1

As someone who sometimes reads (and once participated in, but has mostly sworn off) the Worldblogmag site, and who occasionally reads (but usually doesn’t participate in), the Evangelical Outpost, I was struck in several regards by this (rerun) of an earlier post.

For one thing, I wonder if anyone besides me has been struck by a feeling of discordance between the atmospheres of the two “blogs.” Although I suspect that Mr. Carter and I agree on few (if any) items in areas such as religion (I am a “radical agnostic”), politics, (I belong to the “radical sarcasm” party, though I am more sarcastic toward “conservatives” than “liberals” by a sliver, while believing that no intelligent person believes that either “idiotology” holds a monopoly on much sense), or biology (I consider it more likely that evolutionary theory describe how life developed on earth than whatever convoluted variation of creationism/semi-intelligent designism Joe adheres to. Nevertheless, I regard Mr. Carter as a very intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, and generally courteous and decent person. Also, he displays an excellent sense of humor.

Now there are some participants in Worldmagblog who could be so described. However, the general atmosphere in that blog is pretty unpleasant and unappealing. It’s pretty clear that evangelicals feel they are “on a roll” not only religiously and ethically but politically and culturally as well. As one who doesn’t quite share all their perceptions and values, I sometimes suspect that the best counter force to religious right ambitions would be for Worldmagblog to be read much more widely by the general American culture than it is. The bigotry and self-righteousness and intolerance often displayed there would, I suspect, open a few eyes. I also can’t help wondering if Mr. Carter dos not feel a certain cognitive dissonance when he contemplates the discussions in his personal blog (generally intelligent and courteous even in disagreement) and his role as Managing Editor of Worldmagblog. In fact, some of his own comments about the discourse in Worldmagblog verge on the irascible. And a lot of the participants of WBM wouldn’t recognize humor if it bit them on the you know where.

In regard to agriculture, I tend to agree with the comments by Wendell Berry about industrialized agriculture. As we approach retirement, my wife and I (in our feeble way) try to align our actions with our values. After many years of city life, we bought five acres in an exurban area and are trying to grow (organically and respectfully) quite a bit of our own food. And as we are not subsistence farmers (well, the subsistence part is about right), we try to shop responsibly, buying most of our food at organic farmers markets and an organic food co-op.

By the same token, although we were only married in an Unitarian Church (and that only to please my wife’s mother who wished to see her daughter married in a church, and that was the least Church-like church I could think of), we have remained married (and faithful, if occasionally fractious) for over 40 years. Of course, as a Christian, and evangelical one at that, Mr. Carter can’t imagine that anyone not a Christian can really appreciate the values he espouses about sex at the end of his posting. While I admire Mr. Carter, he can’t help at times succumbing to the self-righteousness and disdain common to many of his ilk in speaking of non-Christians. Furthermore, as the father of a gay daughter who lives in a seriously committed relationship, I consider the frequent evangelical hysteria about homosexuality (which Joe doesn’t seem to share, at least the hysterical part) quite repugnant.

Although there are many advantages and excellent features to the free enterprise system, conservatives seem unable to recognize it suffers from many drawbacks as well. The industrialization of agriculture, which increasingly dominates and will probably eventually destroy our food system, is an inevitable outcome of unfettered capitalist logic applied to food production. Let us all worship Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland for the benefits they are bringing to the world.

By the same token, the industrialization of sex is the inevitable outcome of capitalism applied to cultural life. Religious right conservatives like to sneer at Hollywood and at the “MSM” as if these parts of our economy have nothing to do with capitalism. Uh huh.

I guess in my imperfect understanding that it’s a combination of Christianity and capitalism that’s supposed to square this circle of contradictions and produce a healthy and moral economy. I don’t think there was ever a “Garden of Eden” and I very much doubt there was ever a wonderful moral age of capitalism glowing in the wonderful time of the “Puritan Ethic.”

2

Random, I have difficulty relating your personal experience to the larger world that I live in. Glad to hear that your marriage has survived 40 years. I think everyone on every side of the aisle can agree that (1) Christians have problems, too, and (2) not every non-believer is misogynistic libertine.

That being said, it's difficult to follow your reasoning that the industrialization of sex is a capitalistic sin. Hollywood is capitalistic, true, and when amoral people try to make a buck, they don't consider the morality of their product. So the larger issue is creating that moral atmosphere that allows amoral people to make a buck immorally, such as prostitutes.

