The Humanity of Larry Craig

By now, almost all of you have probably read about Larry Craig's unfortunate misdeeds:

This incident was discussed by several, very intelligent panelists on "Meet the Press":

I was really struck by what James Carville had to say about the subject (4 minutes into the video), which is that Craig was completely hung out to dry...by everyone! By his friends, by his enemies...everyone.

To solicit sex with a stranger in a public restroom is a disgusting thing. To solicit gay sex in a public restroom is an act that is outright revolting to many right-wing conservatives and Christians. This explains, but does not condone, the words that have been spoken about Larry Craig since these accusations first came to light.

Larry Craig is, ultimately, a human. He has a family. He has served Idaho for the last 24-years of his life, but this is the single thing he will be remembered for. They won't remember how he fought for immigrants rights. They won't remember how he exposed Bill Clinton's arms shipments to Bosnia. They'll remember his wide stance, and how he tried to have gay sex in an airport bathroom with an undercover police officer.

His political career is basically over, despite his attempts at trying to resuscitate it. His wife and children have been disgraced. And at the end of the day, Larry Craig is just a human being like you and me. He's probably a little bit confused about himself (which is why he overcompensated his public image by being so politically anti-gay), but he feels shame, he feels guilt, he feels sorrow, he's a person, just like you and me.

Try to treat him like one.

God DOESN'T Hate Fags, Fred Phelps. He Really Doesn't

I can't believe I've written this many blog posts without giving a shoutout to Fred Phelps. According to the Minnesota Monitor:

The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., plans to stage protests at funerals of victims of the 35W bridge collapse to state that God made the bridge fall because he hates America, and especially Minnesota, because of its tolerance of homosexuality.

Here's the thing: Fred Phelps isn't completely useless as a human being. In fact, I believe he contributes to public discourse on religion in America by challenging the very notion of Christianity to its very core. Here is a man who goes after people in their most vulnerable, their most hurt, their most grief-stricken states and pickets them with grotesquely offensive signs and messages, accusing them of things that they're not even necessarily responsible for (i.e. tolerating homosexuality). It's absolutely disgusting. And he does it all in the name of God.

One is left with many, many questions. My own personal questions? How can someone take God's message so wrong. And if there is a God, why does He allow this to happen?

The thing that I'm left grasping for is...if there is a God, He doesn't hate homosexuals. I don't think so anyway. All I can think of is Psalm 119. Reflect on these words from the Bible that Phelps so hatefully misuses:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.

The truth of the matter is, God made each and every one of us. And although there are so many flaws and so much evil that we're capable of, every one of us is still, in some deep, imperceptible, yet profound way, beautiful.

Sexual Abuse Cases in LA Reach Settlement

According to the New York Times, the massive church sex abuse case in Los Angeles is finally coming to an end:

Lawyers for more than 500 people who say they were abused by Roman Catholic clergy members said last night that they had settled their lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for $660 million. If approved, it will be by far the largest payout made by any single diocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandals first became public in Boston in 2002. It will dwarf the $85 million paid for 552 claims by the Archdiocese of Boston.

Later in the day, Cardinal Mahony apologized to people for the Catholic Church's crimes:

"There really is no way to go back and give them the innocence that was taken from them ... The one thing I wish I could give the victims, I cannot -- and that is a restoration to where they were originally."

Words escape me when I try to express the horror I feel at such a thing. More than 500 people filed lawsuits. That's 500 lives that were unspeakably impacted by the sick minds and crimes of others. Five hundred lives whose minds will be forever changed, who will never live a normal, unfettered life. Five hundred stories of heartbreak, anger, and despair. And that's just the people who filed a lawsuit. And that's just in Los Angeles.

Someone on Digg pointed out something obvious that I didn't really think of: None of that money is coming from the Vatican; instead it's coming from people's donations, their tithes. This is assuredly not what God had in mind when he asked us to give a tenth of what we earn to further His kingdom.

What drives a priest to molest a child? What drives his superiors, presumably men of God, to cover up the crimes? I don't really have a good answer for the second one, but in answer to the first one, to paraphrase a radio DJ I once heard, this seems like a possible expected outcome when you tell people not to have sex and stick them in a small room all the time where other people are forced to tell them their deepest darkest sins and secrets.

In Mark chapter 9, Jesus says the following:

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

Amen to that. Amen to that...

