earth via our urine. The hardest hit? The male reproductive system.

"We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations," said in the report.

Bear with me here. A report just printed in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano says the pill makes women pee toxins. Which hurt the environment. Which makes men infertile.

Ah yes, making sense now. Because as any good Catholic girl knows, it all comes back to making babies. Which is why this one and done Mom is now a casual Catholic (well, one of the reasons).

I know pointing to the lack of baby-making experience anywhere inside the Vatican is an easy mark, but that doesn't make it any less true. As long as the church wants to focus its attentions on contraception and conception rather than equality between the sexes, as long as the misogynistic approach toward women's choices remains the Holy See's holy sayings, I'm wondering how they expect to retain credibility on a global scale.

Image/Source: Yahoo

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Why They Shouldn't Eat the Snow

Vatican Issues Advice: Have Babies! Unless You're Infertile!

Study: Virginity Pledges Fail Big Time. Bristol Palin Declines to Comment

Cole Gamble — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

According to the research, 1 out of 8 teens will take a vow of virginity until marriage. Did you think the stat was that high? That’s means 1 of every 8 couples in America is having some very awkward, highly uninformed and unprepared post-marital sex. But virginity pledges aren’t about enjoying sex (‘cause that would be super sinful to enjoy your body). Instead, these pledges are meant to save youngsters from the dangers of sex with the fool proof abstinence method.

But guess what? It doesn’t work. At all. What’s more, virginity pledge takers are more likely to engage in dangerous sexual activity such as not wearing a condom.

You know abstinence is also the main line of strategy our outgoing administration has used to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Upon hearing that they could just stop having sex, all of the genocidal rapists primarily responsible for the epidemic must have slapped their collective heads and said, “Why didn’t I think of that?”

If you could tell by the tone of this blog, I see no point in virginity pledges and in fact find them dangerous. That’s is not to say I want my kids doing when they’re 13 and I certainly not going to encourage them to do it sooner than later. It’s just that it’s completely biological normal to want to have sex as a teen. When you stand in the way of biology you tend to get burned.

But maybe I’m way off. Do you think virginity pledges are a good thing? Maybe you didn’t believe in them when you were young and single, but now that you have kids of your own you’ve flipped your position. How wrong am I?

More by this author:

4 Ways Birth and Breastfeeding Will Ruin Sex

8-Year-Old Too Young to Divorce?

The 33 Most Ridiculous Toys Ever

Pete Wentz: "I've Tasted Ashley's Breast Milk."

Teacher Beats Student to Death for Late Homework

A Guy’s Take on Stay at Home Moms and Dads (Part 1: The Cons)

Banana Dildos and the 10 Worst Toys and Gifts This Christmas (part 1)

Desert Island Disks – Kid Music Edition

Nature Lovers Also Annoyed About Children's Dictionary

Brett Singer — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Who knew kiddie dictionaries were so controversial?

First Christians were peeved because the Oxford Junior Dictionary removed words such as "bishop" and "abbey." But they also removed "beaver", "heron" and "magpie."

I could maybe see getting rid of magpie. Other than Heckle and Jeckle, one doesn't encounter too many magpies, and as far as I know, Heck and his homie are not in heavy Saturday morning rotation. But otter? Not that I see them in the wild but otters are at the zoo. They're on Bob the Builder all the time. Plus they're cute.

It's the same problem as before. The publishers took out the nature words in favor of "modern" terms like mp3 player. My feeling on this hasn't changed — it's a dumb move. But it does show that, despite what some in England were saying, that the changes are not an attack on the Christian faith. It's just plain stupid.

Methinks some smart publisher could step in with a better kid-friendly dictionary and take away some of Oxford's business. I know I won't be buying a dictionary that thinks mp3 players are more important than otters.

Source: Canadian Press via Google News

Image: Amazon.com

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Stuff You Never Thought You'd Say -- Winter Edition

Christian Words Removed From Oxford Junior Dictionary

Review: Unstable Fables Goldilocks and the Three Bears Show

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Brett Singer — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Dahlia Lithwick has a piece over at Slate that discusses which Christmas specials are OK for Jewish kids to watch. Not according to the Torah, which was written pre-TV, but based on her discussions with a few families.

She found that her generation's Jewish kids were allowed to watch "one or all" of the following: How the Grinch Stole Christmas, A Charlie Brown Christmas, and The Year Without Santa Claus. Two of these are among my personal favorites, but I would include Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer in that list. Apparently that one didn't make the cut for the Jewish now-grown-up kids that Lithwick spoke to.

