Civitas Review Online

The latest installment in the Civitas Institute Agenda “20 Changes for 2010: A Primer for State Reform” focuses on strengthening state marriage laws in North Carolina. I recommend echoing the two-thirds of North Carolina voters who support passing a constitutional amendment and declare that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

A Defense of Marriage Act would allow North Carolina voters to amend the state constitution to include the definition of marriage as solely between a man and a woman. If approved by voters, a constitutional amendment would strengthen already existing state marriage laws and not allow activist courts and legislatures to alter the definition of marriage.

If you thought that the Wake County School Board was having fun with controversy (in spite of being elected with their issues on the table) the Tennessee Board of Education has brought forth a bible class for public schools.

Beginning in the fall of 2010 high schools that want to teach students from the Bible will be able to do so using this approved cirriculum. Here are a few of the guidelines according to the Tennessean:

• Students will read biblical narratives, identify chief characters and analyze plot, literary form and intended impact on the reader.

• Students will learn and discuss pivotal historical events and geographic locations and compare the religious, social and cultural lives in the ancient world.

• Students will show how the Bible has impacted art, literature, music and thought by reading pieces of work that use biblical allusions and listening to music that relies on biblical text.

So, how controversial would this be in North Carolina?  Better yet, would elected officials in our state EVER let such a system even be considered on the floor of our legislature?  But in North Carolina we are content, from an educational standpoint, to ignore the impact that the Bible has had on our society or on history.  It is as if it never existed.

Our very own UNC-Chapel Hill was highlighted in the NYT over the weekend discussing how the college gender gap affects more than just academia. The article, “The New Math on Campus,” looked into the social ramifications of a non-traditional male/female ratio, specifically how it effects college dating and relationships.

“University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, with a student body that is nearly 60 percent female, is just one of many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories.”

The article sheds light on the overlooked situation most college men and women regularly face: there are more women than men in the classroom, the graduating class and now, the social scene.

According to a recent report by the American Council on Education, women have represented about 57 percent of enrollment in colleges since 2000. The increase of women on campuses is significant to note as women only began attending college in the late 19th Century. But today, women outnumber men and such a population change is sure to bring social ramifications. While understanding the full effect, if any, the lop-sided male/female ratio is having on the dating culture is far from conclusive. What we do know is women on gender-imbalanced campuses are sacrificing values for an encounter with the disappearing male- and these consequences should not be overlooked.

“Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time” states Sally
Jenkins, a pro-choice woman, of the Washington Post. In the face of resourceful feminists who spent the last two weeks declaring the exact opposite, Jenkin’s article, “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are,” does the unthinkable: defend Pam Tebow’s right to choose and Timmy’s right to publicly share his mother’s choice.

By now we are all familiar with the details of the “Tebow- CBS- Modern Feminists Are Crazy” debate which captured our attention last week when NOW and the Women’s Media Center mounted a full frontal attack against the yet-to-be-viewed 30-second Super Bowl ad. But as Jenkin’s points out:

“The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” has revealed something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

NOW is not only wrong to attack Tebow’s ad but I am offended that NOW has become the de-facto voice for women. NOW is suppose to speak for all women, but it is completely out of touch with what women actually want. Women want freedom to express their life choices. Pam Tebow fully exercised her choice and we should celebrate her story. America is thrilled with the birth of her record-breaking, scripture wearing, gator chompin son and so should groups who allegedly “speak for women”.

NOW should take a cue from the public support for Tebow: other issues warrant more controversy than a 30-second ad celebrating family. Last I checked, women are still starving, female entrepreneurs are being shut down by their nanny-states and barely there bikinis walk around advertising the latest brew. Where were NOW’s resources on these issues this past week?

Jenkin’s correctly asserts that the Super Bowl is not a reality-free escape zone that is untouchable by advocacy ads. Instead, the Super Bowl celebrates the game of football, and what comes along with football? Players. Athletes who were born from mothers who wrestled with pregnancy, disease and an extra 30 pounds to give birth to the next generation’s role models. Since NOW wants to take issue with the best role model our kids have today, I would like to see who they recommend. On second thought, no thank you.

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction has proposed draft Essential Standards in the Social Studies: Civics and Economics that ask students to use three Supreme Court cases (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education,  Roe v. Wade, or  Korematsu v. U.S.) as support to explain how the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld rights against oppressive government.

It is never justified to equate abortion rights with segregation and ethnic discrimination.  For many obvious reason, the situations are too dissimilar.  Roe v. Wade  created a woman’s right to an abortion. The case overturned 40 plus state and federal laws aimed at protecting the developing child in the mother’s womb by restricting a woman’s right to an abortion. Classifying the case as an example of oppressive government is a political statement and a gross misreading of history and law.  Asking students to group the cases together is indoctrination of the worst kind.  Upholding rights against oppressive government?  This situation might be a better example for students to study.

What can you buy with $2.5 million? 30-seconds of television time during the Super Bowl with millions of American eyes watching—and that’s it. The coveted time slots are usually filled by the regulars: Beer, Sex and Junk Food, but this year, things could be different.

“Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history” according to Focus’ Jan. 15 press release. The star of its commercial? Tim Tebow.

The Gator’s shining star will appear with his mother, Pam, to share a personal story with the theme, “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

According to a NYT’s article last week, “issue ads are rare during Super Bowls, partly because almost all the time is bought by marketers of consumer products.”

