Would you support this?

[afleitch]

From Andrew Sullivan;

'In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter has a positively chilling story on how theoconservatives and Christianists have waged a quiet war against some critical vaccines, especially against Human papillomavirus or HPV. A vaccine exists against this virus that would drastically reduce the numbers of cervix cancer cases. The religious right opposes it as a mandatory childhood vaccination, because it removes a disincentive to having sex:

"Religious conservatives are unapologetic; not only do they believe that mass use of an HPV vaccine or the availability of emergency contraception will encourage adolescents to engage in unacceptable sexual behavior; some have even stated that they would feel similarly about an H.I.V. vaccine, if one became available.  'We would have to look at that closely,' Reginald Finger, an evangelical Christian and a former medical adviser to the conservative political organization Focus on the Family, said. '' '

So, would you support Forus on the Family and wish for such vacinnes to be banned for 'promoting promiscuity' ?

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

[afleitch]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Neither do I. I was simply laying down the article as it was written.

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

[Bdub]

No. (Pro-Choice)

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

Not quite. I can't think of any religious right type groups that are like them. What would you consider religious right that are nothing like them, or people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

What I would consider the fringe of the religious right is someone like Gary North, who has said that the death penalty should be imposed for homosexuality, and that if a teenage girl has an abortion with her parents' permission, she should be executed, the doctor who performed it should be executed and both her parents should be executed.

[Speed of Sound]

No. (Pro-Choice)

[Alcon]

No, and these people are out of their minds (pro-life)

[John Dibble]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

Not quite. I can't think of any religious right type groups that are like them. What would you consider religious right that are nothing like them, or people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

Like I said, narrow view of the religious right - and the groups are generally towards the fringe, as they'd be outspoken by the reasonable but unorganized parts otherwise. I know people who consider themselves part of it that aren't unreasonable like this.

[MODU]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

[jokerman]

No, and these people are out of their minds (pro-life)

[Democratic Hawk]

No (pro-life). Any vaccine that reduces the risk of cervical cancer can only be a good thing

Dave

[nini2287]

No and especially because my dad's company is making the vaccine.

[Inmate Trump]

No (pro-life)

[Beet]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

Focus on the Family is not the fringe of the religious right, they are mainstream in the movement.

If you have a narrow view of what constitutes the religious right, sure.

Not quite. I can't think of any religious right type groups that are like them. What would you consider religious right that are nothing like them, or people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?

Like I said, narrow view of the religious right - and the groups are generally towards the fringe, as they'd be outspoken by the reasonable but unorganized parts otherwise. I know people who consider themselves part of it that aren't unreasonable like this.

"Reasonable" is relative term-- to Focus on the Family, opposition to HPV vaccine is perfectly "reasonable". Look at some of the issues listed for the Religous Right. Which ones would you consider reasonable? Of course it varies.

Also... your friends might have to agree with this decision once confronted with the scriptual evidence-- have you asked them? And even if they don't.. are the "reasonable" ones politically organized?

[John Dibble]

"Reasonable" is relative term-- to Focus on the Family, opposition to HPV vaccine is perfectly "reasonable". Look at some of the issues listed for the Religous Right. Which ones would you consider reasonable? Of course it varies.

I don't really see how that's relevant. Tons of terms are relative, but it doesn't really change anything, now does it? So, let me just ask you this - do you find that in general I am a reasonable person? If yes, then you can probably assume safely that my judgement on the people I referred to as reasonable is sound.

As to the Wikipedia article, well, it's a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia isn't entirely reliable to be opinion free when it comes to political issues. From the looks of that one it doesn't seem very balanced. Probably written by a lefty by the looks of it, otherwise 'common issues' might include things like faith based charity initiatives and other much more minor issues that have a broader range of support. Instead it only includes extreme issues that for the most part have very little support among the mainstream religious right. Looking at the logs of changes for the article, it was altered to contain all of those 'common issues' by one person on March 8, 2006. It also removed the following paragraphs:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, the editor has a huge bias, so you should link a better article if you want to make a point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't know if they would or not. As to the second question, I OUTRIGHT SAID THEY WEREN'T ORGANIZED. Make sure you've read fully before you respond.