The reason surprised me – a "no Santa" rule. No Jesus, I get. Jesus is religion. Nothing wrong with religion, but if it isn't YOUR religion and you choose not to watch shows that feature religious elements, that's your choice. But Santa? Was he in the Bible? Frosty was also banned from some Jewish households, according to Lithwick, because of a "no resurrections rule", which I think is pushing it.

Here's the thing – I like Christmas specials. I even like Christmas music. And I'm Jewish. Obviously Christmas is a religious holiday for millions of people. But last time I checked, Rudolph wasn't one of the apostles. So I hereby give permission to all Jewish parents — let the kids watch Rudolph! Why deprive them of the joys of Rankin and Bass? The Island of Misfit Toys? Yukon Cornelius? Hermey the Elf who would rather be a dentist? This a great show! And The Year Without a Santa Claus? Heat and Cold Miser! This is good stuff, people!

Interestingly, A Charlie Brown Christmas does feature religion prominently. Somehow that made the cut in many Jewish households, according to Lithwick. Why? In my opinion, there are a few reasons. First, Linus says it. That makes it automatically more OK than if the same words come out of some claymation dog (Davey and Goliath, anyone?). Second, it's done in the context of "good will towards men", which is hard to argue with. Third, it isn't presented in a way that says, "If you don't believe these words, you will burn in Hell for all eternity." It's actually quite lump-in-the-throat inducing, in a good way. Last, after Linus says his piece, everyone finally starts being nice to Charlie Brown, decorating his tree, and making nice warm and fuzzy holiday feelings. That's my theory, anyway.

Anyway, whatever your faith may be, or even if you happen to faithless, don't ban Christmas specials just because they happen to be about Christmas. Give 'em a chance. Maybe the kids will like it. You might enjoy it as well.

Oh, Merry Christmas. And Happy Chanukah.

Source: Slate

Review: Unstable Fables Goldilocks and the Three Bears Show

Kids Say The Cutest Things: Tuesday

Gifts I Want That I Can Pretend Are For The Kids

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Are Email Holiday Cards Tacky?

They Say – Raise Kids Who Care

Brett Singer — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 GMT

In their December issue, Reader's Digest profiled a few families who are doing unto others. It would have been funnier if they had said "kids who kare", but they aren't going for humor. (I'm a little silly, I know. Bear with me.)

This is actually an important topic. When the economy was flying high – Dow at 10,000, blah blah blah – it was easy to forget those less fortunate. Or, if you were more a more charitable sort, it was easy to remember them, since you had more money. Now that your wallet is a little lighter than before (especially if Bernie Madoff was handling your money), it's easy to make charity one of the first cuts.

The thing is, that's not a good message to send to your kids. There are ways to do something for other people without giving money, and children need to learn that at an early age.

Reader's Digest profiles five families who did their part for charity in various ways. One that I liked, because it's year-round and fairly basic, is the Church family, who keep a tzedakah box in their kitchen and drop any spare change in it. "Once a year, they empty it out and decide what organizations they want to donate to that year." Tzedakah is a Hebrew word meaning "charity" but Wikipedia adds that the root of the word is tzedek, which means "justice". (I also think it's funny that the Church family is Jewish. Because I'm silly.) What I like about this is not that it's a religious thing, which is fine. It's that a family could do this no matter what faith they are, even if they have no religious leanings at all. Heck, even a Satanist could stick a coffee can in on the windowsill, toss spare change into it and give it to charity when it fills up. (I'm not sure if they would. I don't actually know any Satanists. But it seems like something that could happen.)

The bottom line is that it's important to somehow impart to kids that there are people that are less fortunate than you are, but in a way that they can understand. In the fifties, some kids were told to eat their vegetables because "children were starving in China." I grew up in the Northeast Bronx, so my mother told me that there were hungry children in the South Bronx. Being a budding loudmouth, I offered to bring them my peas via subway. This is an example of a method that doesn't work so good. However, my mother also used to pack food to be delivered to homeless shelters, something she still does today. Knowing that she did this, an action that was direct, apolitical and required only her time and not much money, absolutely had an effect on me.

For some specific examples of families Raising Kids That Care (Kare? Nah), check out the Reader's Digest article.

Image/Source: Reader's Digest

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

Half Price Toys at Target

Infant Twins Safe After Newark Carjacking

Christian Words Removed From Oxford Junior Dictionary

Jon Stewart Slam Dunks the Argument for Gay Marriage

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42:00 GMT

There are few things more satisfying than watching someone make a clear ethical and logical argument for something you believe in, particularly when that argument is being broadcast to living rooms around America--and is being made to Mike Huckabee.