The topic of the commercial is different from the few issue ads that ran in previous years because it sends a pro-family and pro-life message. Mrs. Tebow chose life against her doctor’s advice to abort Timmy, her personal decision is now becoming a national controversy.

The Women’s Media Center sent a protest letter to CBS arguing that CBS should have dropped the ad simply because it was bought for by Focus on the Family. The letter states:

“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers,” according to Char-O’s coverage of the letter.

But when CBS chooses to air half-dressed women wrestling in mud to sell beer that doesn’t alienate viewers. Or, when “wardrobe” malfunctions happen on national TV to an audience with children, viewers aren’t discouraged from supporting CBS. Sounds like this is a case of “free speech” for me and “no speech” for you.

Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said CBS officials closely examined Focus on the Family’s history and found no reason to reject the ad.

“We understand that some people don’t think very highly of what we do,” Schneeberger said. “We’re not trying to sell you a soft drink – we’re not selling anything. We’re trying to celebrate families.”

And that’s the message athletes should be celebrating—family drove you to your first game, sat on a cold bench and screamed your name above the other moms in the crowd. It’s about time to say thank you.

East Carolina University hosted feminist icon Gloria Steinem on November 6 to give a lecture titled, “Reflection on Feminism.” Anthony Papalas, professor emeritus of history at East Carolina University, reviewed the lecture for the Pope Center for Higher Education. Here are highlights of his review:

She graciously granted “honorary women” status to the males in attendance.To give an accurate summary of Steinem’s lecture is not easy, for it careened like a cue ball around a billiard table. She began by admitting that women have made substantial gains in society, but then added that we aren’t in a “post-feminism” age because there is much to be done in areas of national health care and paid family leave. To Steinem, feminism demands more expansions of government power.
…

“How did we get into this jam?” Steinem rhetorically asked.  Capitalism (or “patriarchy”— she uses the terms interchangeably) is at fault. It was capitalism that saddled women with a second-class status, she declared. Sometime around 5,000 or 500 years ago (she tended to be vague about dates) a patriarchal society emerged, taking control of women, enforcing its authority through violence, and propagating the myths that men are superior to women and that god is a blond, blue-eyed male. The state needed to control production for soldiers and workers and thus women fell completely under the control of a male hierarchy. To illustrate her point, Steinem noted that the first thing Hitler did when the Nazis took over Germany was to make abortion a crime against the state.

Perhaps there were some students and townspeople in attendance who knew how ridiculous those assertions are. Capitalism is a comparatively recent economic development that works on voluntary exchange, not violence. Living conditions for women (and men and children) began to improve only after capitalism had replaced feudal customs. That was also when the law began to recognize women’s rights. And as for the Nazis, is Steinem not aware that the name means “National Socialist” and that Hitler was completely opposed to liberty that is at the core of a democratic-capitalistic society?

Be sure to read the full article here, but brace yourself, Steinem is as radical as ever!

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is at it again. This time, it is targeting the United States Census demanding a “Queer Census.” The front page of their website reads:

We know it’s a little clichéd – but here’s what we want to tell the census: We’re here. We’re queer. And we want you to ask us about it.

It’s crazy – the U.S. Census Bureau wants an accurate count of everyone in the country – but there’s no question in the survey that asks if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

You read that right: LGBT people are basically invisible in the survey that is supposed to reflect the diversity of America’s population – and that’s a big problem.

The real problem, however, is the hypocritical message being sent to America. On one hand, the LGBT community demands that sexuality should not be a decisive factor in receiving government benefits, the right to marry or employment. Yet, on the other hand, support a campaign which places a huge emphasis on sexuality and demands a separate “question” entirely. Evidently, stating one’s age, DOB, race, sex and residence is not enough.

Legislators, desirous to make a name for themselves, love to come up with trendy new laws that sound good, but exist only to hamper freedom without a basis in science.  No, I’m not talking about Global Warming, but cell phone use.  Yes, those awful cell phones are rotting your brain or at least should come with a warning saying pretty much that.

AUGUSTA, Maine – A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.

And she comes from Sanford (well Maine, but still.)

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors’ bills. Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she’s expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.

Maybe we’ll see such interesting activity in our GA this year.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began a task force to analyze 83 studies of contraceptive-based sexual education programs. The report concludes that group-based comprehensive risk reduction programs will reduce some of the negative consequences of adolescent sexual activity, writes the North Carolina Family Policy Council.

However, two members of the task force, Irene Ericksen and Danielle Ruedt, conclude that contraception focused sex education programs, “do NOT demonstrate effectiveness in three critical outcomes—teen condom use, teen pregnancy, or the spread of STDs.” All areas that CSE programs claim are stronger at than abstinence based curriculums.

The two dissenting opinions are written in a formal Minority Report which argues that the CDC’s report is fundamentally erroneous because it does not take into consideration different types of sex education programs. According to Ericksen, “the report combined widely divergent types of sex education programs into a single analysis, and then attempted to draw across-the-board conclusions.”

The result—a report that unanimously confirms contraception-focused sex education as effective when some programs are not. According to the Minority Report, the CDC’s findings are misleading and policy makers should be aware of the falsified information before citing the task force as a primary reason to support contraceptive-based sexual education programs.