Protesters in Thailand Demonstrate Against Bush
The policy of President Bush has been to promote abstinence programs throughout the world, rather than relying solely on “safe-sex” and condoms. Interestingly enough, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has supported the Bush policy, and as a result has become a target of criticism. His country is a rare example of a success story in Africa, a continent ravaged by Aids. By enforcing abstinence programs, his country has seen a drop in Aids infections. Those supporting condoms as the only way to prevent Aids seem to think that abstinence is cruel and unusual punishment. Asking people to wait until marriage before having sex is unrealistic, according to the critics of the Bush policy. This reaction ought not be surprising. In our sex-absorbed culture, it seems inconceivable for some to even contemplate abstinence. But the question must be asked; what is really going to solve the Aids problem? The only way to ensure that Aids will not be transmitted is by not having sex and not taking drugs. It seems so obvious, so why all the confusion? As usual, the Left has a quick fix for a serious, deep seeded moral problem that they refuse to recognize. Their message is the equivalent of saying; “play with this loaded gun, just be safe”. Refusing to address the root cause of the Aids epidemic, they look for simplistic solutions to a moral crisis. Since their understanding of sex is not rooted within any moral context of procreation, love, family and responsibility, they cannot be expected to see the moral roots of the Aids crisis. Abstinence programs, on the contrary, encourage a responsible and humane understanding of sex; that is, sex within the context of the married life is the only authentic purpose for human sexuality. Abstinence attacks the root of the problem, addressing the moral implications of sexuality. The source of the anger toward the president results from President Bush's refusal to use the bully pulpit as a spring board for the homosexual agenda. While Bush certainly wants to find a cure for Aids, he will not use his office as a propaganda machine for the homosexual movement in this country. I’m afraid that the criticism of the United States in Thailand is yet another example of the “blame America first” movement and has more to do with ideology that with fact.
While the axe grinding political pundits do criticize US policies at an enormously unfair level, the US does deserve to be attacked.
ReplyDeleteBefore I am lynched let me explain.
Anything Richard Gere says about sexuality cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is really making an attempt to engage the various issues it entails. This is the pervert who garnered noteriety fame through his escapades with a gerbil, remember?
As for Kofi Annan and the UN, do they really stand for anything anymore? The legendary Christendom professor and cultural commentator Fr. A. Mastroeni has called the UN a "ridiculous talkshow" and many people (including myself) who would like to see true social justice in the world agree.
The US is a generous benefactor of nearly every misguided UN attempt to heal the world, for this it deserves to be lauded, however; at the same time American pop culture is a major source of the Aids epidemic.
A Bantu tribe member may not understand a word of English, but he owns a semi-pornographic poster of Britney Spears and can sing her hits by memory. Most of the key players in the slimy Hollywood world make fornication as commonplace as a visit to the grocery store; and then lament that the current administration does not do more to cure STD's.
Money cannot purchase a solution that only morality can provide.
This administration does not deserve the blame, but the American mentality, which is engulfing the world like a swarm of locusts, is certainly a major culprit.
Jason,
ReplyDeletePoint well taken, I love the Fr. Mastroeni quote...very appropriate! I don't think anyone would argue that American pop-culture is a source of morality and virtue. On the contrary, as you stated, our entertainment industry extends it dark shadow over much of the world, especially among impressionable young people, with regrettable consequences. Is there, perhaps a dichotomy between the average American and the Janet Jackson-SuperBowl Half-Time show morality of our entertainment industry? Remember the national outrage that took place after her over-exposure? A great majority of Americans strongly objected to her performance. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that these entertainers "represent" Americans who are, by and large, far more virtuous and moral. These entertainers, more often than not, have mixed-up, disfunctional personal lives. Is it any surprise that what they put out is trash? Muslims in the Arab world see such performances and associate it with every American. What could be done to counter the powerful influence of the entertainment industry to project a more positive (and accurate) reflection of American values?