Evangelical Teens MORE Likely To Have Lost Virginity Than Either Mainline Protestants or Catholics

Today, two of my favorite writing topics infiltrate this blog yet again: Sex and religion.

This morning, Slate has a new book review of Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus. Essentially, the book argues that teens who identify themselves as "evangelical" and "born again" are more likely than those from Mainline Protestants or Catholics to have had sex. Hanna Rosin writes:

Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

This is attributed to two reasons:
1) The explosion of the Evangelical church, with mega churches and the like, that have dramatically lowered "barriers to entry" for any prospective believers, and
2) It's difficult to be a teenager in America and not have sex in a sex-saturated society:

"Be in the world, but not of it," is the standard Christian formula for how to engage with mainstream culture. But in a world hypersaturated with information, this is difficult for tech-savvy teenagers to pull off. There are no specific instructions in the Bible on how to avoid a Beyoncé video or Scarlett Johansson's lips calling to you from YouTube, not to mention the ubiquitous porn sites. For evangelicals, sex is a "symbolic boundary" marking a good Christian from a bad one, but in reality, the kids are always "sneaking across enemy lines," Regnerus argues.

Other interesting statistics from the book/book review:

• Religiosity determines sexual activity more than religion - 16 percent of American teens who describe religions as "extremely important" are less likely to break a pledge of abstinence
• 84 percent of Asian-American church-goers are virgins.
• Mormons are extremely unlikely to have had sex before marriage and if they have, they are unlikely to repeat the experience.
• 30 percent of Catholics/Mainline protestants have had sex before marriage
• 17.6 percent of Jews have had sex before marriage, but Jews are more likely to say that sex is pleasurable.

As readers of this blog know, this is a topic I've written about before and that's near and dear to my heart. I hope Regnerus' book serves as a wakeup call not just to the Evangelical church, but to the Christian church as a whole.

The Church needs to confront the growing reality that what it's doing right now and the way it's educating kids about sex simply isn't working. Not only that, it makes our teens physically and emotionally worse off than they would be otherwise.

Evidence that this will not happen: Did you guys see this? We, as Christians, can't even seem to confront scientific realities and confirmed facts; how will we address something much more serious (for our lives, anyway) and much more disputed?

Related Articles:
-The Romeo and Juliet Effect
-Premarital Sex: Where Christians Get It Wrong

Premarital Sex: Where Christians Get It Wrong

[Updated to include videos]

Today's topic is again, premarital sex. But it won't be a Biblical or theological argument (I'm already going to assume that Christians think sex should be saved for marriage). Rather, it will be an argument for Christians to change how we approach sexual sin in our communities.

However, before we begin, in response to the tremendous outpouring of readers and commenters on my "Romeo and Juliet" post, I just wanted to say two things:

1) Thank you to everyone who read the post, regardless of whether or not you liked it or agreed with it. I am grateful for every single reader I get.

2) The comments on my blog are truly amazing. People have commented and e-mailed me, pouring out their hearts about their views on the subject and in some cases, genuinely trying to engage in an informed dialogue with other commenters. I was deeply moved by all this and utterly grateful that I was able to be a part of it. I only hope that my post was able to inform, entertain, and maybe stimulate some thinking on the subject. One of my ultimate goals (in life and in this blog) is to just create some dialogue, some discourse about things that I don't think we talk enough about.

Which brings us to today's topic.

As I've already mentioned in an update, many have accused me of being anti-Christian, of propagating anti-Christian viewpoints, etc. Obviously I disagree. I think there is a way to uphold your Christian integrity while still taking into account things about this world that we know to be true.

I'm going to make some points about what I think the church is doing wrong. I speak only from the perspective of one Christian, who has been to about 3-4 different churches during his lifetime. But in that time, I've found that there are things that many (NOT all) churches have in common. It should be noted that when I say "The Christian church," I mean both a) What I think to be Evangelical Christian churches in general, to a degree, and also b) What people see on the news or hear on the radio of the Christian church (e.g. political figures, James Dobson, etc.). MANY churches are doing a fantastic job on these fronts and they should be praised for it. But there's a reason why many Americans have a largely negative impression of the Christian church.