The next issue that seems problematic is the idea that the industrialization of agriculture is the result of capitalism. The industrialization of agriculture is the result of applying scientific processes to the production of food. It is more efficient to produce food on the scale of Monsanto or Archer Daniel than on the scale of 40 acres and a mule. Or small tractor. or tiller. or what have you. It seems that Communists, for example, were very interested in the concept of the factory farm, which makes the issue of capitalism questionable.

Christians, in my experience, reject the idea that immorality is inherent in capitalism. Morality, how we chose to behave, is a human condition that transcends economic, or even political definitions. Communist Russians were pretty immoral, in areas of sex, alcohol consumption, value of life, etc. These values haven't changed much with the collapse of Communism, though one could question whether the present-day Russian is actually non-communist in their world view.

Communist China, on the other hand, is much less accepting of libertine life styles, but they embrace factory farms out of necessity to feed their population.

Last, but probably most important, is a discussion or whether current day American values toward food production or sexuality are due to the collision of Christianity and capitalism. Our attitudes toward sexuality are the result of rejection of Judeo/Christian values, not because of the acceptance of capitalism.

Our current attitude toward food production is the result of the collision of science and capitalism, and our desire to eat as well as possible for the lowest possible price. That is simply human, and has no particular religious basis.

3

Sorry about the last paragraph. Should have read
Our current attitude toward food production is the result of the collision of science and agriculture.

4

Great article. Thanks for being so candid. I was just listening to Family Life Today / Focus on the Family shows the last couple weeks that addressed this topic. We really need to push a reset button with Christians - young and old - on what sex is about.

5

Thanks! I apparently missed this first time around.

6

Scott, thank you for your comments on my comments to Joe’s comments. Although I don’t entirely agree with your analysis, it is courteous, moderate, sophisticated, and well-spoken, reinforcing my bias that the discourse of Joe’s blog proceeds on a more civilized level than the discourse of Worldmagblog. Many years ago, before rise of blogs, online discussions followed the model of “bulletin boards” such as Compuserve and Prodigy (both about forgotten today), with roots going back to the anarchistic and chaotic USENET. (I was very active in a less well-known one owned by General Electric called GEnie.) The bulletin board model tends to operate on something like Gresham’s Law. Instead of bad money driving out good money, intemperate and stupid discussion drives out reasonable and sensible discussion. Most blogs primarily represent the point of view and persona of one person who dominates and sets the tone of the blog. Joe’s blog take on the tone of Joe’s persona, which is an attractive one as far as evangelical Christians go, and the discussion tends to follow a similar tack.

Worldmagblog is a pseudo-blog, but it’s really a bulletin board at heart, and the tone degenerates toward the worst aspects of evangelical culture. Evangelicals are a varied lot (that’s to their credit), but in WMB the reasonable and temperate ones are sort of driven underground while the fractious and nasty ones dominate the discussions.

The discussion of homosexuality is perhaps the worst example, dominated by wild stereotypes and prejudices and an occasional nutcase evidently suffering from “homosexual panic.” (I don’t know if you are familiar with the case of Jim West,the prominent Washington State Republican who publicly railed against homosexuals while privately living up to the excesses of what some Christians like to characterize as the “homosexual lifestyle.”)

I once asked participants of WMB who disagreed with the tone of the discussions there about homosexuality but considered themselves devout Christians to email me privately, and I received several eloquent and touching letters. Basically they said, it’s a sin like many other sins, but not such a top sin on the hit parade of wickedness that it deserves the emotional investment it gets on WMB.

In regard to capitalism, libertarians and other free market enthusiasts are quite persuasive in portraying the failings of “welfare statism” and “command and control economies” such as the late and unlamented Soviet Union and unfortunately not-yet-late North Korean economy. Joe is fond of discussing logical fallacies. I don’t know if there is an official name for the one that runs like this:

Two ideological positions, call them A and B, compete. Adherents of B point out the grievous flaws of position A. They conclude that position B represents the true and worthwhile position. In reality, however, position B represents another bad position.

One of the huge problems and difficulties of human life is how to allocate and distribute and share resources. The two great answers come from the left and the right. In each case, they range from extreme answers such as Communism on the left to moderate answers such as the welfare state/market economies of Western Europe and to fanatical libertarians on the right to moderate answers such as the business wing of the Republican Party in the United State and their buddies such as the U.S Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB. Adherents of neither position, even the more sensible ones, seem to be able to admit to the flaws in all the answers. Except to say, the Christian mantra, hey, we’re all fallen, so what do you expect?