Just one of the many reasons this video made me love Jon Stewart even more than I thought possible: "I would argue," he says, "that a loving gay family with a financially secure background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline anyday." That is really just the tip of the iceberg of his eloquence.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Photo: sueschaub.com

Christian Words Removed From Oxford Junior Dictionary

Brett Singer — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

This is a very odd story.

The Telegraph is reporting that Oxford University Press has removed a number of words from their Junior Dictionary. The words were removed "to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society," according to the publisher. So "mistletoe", "goblin", and "minnow" are out. "Celebrity", "broadband" and "tolerant" are in.

Many of the words relate to Christianity, such as "bishop" and "abbey." Professor Alan Smithers of Buckingham University (could he have a MORE British name?) is quoted as saying, "We have a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us." While I understand Professor Smithers' (that name!) point, it ignores the other words that got axed. "Minnow" isn't specifically Christian as far as I know.

I'm all for multiculturalism. But how is it multicultural to remove words that relate to existing culture? Why not add some? And "celebrity"? I'd be perfectly happy if my kids didn't learn that word until they were old enough to be irritated by it.

Interestingly, the changes were discovered by Lisa Saunders, a Northern Irish mother of four. Apparently she "painstakingly" examined various editions of the Junior Dictionary and noticed that many words had been taken out, mostly since 2003. Ms. Saunders is particularly upset about the Christian word deletions. "The Christian faith still has a strong following...To eradicate so many words associated with the Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it." Hopefully even schools that aren't as concerned about Christianity as she is will consider a different dictionary. Plenty of time for kids to learn the word "mp3 player" on their own.

Regardless of whether or not you feel this is an attack on the Christian faith, I think this may be a book to avoid. (It's meant for children 7 and up.) The Junior Dictionary from the storied publisher (keep in mind that this is Oxford University Press, not Johnny Bluejeans Books N' Crap) still contains 10,000 words. But the words they took out and added seem like really dumb choices.

Source: telegraph
Image: Amazon.com

Joe Biden Is Our First Catholic Vice President

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Cheetah Girls Banned From Macys Thanksgiving Parade

Suri Cruise: Most Powerful Child On The Planet

A Quiverfull Of Kids

White House Sends Chanukah Card With Christmas Tree On It

Mini Baby Sculptures Not Edible, Selling Like Hotcakes

A Quiverfull Of Kids

Brett Singer — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

I learned a new word today – Quiverfull.

According to a blog entry on Sodahead.com (doesn't sound very impressive but hey, let's take our new words where we can get them), "Quiverfull…is a growing movement of Protestants" who believe that "since children are blessings from God, we should receive as many as God will give." Therefore, no birth control. The Duggar family is about to have their 18th child, and they are a quiverfull family.

The best line from the Sodahead post is, "I'm not sure how to tell the difference between a husband who wants sex and God saying that it's time to put another bun in the oven." I imagine that someone who has a strong faith in God would say that it's all the same thing – that is, if daddy wants some and that leads to another baby, then it was all God's will. (No, I am not a theologian.) The comments on the post bring up a host of issues ranging from whether or not it's responsible to bring children into the world willy-nilly to abortion rights.

The quiverfull movement takes the following Biblical passage literally:

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.

If I may be flippant for a moment, let's analyze this passage.

"Happy is the man" – well sure, he's not the one who has to change all of those diapers! (Well, in my house he is. But remember, I'm being flippant.) And since the quiver in question is, in fact, the type that arrows are stored in, how many babies can one really fit into a quiver? Here's a quiver for sale at Amazon.com that measures 13 x 3 x 2 inches. According to this site the average length of a newborn baby is 20 inches. I don't think you could fit more than one kid in a quiver.

Now, I apologize if that offends anyone, that's not my intention. But it does illustrate something that I find difficult to understand about the quiverfull movement. If you are taking this particular Biblical passage literally, well, put the kids in a quiver! And if not, then you really AREN'T taking the passage literally. Right?

Personally I think there is some validity to the argument made by many commenters on Sodahead that having that many children is a bit selfish and irresponsible. I respect other people's religious beliefs. But is there a point when those beliefs start to negatively impact the rest of the world? On the other hand, this isn't China. Everyone is entitled to have as many kids as they want to. Or, depending on your beliefs, that God wants you to. For me, two is enough; now that I’m a parent, "Eight is Enough" is basically a horror film. (I kid, of course.)

Do people with tons of kids bother you? Or is it none of our business?