So, given that I'm no expert on the subject, here's where I think the Christian church gets it wrong on premarital sex:

1) The Christian church needs to pull its proverbial head out from under the ground and take a look around. It is important for Christians not to forsake their own values and to continue to advocate that yes, sex is best reserved for marriage for a number of reasons (e.g. emotional and physical health). But the point is, Christian teens are having sex whether or not the church will acknowledge it. And when it doesn't acknowledge it, when it closes its eyes, covers its ears, and says "Laa laa laa, nobody's having sex before marriage!", it does a disservice to its constituents in several ways (Some of which I'll go into below).

2) The Christian church will never be able to reach the people that need to be reached unless it embraces and assimilates itself into this country's thriving scientific community. AIDS is spread by tears. Condoms don't effectively prevent the spread of STDs. These are scientifically demonstrably false, and yet many people (notably Senator Bill Frist from a few year's back) have advocated these views, or at least refused to deny them. Refusing to acknowledge basic scientific principles and choosing to spread half-truths in the name of foisting abstinence upon this country's youth renders Christianity a joke to everyone that's not a Christian (and maybe even some that are).

Here's Penn & Teller's take on the matter of abstinence-only education:

(From Youtube user mightybroke)

3) There needs to be much more Christian discourse and accountability about this. I've been to a few churches in my lifetime, and as a general matter, there's not been that much talk about sex. There needs to be frank talk with and amongst high school and college students about sex and dating...at least, amongst those that need it. I think back to my church youth group (again, a Christian conservative church), where dating relationships were heavily regulated. Many people left that youth group completely unable to handle the relationship challenges that would confront them in college. Many brothers and sisters and friends of mine (many of them from youth group) confided to me that they have fallen into sexual sin, more times than I would have ever thought possible (which is not to say that I'm totally innocent myself). I ask what's being done about this and I don't have much of an answer. The church needs to do more to prepare those that will date, spiritually and emotionally. And those that will date need to take responsibility to maintain accountability and keep their relationships on the right track towards God. But this must be coupled with my 4th point....

4) How many people suffer through sin in silence, hiding their sins because they are too ashamed to seek help and too afraid of the condemnation that will come as a result? There needs to be loving, caring, and acceptance, the kind that God expects of all Christians and the kind that Jesus showed to people while he was here on earth. But frequently, Christian sinners have been cowed into silence by oppressive church environments which appear to demand perfection and look down upon sin, especially sexual sin.

If you're a Christian, when you find out that a brother or sister has sinned sexually, how do you react, both outwardly and inwardly? Do you judge them? Do you put them on a level below you? Or do you say to them, "I too am a sinner, but Jesus loves the both of us and has forgiven our sins."

I recently watched the movie "Jesus Camp," which I found incredibly powerful and yet it left me at a loss for how exactly to respond. I fully understand that the film doesn't accurately represent the majority of Evangelical Christians in America (although I would argue that it DOES accurately represent the Christians portrayed in the film). I'll have more to say about the film later (possibly next week), but I wanted to direct you to this poignant clip, which is 10-year old girl, Tory, sharing about her fear of the sins of the flesh:

(Youtube user cassandracox)

Many Christians might say that this girl is really on the right track, and that her desire to avoid the dangers of sin is admirable. And while I completely understand the reasoning behind that sentiment, a part of me can't help but feel that the fear that lives inside this girl may eventually become something very psychologically damaging later in life, as it has for so many countless others...

**

I think there is Biblical evidence to suggest that Jesus wouldn't be too happy with the way we Christians collectively treat sexual sin these days. When the adulterous woman was thrown on the ground in front of him, and judgment was demanded, how did Jesus react? There are two parts to his reaction: a) He told the woman that he did not condemn her, and b) He told the woman to leave her life of sin. Notice: No condemnation, followed by a prescription to not sin anymore. A simple formula, but how many times do Christians fall short? How many times have you fallen short? And how many times have I fallen short....

As I've said before, Jesus didn't spend his time on earth condemning thieves and prostitutes. He spent his time condemning those who condemn thieves and prostitutes. How many Christians would he find today that fit into that latter category....

Ultimately, what I feel about the whole matter is this (and I don't think this is uncontroversial): Yes, Christians should continue to advocate abstinence as God's design for marriage. But should it ignore the fact that many Christians will have sex anyway? Should it say "Sex before marriage is bad. Condoms are also bad, since they help you to have sex before marriage. Don't use them. Going to have sex anyway, in spite of all my warnings? THEN SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF STDS AND UNWANTED PREGNANCY"? Is that what God would want? Is that what Jesus would have told his disciples to do? I'm not sure, but I would dare say no.