It is amusing (if one has a taste for black humor) that capitalism and communism both headed for the “factory farm.” The difference is that capitalist factory farms work while communist factory farms fail. “Work,” however, is relative, as the “success” of capitalist factory farms, in production terms, are probably heading us toward environmental disaster as we mine the soil and wallow in monoculture. This is only a guess, though it was only a guess that building a “great city” below sea level would eventually result in a drowned city. Who would have “thunk” that such a great storm would actually hit New Orleans and destroy a once-proud metropolis? Who could imagine that some virulent virus or blight (perhaps man-made by some talented though mad Pakistani jihadist scientist similar to the charming fellow who developed the Pakistani nuclear bomb) will some day decimate our monoculture corn and soy crops? Until it happens.

It is probably true that it’s impossible to feed the world without industrial agriculture, and the interest in small-scale organic farming by advocates such as Wendell Barry is sentimental clap trap. I’m not running for emperor of the world so I’m not offering a plan to alleviate these dilemmas, but even a feeble and foolish “child” such as myself can point out that these emperors are dressed in very scanty and tattered clothes.

7

Random:

I don't think you'll find reasonable Christian capitalists who are saying that there was ever a Garden of Eden--i.e. since the one where Eve was offered the apple. One of the fallacies of Random's argument is the notion that supporters of capitalism somehow thinks it's the answer to all of life's problems. Christian capitalists don't believe in utopia--utopianism is generally the province of socialists. I don't for one moment think capitalism brings utopia. In fact, I think most Christians would agree that capitalism is the worst system on earth--except for all the rest. Between the two philosophies--socialism and capitalism--there can be little doubt which one works best. C.S. Lewis said that democracy is not the best form of government because God decreed it to be so--it's just the only form of government we can be trusted with. I think the same can be said of capitalism--it's the most democratic economic system, and the only one we can be trusted with.

I'm always surprised when people point to Europe as a model for the US to follow. By almost any honestly appraised measure Europe is falling behind the US. The unemployment figures alone would seem to give Europhiles pause. Their unemployment is generally twice as high as the US. Europe is simply out of its league when compared to the US.

8

I'm always surprised when people point to Europe as a model for the US to follow.

Surprised: The reason we're Americans is because either us or our ancestors came here to get away from "the way things are done in Europe".

Not Surprised: I would bet that underlying the attitude of a lot of Europhiles is the fantasy "If this were Europe, my name would be 'Milord' and the rabble would have to bow with hats in hand and eyes downcast while I ride by, booted and spurred".

9

Jd,

There are “reasonable Christian capitalists,” and there are various libertarians who range from Ayn Rants libertarians to Christian libertarians and for all I know there are 31 flavors of libertarians, quite a few of whom can be found over at Worldmagblog spouting silly slogans and sound bites. I think it would be more appropriate for you to deliver the memo to them than I that “Christian capitalism” is not a placebo.

To admit, “I don't for one moment think capitalism brings utopia,” is a start, but the “you know who” is in the details. Capitalism accomplishes many goals, but there are many areas where it leaves deficiencies. Agricultural policy is one as discussed here. I don’t think capitalism is the cause of all sexual problems in our society any more than I buy that Christianity is the sole source of moral and healthy sexuality, but the logic of the marketplace fuels many of the problems Joe referred to in his original posting. Medicine is another area where the marvels of the marketplace tend to fall short (as do the liberal panaceas). For example, it’s not unreasonable for drug companies to expect a decent return on their research. However, some of us think it’s reasonable for people in third world countries to seek affordably priced medications. Slogans and sound bites from left and right don’t do much to develop solutions to such problems, or problems such as developing reasonable and reliable supplies of low profit high risk products such as vaccines or medications for rare diseases. A start to a solution might be a discussion that eschews, at least for a while, ideological slogans.

“I'm always surprised when people point to Europe as a model for the US to follow. By almost any honestly appraised measure Europe is falling behind the US. The unemployment figures alone would seem to give Europhiles pause. Their unemployment is generally twice as high as the US. Europe is simply out of its league when compared to the US.”

