Evil wears many masks in this world, but none so dangerous as the mask of righteousness. The American Family Association (AFA) is a group of Christian Fundamentalists who have come together in a common belief that the world we live in has been corrupted by immorality. They have decided to fight back against this corruption by trying to re-instate the "proper" religious morals given to us by the Bible. These moral views are narrow minded in the extreme and are often full of hate and prejudice. They often voice their beliefs that abortion is wrong, that homosexuality is a sin, that separation of church and state is a violation of their rights, that the media isn't biased enough in favour of Christianity and much more. The more I read articles from their website (www.afa.net) the more angry and horrified I become. So why do I keep going to their site? It's like a train wreck. I don't want to see, but I can't turn away. I was thinking of ranting about them in my Rant and Roar section, but there is just far too much that I have to say. That's why I have created this section. Every so often, I will chose an article from their website and analyze it. I don't know if they store their articles on their website or if they remove them after time, so you might encounter some broken links.
<----- Back to previous AFA articles and reviews
This article isn't actually an AFA article. It's from the agape press. There was a direct link to it from the AFA's main site though, so I figure they must agree with it. As usual though, I don't. While reading the article, I found something quite amusing. The same words seem to have different meanings to different people. I mean, religious fundamentalists who read this title are horrified, while I read it and say "So what? I think we need MORE liberalism on college campuses!" I'm not really going anywhere with this point, just thought it was interesting. Anyway, let's get to the article.
WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress)
- Young America's Foundation spokesperson Melissa
Moskal says on today's college campus, students are being fed a
steady diet of "liberalism,"
much of which comes through required courses that do not get much
publicity.
One prestigious
college offers a course called "The Feminist View of the
Bible," and another
offers one called "The Bible and Horror." Still another
offers a course on "Black Homosexuals
and Lesbians in the Theatre." Moskal says such liberal
courses can be found on almost any
campus.
"It's a little scary," she says. "In a lot of
places students cannot escape [from] taking these
courses. More and more often they're becoming requirements for
graduation."
It's what most people call "a well rounded education". I'm sure these people would happy if they learned only Bible courses and that's all, but Universities are there for LEARNING. That means learning things from different (i.e. not religious) perspectives. Look, there is a place you can go if you want to avoid these liberal classes, it's called CHURCH. If you want an actual education, then you've got to drop your religious biases and actually be willing to learn. Making these courses required for graduation might force some of these people to actually think for themselves and not have such a one dimensional and bigoted view of the world. I think it's great! Student's SHOULDN'T be able to escape from learning different views and opinions. That's what University is there for!
Moskal says there
is very little diversity on college campuses when it comes to
courses'
perspectives. She says the Foundation does not want these courses
stopped, it just wants the
opposite view taught as well.
"We simply want students to be able to get a balanced
education when they're in college, and
when they're being offered classes like these but not the
alternative, that's just not happening."
This part I don't quite understand. Moskal claims that she wants opposite views taught as well. So, instead of "The Feminist View of the Bible", she wants "The Male Chauvinist's View of the Bible"? It already exists. In fact, almost ALL Bible courses look at the male perspective of the Bible. That solves that problem. On to the next course. Instead of "The Bible and Horror", Moskal wants "The Bible and Wonder"? This also already exists. It's called church. Lastly we have "Black Homosexuals and Lesbians in the Theatre". I guess Moskal wants "White Heterosexuals in the Theatre". Well, that course ALSO already exists. It's called "Theatre".
Ahhhh, now I see. Moskal doesn't want the opposite views taught at all! She wants her RELIGIOUS views taught. Well, I believe that there is this quirky law out there that says there is has to be a separation between church and state. That kind of puts a damper on her situation. Of course, the more I think about it, the more I see that by "opposite", Moskal really means disapproval. She wants a course which will CONDEMN Black Homosexuals and Lesbians in the Theatre. She wants a course which CONDEMN the Feminist view of the Bible and she wants a course that will CONDEMN the Horrors of the Bible. Well, I'm sorry, but courses based on hate just aren't acceptable.
The next part of the article talks about Jay Friedman of Wolfman Productions. Friedman travels to different campuses and gives a lecture about safe sex and stuff of that nature. Obviously, he's pissed of some religious fanatics. They claim that he strongly promoted sexual behaviour between students. Why are these people so afraid of sex? Even THEY must realize that without it, no one would exist. Yes, I know, they only believe in sex after marriage. But, if you read this article carefully, the authors of this article don't address the issue of marriage. They're against the concept of STUDENTS having sex, apparently that means even married ones.
"[He] told the
students how to get the most pleasure out of using a condom [and]
that abortion
is a favorable option," Motschenbacher says. "[He also]
attacked Christians and their
conservative stand on moral behavior, and he especially attacked
Catholics."
Well, maybe that's because you guys have bigoted views. Now, I don't want to attack ALL Catholics. I hope everybody realizes that. I have nothing at all against Catholicism. I'm just against the fundamentalists who try to force their views onto others and think that everyone who's not them should go to hell. That kind of attitude IS bigoted and hopefully people will discover this and become more tolerant. Secondly, I don't know why this guy seems to have a problem with getting the most pleasure out of using a condom. Would he prefer that people don't use condoms at all and spread STDs, or just that people use painful condoms? Thirdly, there is the abortion issue. I've talked quite a lot about this in my rants section and in previous AFA reviews, so I don't think I need to go into it again.
According to
Motschenbacher, Friedman's appearance was sponsored by the school's
convocations committee. While speakers at such gatherings are
supposed to be educational
and instructive for the students, Motschenbacher says there was
nothing in the presentation
about the consequences of being sexually active outside of
marriage, nothing on STDs, nothing
supporting abstinence as an option, and nothing supporting
Biblical values.
Haven't we been over all this before? First, Motschenbacher doesn't seem to understand that sex before marriage does not destroy lives, nor does it lead to the destruction of humanity. Second, the fact that Friedman talked about how to get the most pleasure from a condom shows that the concept of safe sex (i.e. protection from STDs) WAS addressed. Thirdly, his speech was about sex and directed to those who are having sex. Those who practice abstinence didn't have to go to the speech. Nor was it really directed at them. Fourth, Biblical views had NO PLACE at these speeches. This was NOT a religious meeting. If you want Biblical views of sex, then read the Bible or go to Church. Besides, no students were forced to go to these speeches to begin with.
<----- Back to previous AFA articles and reviews
<----- Back to my homepage