However, at the same time, I can't imagine Jesus saying "Don't sin, but well if you're going to, you might as well protect yourself from bad consequences." The Jesus of the Bible demands unequivocal obedience. This is the same Jesus that said "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God," the same Jesus that said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

So what would Jesus do/say if he were Denny Pattyn or Bill Frist or James Dobson (i.e. if he were in their positions?) I can't say I'm certain. But I think that God would agree that the way we're going about it now is not quite right, both in spirit and in its empirical results.

Our decisions are our own, and our responsibility. The church, as a human institution, shouldn't receive blame for people's sins. That's not what I'm advocating. What I'm trying to say is that there are ways the church can help to improve the situation. And this needs pointing out because I don't think it's doing a very good job right now, at least, not yet....

Thanks for reading.

The Romeo and Juliet Effect: Why Christians Keep Having Sex Before Marriage

[Welcome readers: This is a post about the phenomenon of psychological reactance. If you're looking for information on "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, you can find Sparknotes at this link. If you're interested in my views on Christians and premarital sex, you can find them at this link.]

In William Shakespeare's play, "Romeo and Juliet," the titular star cross'd lovers fatefully decide to pursue their love, despite the chaos and war unfolding around them. Their decision ends up being a fatal one. I suppose the ironic question that some people might want to ask the protagonists is: Out of all the wo/men in the world, couldn't you have picked another one?

When I was a freshman in college, I remember reading in my Intro Psych textbook about "The Romeo and Juliet Effect." Essentially, it's an example of Psychological Reactance, whereby rules and restrictions actually make you more prone to resist them. In the case of "The Romeo and Juliet Effect," the theory goes that your parents' disapproval can actually spur your affections towards that person. I'm guessing many of us have experienced this ourselves; certainly the image of the attractive and sexy rebellious male teen is one that has been ingrained into our popular culture.

The thing is, Psychological Reactance can create some real-world problems. And by nature of the phenomenon, these problems often go unacknowledged. Take the following two examples:

-Saudi Arabia - According to this recent story by the BBC, "up to 70% of files exchanged between Saudi teenagers' mobile phones contain pornography." According to the report's author:

The flash memory of mobile phones taken from teenagers showed 69.7% of 1,470 files saved in them were pornographic and 8.6% were related to violence.

Saudi Arabia's oppressive sexual environment has been written about several times in recent days. In fact, this recent Atlantic Monthly article claims that heterosexual sexual relationships are so heavily regulated that it's easier to be a homosexual (because people won't suspect). Whoever the authors of this environment are, and I'm sure they are legion (including culture, religion, government, etc.), isn't this the opposite result of what they intended?

-Abstinence-only education - If abstinence-only education was shown to work, I might even be a fan of it. But studies have shown that it's not only riddled with inaccuracies, it's completely useless in accomplishing what it sets out to do.

More to the point, I'm an Evangelical Christian and we're taught at a very young age about sexual purity. Christians aren't supposed to have sex until they are married. In recent years, many have made it official by taking a pledge of abstinence. However, studies have shown that Christians, even those that take the pledge, are just as likely to have sex as non-Christians. Here are some shocking statistics:

• "Not only are kids who take virginity pledges just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases as kids who don't, but they are even more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior." This includes having sex without a condom (they are 1/3rd less likely to use condoms when they have sex for the first time), and engaging in anal and oral sex, which many teens don't consider "real sex."

• Here's the kicker: Of the kids that take the pledge, 88 percent of them end up breaking it.
  

• Of the couples that end up breaking the pledge, they are less likely to get tested for pregnancy or STDs. Says Columbia University's Peter Bearman, "They're much less likely to get tested for a sexually transmitted disease. They've taken a public pledge to remain a virgin until marriage. The sex that they have is much more likely to be hidden. It's likely to be hidden from their parents. It's likely to be hidden from their peers. And if they live in a small community, it's quite likely to be hidden from their doctor."

**

In both these examples, restrictions are placed upon people that many might deem "unnatural." Specifically, they are restrictions on sexuality, on the types of sex that people are allowed to have and enjoy.