I’m not arguing for Europe as a model for the US to follow, if that’s what you’re implying. (Hard for me to tell if you are replying to something I didn’t say, or just pulling a trigger at a duck you saw fly by that you can’t resist blasting.) Mainly, I am pointing out that there is a difference between Western European democratic social welfare capitalism and (now mostly defunct) Eastern European tyrannical command and control economies. One can reasonably dislike and disdain Western European economics and politics, though a reasonable person who is not thoroughly entangled in ideological blinders might notice that there systems and our systems have their good points and bad points. Personally, I think the ability to make distinctions is a sign of intelligence and sense, but some people prefer to limit their intellectual diets to a few dependable flavors and slogans they feel will never let them down.

10

Random wrote:

"Personally, I think the ability to make distinctions is a sign of intelligence and sense, but some people prefer to limit their intellectual diets to a few dependable flavors and slogans they feel will never let them down."

I'm assuming you're directing this at me and that you think I am the type who limits intellectual diet and that you're the type who's intelligent enough to make distinctions.

That is so typically liberal and typical of the kind of liberal who comments on this blog. He is just simply smarter than us stupid Christians.

How intelligent do you have to be to say something like "there(sp) systems and our systems have their good points and bad points"?

I have assumed that all intelligent posters here stipulate that there are good and bad points in everything. In fact, for all future discussions I will stipulate good and bad on both sides. However, as a Christian, I happen to believe that the "you know who" has a very strong hand in everything that goes on here on earth.

That is why socialism is philosophically and practically untenable. It assumes a certain amount of goodness in people and systems and government. It assumes that government will simply be a disinterested dispenser of largesse. Assuming that's true, it assumes that only people who need that largesse will ask for it. The War on Poverty shows the bankruptcy of that kind of thinking.

I guess your point is that Western Europe is not as bad as the Communist bloc. My point is that Western Europe is on its way to the dustbin of history as well, and will make it there much sooner than the US by continuing down the path of the welfare state.

11

Jd,

I apologize, in that I did not express myself carefully enough, and caused you to interpret some sarcastic remarks as meant at your personally. I meant the sarcastic remarks, “…some people prefer to limit their intellectual diets to a few dependable flavors and slogans they feel will never let them down” as a general comment about how a lot of people (liberal and conservative, religious and non-religious alike, express themselves). It wasn’t aimed at you in particular, but it’s reasonable that you interpreted it that way.

“That is so typically liberal and typical of the kind of liberal who comments on this blog. He is just simply smarter than us stupid Christians.”

That’s a bit testy, but I’m taking in good humor because of the original misunderstanding. Still, it doesn’t exactly set a good example for me of getting away from labeling and stereotyping. Why don’t we all try to get away from that type of discourse even if we disagree?

I think some Christians are smart (and I’m inclined to put you into that category), and I think some Christians are not smart. I think some non-Christians are smart and some non-Christians are not smart. I consider it possible that Christians are holier than us non-Christians or more saved than us non-Christians, but I doubt there is any correlation between religious belief and intelligence one way or another. However, I could be wrong, so if you know of evidence otherwise, I will consider it carefully. (Not being sarcastic in that regard.)

“That is why socialism is philosophically and practically untenable. It assumes a certain amount of goodness in people and systems and government. It assumes that government will simply be a disinterested dispenser of largesse. Assuming that's true, it assumes that only people who need that largesse will ask for it. The War on Poverty shows the bankruptcy of that kind of thinking”

I let my “Socialist Workers Party” membership card lapse a long time ago (that is sarcastic), so I don’t feel any great urge to defend socialism as a political-economic solution to the problems of the world. Where I would disagree a bit, is that I think socialism and communism for that matter arose because of problems and contradictions that exist in capitalist society. They solutions that the left offered proved faulty and even evil, but the problems do exist, and I would argue that the right is complacent and self righteous in terms of rationalizing and dismissing the problems instead of facing them and seeing if there are solutions instead of just blaming and scapegoating the victims. You don’t have to be a “liberal” or an “atheist” (favorite pejorative labels of the evangelical right) to acknowledge problems and look at them realistically.

“I guess your point is that Western Europe is not as bad as the Communist bloc. My point is that Western Europe is on its way to the dustbin of history as well, and will make it there much sooner than the US by continuing down the path of the welfare state.”

