‘Abstinence only’ is bullshit, sure. How prevalent is it, really? I don’t just mean in schools, but society at large; because people learn things outside of schools, you know. Outside of a few Amish communities, who doesn’t know about condoms? Our culture is so permeated with sexuality and general acceptance of underage relations that I couldn’t name a seventh grader who doesn’t know about the importance of condoms. Any preteen with half a brain knows to put a condom on their cock if they’re gonna fuck. So why do so many kids get pregnant or contract STD’s? The problem isn’t lack of education, the problem is laziness and stupidity. They know better, but they either don’t want to take the time, or they are just freaking idiots with idiot parents who didn’t ingrain it into them. This links into what you were saying about the Spears’s and Lohan’s: our culture has glorified brain dead oversexed teen princesses to the point that it is not just acceptable but expected to be stupid and loose. And you don’t want to admit it, but the best way to not get pregnant or sick is to not have sex in the first place. That is a biological fact, and needs to be pointed out. That isn’t to say people shouldn’t know about condoms and birth control, of course, just that balance is usually the best way to approach any subject.

That said, acceptance and freedom are NOT intrinsically super awesome. By definition, any freedom you enjoy will restrict the freedom of another, i.e. your freedom not to be shot restricts my freedom to shoot you. Freedom is GENERALLY a good thing, not UNIVERSALLY.

Things are changing. Sure, 90 year old Baptist ministers keep getting elected to congress and slowing the process, but they’re gonna die out a lot sooner than we are. Change is constant, it has happened, it will continue to happen. History show that you can not go back, so don’t worry about that. We don’t need a revolution to stop them from teaching abstinence only in school, or to allow homosexuals to marry. Those changes are already happening, just not as fast as you’d like.

I won’t try to defend the two-party system. There is no defending it. It is fundementally flawed, undemocratic, and every thing you said about it is right on. Working and voting for third parties and independants is about all you can do about that, even if they won’t win. It will take time, but change will happen. We’re the only democracy in the world with only two parties. If you want to hurry change along in this don’t write off fringe candidates, help them.

Maybe it’s because I’m not an Atheist, but I just don’t see this discrimination you keep on about. Actually, the most popular religion in this country is “None Particular”. I’ve never seen or heard of Atheist discrimination. I actually see the opposite. No offense, but the angriest, most judgmental group I’ve seen outside the Westboro Church and the National Democratic Party are those militant, anti-organized religion nuts who insist that anybody who believes in a God and want to get together with likeminded people and celebrate their belief is evil incarnate and specifically out to destroy happiness and tolerance, and probably sacrifices puppies to their ‘god’ while brainwashing kids to hate everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Most religious people in this country are very accepting: As evidence of this fact, I point to the fact that every other block has it’s own non-denominational Christian sect, and predominantly they get along with their community and neighboring churches and non-theist neighbors just fine. As I said, change happens, is happening, and acceptance grows more with each generation. Give it time, and help it along by being accepting yourself. And by the way (this isn’t for Sean, but other people who I think read this blog) ascribing to a narrow, extreme form of liberalism that rejects and belittles anything traditional, religious, or old-fashioned is not accepting; it’s being just as bigoted, only on the other side. It does not facilitate the change that we all seem to want so very badly in this country.

Lastly, Diane, “RELIGIOUS school”? What are you talking about? I think its a good point about declaring your party outloud in public is pretty undemocratic. But we’ve already established the parties and primaries are undemocratic. Changing the “declare outloud” rule would be a bit like putting make-up on a pig. But again, religious school…what are you talking about? Is your polling place at Anchorage Christian School? Or are you just talking about the teaching of Intelligence Design in science classes? Because that’s only required to be taught in Kansas. And while it is ultimately unscientific for its appeal to an unverifiable cosmic designer, it is a useful lens for examining some sticking points in the theory of evolution. It’s not the trojan horse for creationism that the previously mentioned militant atheists would have you believe.

By the way, just so nobody accuses me of judging atheists the way Sean is complaining about, I realize that not all atheists are “militant” and extremely judgmental against all things remotely religious, just as most religious people are not extremely judgmental against anyone who expresses doubt or denial of a higher power. We’re talking about fringes here, people with an agenda that generally has to do with inpunging the freedom of worship, or freedom not to worship, we are guaranteed in the constitution.

What really bothers me the most is that when I got to the polls I have a choice between D or R. The D will pretend to care about my rights and not my money. The R will pretend to care about money and not my rights. Any other party will actually pretend to care about both issues, money and rights, they may even truly care, but they won’t get elected they lack the sponsorship of the government and because people are lazy and would rather vote for a party then for each person.

What really pisses me off is that when I go to vote during the primary is that I have to declare in PUBLIC, OUTLOUD, in a RELIGIOUS school, which ballot I want, D, R, or Other…