You and BRTD are way blowing what I said out of proportion - all I said is I wouldn't broadly categorize the more extreme elements of the religious right as being the mainstream in it.

[Beet]

"Reasonable" is relative term-- to Focus on the Family, opposition to HPV vaccine is perfectly "reasonable". Look at some of the issues listed for the Religous Right. Which ones would you consider reasonable? Of course it varies.

I don't really see how that's relevant. Tons of terms are relative, but it doesn't really change anything, now does it? So, let me just ask you this - do you find that in general I am a reasonable person? If yes, then you can probably assume safely that my judgement on the people I referred to as reasonable is sound.

The problem is that when it comes to issues important to the religious right community, even people on this forum have differing views of what is reasonable. What one person considers reasonable (SD abortion ban) another person might not. That was the sole reason I linked to the article-- not that I think the entire thing was well written, but only to illustrate the range of such views. Unless we know their position on virtually all of them, we can't decide how reasonable or not we think their views are.

Of course, it's no surprise that the more extreme are more organized-- yet it is these ones that make up "the right" if we are talking about a political bloc, because unorganized individuals generally don't have much influence-- it's the organized ones that really have influence and represent what we mean in practice by "religious right". It's unfair to all the more moderate ones true, but those moderate ones aren't out doing much (to the extent they do, it's probably helping groups like FoF achieve their goals); it's the groups like Focus on the Family-- that have plenty of members-- which are the ones influencing policymakers and legislators and which might have an impact on what actually happens.

[minionofmidas]

No (Pro both)

[nclib]

No (pro-choice) and this is proof that the religious right is more concerned with controlling women's bodies than with protecting innocent life.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No

[angus]

'In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter has a positively chilling story on how theoconservatives and Christianists have waged a quiet war against some critical vaccines, especially against Human papillomavirus or HPV.

Becoming quite the conspiracy theorist, eh Afleitch?

Anyway, such a vaccine would be a wonderful addition to our arsenal of frankenbugs.  Like most Yanks, I'm a big fan of all sorts of drugs, as well as genetically modified bacteria, genetically modified foods, and all the rest.  So I'd not support such a bill (assuming the Focus on Family supported bill even exists, and I'm skeptical of that!) 

No point in getting so worked up over ghosts and faeries and dreamt-up legislation.

[Gabu]

'In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter has a positively chilling story on how theoconservatives and Christianists have waged a quiet war against some critical vaccines, especially against Human papillomavirus or HPV.

Becoming quite the conspiracy theorist, eh Afleitch?

The actual item is not a "theory"; they're openly opposing it.  The only place where theory comes in is with regards to their motives, and no plausible theory leads to a good outcome in this region.

[WMS]

No, but I wouldn't pretend that the views of a few people on the extreme religious fringe are representative of everyone on the religious right either.

And Dibble pwns this thread.

[angus]

'In the latest New Yorker, Michael Specter has a positively chilling story on how theoconservatives and Christianists have waged a quiet war against some critical vaccines, especially against Human papillomavirus or HPV.

Becoming quite the conspiracy theorist, eh Afleitch?

The actual item is not a "theory"; they're openly opposing it.  The only place where theory comes in is with regards to their motives, and no plausible theory leads to a good outcome in this region.

There are many theories here, Gabu, including yours that Afleitch doesn't look a bit crazy with his concern over this.  But that's okay.  You boys worry about whatever you like.  For example, there are also people who wear aluminum foil hats and lobby congress daily to go after the alien invaders who listen in on our thoughts.  I'm sure you, Afleitch, and Andrew Sullivan think their lobbying merit polls and posts as well.