The “dustbin of history” remark is not incoherent and may even be true, but I think it’s a little complacent and self-satisfied. I would point out that Finland (part of the Western Europe “welfare state” you decry is listed by Forbes magazine (not exactly a stalwart of left-wing liberal thinking last time I looked) as currently the most competitive nation in the world (economically). I'm just arguing that the world does not fall quite as conveniently into groups of successful or unsuccessful as your ideological labels and categories may lead you to believe.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gci2005.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.html

12

Random:

Apology accepted. And I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your remarks.

You wrote:

"I consider it possible that Christians are holier than us non-Christians or more saved than us non-Christians, but I doubt there is any correlation between religious belief and intelligence one way or another."

Some Christians are no doubt holier than you and some are not. I know some are holier than me. You're probably holier than me. As to being saved: either you is or you isn't. There is no such thing as being more saved. You're either saved or doomed. As for intelligence, I would agree there is no correlation with religious belief. However, there is something that does come with religious belief: it's called wisdom. I didn't learn to value it until I became a Christian. It has nothing to do with being smart or intelligent or shrewd, though they are certainly parts of being wise. Intelligence and shrewdness can quite literally preclude true wisdom. Intelligent and shrewd Christians aspire to true wisdom just like all the rest of us ordinary folks. I can't pretend to be very wise. I get into trouble all the time because of my foolish mouth (and writing). However, I'm much wiser than I used to be. I think John Calvin called that sanctification. Maybe it was St. Paul.

"I would argue that the right is complacent and self righteous in terms of rationalizing and dismissing the problems instead of facing them and seeing if there are solutions instead of just blaming and scapegoating the victims."

Solutions? They don't come from a centralized problem solver. I just don't understand how anyone who has been in this country for the last 40 years can think that we can solve problems through a government program. They don't work and can be shown to have done more harm than good.

"I would point out that Finland (part of the Western Europe “welfare state” you decry is listed by Forbes magazine (not exactly a stalwart of left-wing liberal thinking last time I looked) as currently the most competitive nation in the world (economically)"

Finland? Did you say Finland? I know there's a flaw somewhere in comparing the US to Finland; I just can't think of it right now. Seriously, I will read the links you cited, but somehow Finland is not convincing as an example of an economically competitive country. Actually there are plenty of lefties at Forbes magazine. You should watch Forbes on Fox on Saturday mornings. Steve Forbes argues with them all the time. I don't know why he doesn't just fire them all and then eat their children.

13

jd:

I don’t know that I am exactly “comparing” Finland to the United States, or saying that they offer anything tremendous for us to imitate of learn from. I am trying to undermine a bit the tendency to say, Western Europe is so corrupt and effete that they are headed for the dustbin of history. I am no expert on Finland. My daughter has a close friend from college who is Finish and she has visited her friend in Finland a couple of times. Her husband’s friend is an engineer who works for Nokia, a mildly successful international company based in Finland. Maybe there are just different ways of organizing one’s country and society that can work with some success.

“Solutions? They don't come from a centralized problem solver. I just don't understand how anyone who has been in this country for the last 40 years can think that we can solve problems through a government program. They don't work and can be shown to have done more harm than good.”

There are reasonable grounds for criticizing or being suspicious of “large centralized problem solvers.” I’d be more impressed by the rhetoric of the right if they would recognize and acknowledge the problems caused by large aggregations of power in the corporate world as well.

When problems are pointed out such as Nestle persuading third-world women to use bottles and formula instead of breastfeeding their babies, or Monsanto using the world as a gigantic beta test site for genetic engineering, or the damage caused by the diamond industry or the chocolate industry, many people blow such criticisms off as leftist propaganda.

No they are problems, and if you object to proposed solutions from government fiat, at least recognize and acknowledge the problems in a calm and rational way.

For example, one possible solution to problems that doesn’t come from government fiat is the micro-lending movement. http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/2004globalconf_khosla.shtml

Here’s a small, personal example of contrary thinking that perhaps evades the extremes of “left” and “right” rhetorical discourse that irritate me. For the last thirty years or so, my wife and I have avoided using banks for our personal banking (e.g., checking accounts). We use credit unions instead. A few years ago, I ran into a small problem (mostly caused by a misunderstanding) with a loan we had set up to be paid automatically from our checking account. A payment was missed and I found a $20 penalty fee on my statement even though I had quickly made the payment and the cause of the problem had been a misunderstanding of procedures not a lack of money or bad intent on my part.