What does all this hiding get us? Psychological reactance. A need to lash out against the rules and to disobey them to an extent we never would if the rules weren't even there in the first place. Despite American males' obsession with porn, I think it's pretty safe to say that 70% of us don't have porn on our cell phones, right? Right? It's probably more like 69% or something...

Let me be clear though; psychological reactance is not the only reason that Christian teens and young adults have sex. Obviously raging hormones play into it, as do any other reasons why teens would normally have sex, whether they are Christian or not. But these rules and restrictions undoubtedly feed into some innate human desire to explore the unknown, a desire for what is hidden, what is dark, what is carnal and sinful. As we all know, sometimes that desire must be sated and when it happens for someone in a Christian community, the results can be disastrous.

So I guess the question is: wouldn't we be better off just not having these artificial restrictions at all? Wouldn't we be better off acknowledging the world the way things are, and trying to engage in a dialogue about these things?

I'm a Christian and I think sex should be saved for marriage. However, if I had a teenage son or daughter, I think I'd rather they have a condom instead of some glorified notion of a supernatural ability to resist the devil. But that's just me. Despite high rates of teen pregnancy and STD transmission, I guess people still think that the way people are raising their kids now seems to be going just fine.

[Update 1: Put in new link to recent NYTimes editorial]

[Update 2: The comments have really been rolling in. Most of them have been constructive. I wanted to make three clarifications:

1) There seems to be some confusion: Several people have accused me of fabricating statistics. This is incorrect. My statistics about Christian sexual behavior came from this 60 minutes article, which I had already linked to in my original blog post. However, I didn't make it explicitly clear where the statistics came from. So now you know. The article is 2 years old, but I have a feeling its findings are still relevant today (Did you see my last link about chastity parties?).

2) Another clarification: I apologize if my title is misleading. I never meant to say that the Romeo and Juliet Effect causes Christians to have sex before marriage. Clearly, there are many causes for Christians having sex when they're not supposed to. Rather, I was reflecting on the recent news stories about Saudi Arabia and how clearly, efforts to curb sexual activity (or certain types of sexual activity) have failed miserably and in fact generated what would be considered even more inappropriate methods to resisting these prohibitions. I have also always been fascinated with the concept of psychological reactance and "The Romeo and Juliet Effect." Also, I love Shakespeare. These thoughts led me to combine everything into this hodgepodge of a post. This is not meant to be an academic article, as some have implied that's what I was trying to write. Nonetheless, I strongly feel that psychological reactance to rules and regulations is something that we all experience each day, and that this phenomenon, at least in part, feeds into Christian behaviors relating to sexuality.

3) Finally, several have accused me of writing an anti-Christian article, or of being anti-Christian myself. This could not be further from the truth. I have been a Christian for most of my life. I grew up in an Asian, ultra-conservative church. But over time, I have changed into what people might call a "liberal Christian." That doesn't mean that I think it's okay to have sex before marriage, or that we can pick and choose which of Jesus commands we should follow, or that they should be called "The 10 Suggestions." Rather, I believe that the Christian church, politically, has veered away from Christ's teachings. I believe that Jesus spent more time talking about helping the poor than he did lecturing about the evils of homosexuality or abortion. I believe that Jesus didn't spend most of his time condemning thieves and prostitutes. In fact, he spent most of his time condemning those who condemn thieves and prostitutes. How many Christians today would fit into that latter cateogry, I wonder...

I also believe that we should be practical, and that if what we're doing isn't working, we should change it. I wholeheartedly agree with user "Amy", who posted the following comment here on this blog:

"Because we can certainly all agree that a lower rate of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and broken young people is good."

Thanks for reading.

Pandas Don't Care About Species Survival, Refuse To Have Sex

Regular sex didn't work. Viagra didn't work. So recently zookeepers have resorted to showing pandas porn in order to get that thick hot panda blood flowing. According to this Fox News article,:

So far, it's been a tough sell, the zoo's chief veterinarian, Kanika Limtrakul, said Tuesday. "Chuang Chuang seems indifferent to the videos; he has no reaction to what he's seeing on TV," Kanika said. "But we're continuing to show him videos and hoping they will leave an impression."

Most guys I know would be willing to have sex, regardless of the circumstances. Pandas won't even have sex to ensure the survival of their species. I think most of my thoughts on the subject can be best summed up by what Ricky Gervais has to say:

(From Youtube user ilickoldpeople)