Source: Sodahead

Image: People via Babble

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

Mini Baby Sculptures Not Edible, Selling Like Hotcakes

Are You Cutting Back This Holiday Season?

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

From the Chicago Tribune:

"What do you get the person who has everything—except adequate health insurance? If you live in Indiana, consider this offering from the state's Planned Parenthood affiliate: gift certificates in $25 increments."

In news even less surprising than Clay Aiken coming out of the closet, anti-choice groups are not happy. The Tribune quotes Jim Sedlak, who is with both the American Life League and Stop Planned Parenthood (where DOES he find the time?) as saying that the gift cards are just PP's "annual [attack] on the Christian community at Christmastime...[Planned Parenthood] could easily have said, 'these certificates are not to be used for abortions.' But they intentionally chose not to do that." Because I'm sure that Planned Parenthood spends most of their time thinking about how they can ruin Christmas for Christians everywhere.

Now my initial reaction was a great big ol' "Huh?" Luckily my mother was present when I heard this news (on The Daily Show). She pointed out, as does president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana Betty Cockrum, that most of what PP does is "provide basic health care." In fact, Cockrum says that's 95 percent of what they do. Still, "a pap smear in a Pear Tree" doesn't sound very appealing.

All joking aside (you can see Jon Stewart's slightly reluctant mirth-making on this topic in the video below), I guess this isn't as weird as it sounds. It's not weirder than a doctor's office selling gift cards. Well, that would be weird too. The underlying message of providing health care is a good one. But who do you buy one of these cards for? The Duggar family? Jon and Kate? Kevin Federline? (I know, it's about health care, not just birth control. The jokes are almost too easy. If Jon Stewart can apologize, so can I!) I guess in theory you could pick one up for someone you know who doesn't have health care. But isn't that incredibly awkward? "Hi, I know you're uninsured, so I thought you could use one of these. Happy holidays!" I would love to know how many cards Planned Parenthood Indiana (who have the unfortunate acronym PPIN – say it out loud and then make a Beavis and Butthead chuckling noise) actually sells. So far, they say they've sold about twelve. This isn't Vegas, but I'm putting the over-under at 25. Anyone want to take that action?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Planned Parenthood Gift Cards

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Source: The Daily Show, Chicago Tribune

Image: PPIN

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Girly Gift Guide

Make Your Own Religious Doll

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

White House Sends Chanukah Card With Christmas Tree On It

Kevin Federline Answers To One Name: Daddy

Rite Aid Says They Will Stop Selling Expired Baby Products

Christian Parents Opt for Religious Circumcision . . . Even if It's Jewish

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:27:00 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought participating in a religious ceremony was supposed to have something to do with your religion. I know, call me crazy.

Christian parents who have started calling on Jewish mohels to perform their sons' circumcisions apparently don't care that they're not, well, Jewish. They don't even care that it costs a little extra.

Traditionally, Christian parents who have opted to circumcise their little boys have it done in a hospital setting - where it's often covered by a parent's health insurance. Many Jewish parents, however, follow the traditional method of a bris - a ceremonial circumcision performed after the baby has been released from the hospital, in the presence of friends and family. A mohel - a specially trained Jewish circumciser - traditionally does the honors, not only cutting the foreskin but leading the onlookers in a small religious ceremony. The whole thing can cost upwards of $300 to $800 - and that's not including the party the parents' usually throw for their guests.

So why would Christian parents call on a mohel? Philip Sherman, a mohel in the New York City area, told the Houston Chronicle parents would rather have the process done in the comfort of their own homes; they like to make it spiritual. Plus, he claims, the process is much quicker for the baby - he says it's a few seconds for a mohel, half an hour in a hospital (The American Academy of Pediatrics actually calls for anesthetic cream to be applied sixty to ninety minutes before the procedure in a hospital or the use of some other, faster-acting anesthetic. The AAP also suggests a clamp be left on the area for several minutes to stop bleeding).

The mother of a daughter, I never had to make the "to circumcise" or "not to circumcise" decision. I don't have a feeling either way. But where I can accept a Jewish parent's decision to call in a mohel to practice their faith, I find the concept of a Christian parent doing the same slightly bizarre. Even odder? That mohels are adjusting their usual ceremony to make them less Jewish. In the case cited in the Chronicle, he actually handed out a prayer booklet that was appropriate for the largely Presbyterian crowd. Instead of religious, they call it "holistic" circumcision.

Isn't this a bit like calling on a rabbi to perform your Catholic wedding? Maybe I'm just not well-versed enough in the Bible. Is there really any religious meaning to a bris outside of the Jewish faith?

Image: Houston Chronicle