I called the credit union, quickly got through to a real human being (not a maze of automated voice mail messages), and explained the problem. The person I spoke with said, “OK, I am removing the penalty fee. Don’t do it again; next time we will charge you a fee for certain.” I promised not to do it again, and once I understood what caused the problem, it was easy to avoid.

Compare this to doing business with large banks such as Wells-Fargo or Citicorp or Bank of America which have come to see penalty fees as a source of profit and play “gotcha” with their customers if they make an innocent mistake.

A person can be a “liberal” or a “conservative” and use credit unions. A credit union can be set up by a group of atheists or agnostics or a group of evangelical protestant Christians or conservative Catholic Christians.

Big banks detest credit unions and assert they compete “unfairly.” Perhaps, but I tend to regard such a complaint with the same amount of sympathy as a chicken might regard a complaint of a group of foxes that the chickens are acting unfairly when they put up a barrier to keep the predators out.

14

It's worthless even asking this, but you guys do understand that most women cannot orgasm without some form of clitoral stimulation, right? And that vibrators can stimulate the clitoris, right? And that there's nothing wrong with women who orgasm, right?

Because, gosh, if you do understand these truths, they sure didn't come through in your article.

15

I really like the "sex as communication" focus. Very helpful to think of it like that.

Joe said, "But sex should never be completely stripped of its conceptive role."

But this naturally occurs through menopause, or in some couples who are naturally sterile. Sex is still good communication in such cases.

Ideally, children are the by-product of a loving, healthy relationship between man and woman. But that doesn't mean that every loving, healthy relationship between man and woman must always produce children. There are times and seasons for the different parts of life.

16

"Joe’s blog take on the tone of Joe’s persona, which is an attractive one as far as evangelical Christians go."

Glad to hear that Joe is one of the reasonable ones. You never can tell with those people.

Don't get me wrong... some of my best friends are evangelicals. But you know how they are...

17

yeah, we're always succumbing to "self-righteousness and disdain". I guess we just need to give up on that whole "God actually says certain things are sinful" thing.

18

Random:

"There are reasonable grounds for criticizing or being suspicious of “large centralized problem solvers.” I’d be more impressed by the rhetoric of the right if they would recognize and acknowledge the problems caused by large aggregations of power in the corporate world as well."

You know I would tend to agree with you, except for one thing. We've been hearing horror stories for the last fifty years about the military industrial complex as DDE called it. Pardon me for being just a little skeptical about the apocalypse coming about because corporations are too big. Yes, they're too big. Yes, oil company profits are huge. Yes, Wal-Mart is a monstrosity. However, they all pale in comparison to the leviathan that is the federal government budget. And guess what. Corporations listen to one thing: the sound of the cash register. We have the power to close them down. We simply boycott them. We quit using them. No one is forcing us to shop at Wal-Mart or to buy gasoline. We have the freedom to stop doing it if we really want to. If we really saw the danger that the left has been preaching to us for the last fifty years we still have the freedom to make a change.

Two examples: the one you gave about using a credit union instead of a large bank. The second one is called the MacIntosh computer, arguably a better product than the PC, and readily available to anyone who didn't want a Microsoft operating system. But somehow the Clinton administration and the left convinced everyone that Microsoft was so dangerous it needed to be busted up.

I think that when the right sees a PROBLEM, they do something about it; they fix it before most people even know it's a problem. When the left sees a problem, they make sure everyone knows it's a PROBLEM, and then they try to get government to fix it.

I know what you're saying about the right. We just don't see the problems in the world. I suppose you say that because you don't see the proper concern for said problems. There is a well-known pastor here in my hometown who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he didn't see any concern on George Bush's face for all the casualties of the Iraq war. Therefore, this pastor concluded George Bush didn't care.

Sometimes that seems like the difference between right and left, liberal and conservative, Christian and non. The one exhibits a concern for a great problem and then does something symbolic, which really doesn't do any good. The other shows little concern, but goes on living life, doing what's right, praying that God will do great things.

I can tell you one thing about the Christian right. They hate giving their money to government, but it was the red states who GAVE more of their money to charity than the blue states.

This post rambled, but I hope I got the point across.

19

Sam,

I think you are mistaken about women and orgasm. They may need things like "clitoral stimulation", but that can be done naturally with the fingers.

But Joe isn't condeming vibrators for women who have this "problem," but rather, if you need something external like porno or sex toys to get aroused, there is something wrong with your relationship - you have probably strayed away from sex as relationship into sex as personal pleasure separated from relationship.