“[Christian Socialist Movement] is a movement of Christians with a radical commitment to social justice, to protecting the environment and to fostering peace and reconciliation. We believe that ‘loving our neighbour’ in the fullest sense involves struggling for a fair and just society, one in which all can enjoy the ‘fullness of life’ Jesus came to announce. And we want to work to make it happen.”

The rise of the Christian neo-socialists has been quite surprising. These Marxists have been using the Sermon of the Mount and Beatitudes and “Jesus’ teaching” to smoke screen the resurgence of a Christian Socialist agenda. It’s amazing.

We see this clearly in socialist redistributionists like Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, Wendell Berry, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider (although he’s moving more toward center), Brian McLaren, and many others I’d love to name.

At least in the U.K. leftist Christians are honest about being socialists. You will see no difference between this agenda and anything you’ll find in Jim Wallace’s neo-socialist organization Sojourners.

Here’s part of the neo-socialist Christian manifesto from the U.K.’s Christian Socialist Movement. At least these folks are honest. It should sound familiar:

Our values

We believe that Christian teaching should be reflected in laws and institutions and that the Kingdom of God finds its political expression in democratic socialist policies.

We believe that all people are created in the image of God. We all have equal worth and deserve equal opportunities to fulfil our God-given potential whilst exercising personal responsibility.

We believe in personal freedom, exercised in community with others and embracing civil, social and economic freedom.

We believe in social justice and that the institutional causes of poverty in, and between, rich and poor countries should be abolished.

We believe all people are called to common stewardship of the Earth, including its natural resources.

Objectives

Christian Socialist Movement members pledge themselves to work in prayer and through political action for the following objectives:

• A greater understanding between people of different faiths
  
  
• The unity of all Christian people
  
  
• Peace and reconciliation between nations and peoples and cultures together with worldwide nuclear and general disarmament
  
  
• Social justice, equality of opportunity and redistribution economically to close the gap between the rich and the poor, and between rich and poor nations
  
  
• A classless society based on equal worth and without discrimination
  
  
• The sustainable use of the Earth’s resources for the benefit of all people, both current and future generations
  
  
• Co-operation, including the creation of cooperative organisations
  

If you’re going to be a Wal-mart-boycotting, “fair trade” coffee-protesting, “no more income gaps between CEOs and other employees” ranting, wealth-redistributing, minimum-wage supporting, socialist you are free to do so but please don’t call it “Christian” or “consistent with Jesus’ teaching,” etc. Many of us are honest about being in tradition of Althusius, Wilberforce, Kuyper, Booker T. Washington, J. Gresham Machen, Michael Polanyi, C.S Lewis, and others and continuing to battle the socialism that keeps people in generational poverty and I think the Christian socialists should be more honest to their allegiance to their own tradition of Marx, Lenin, Keynes, FDR, etc.

We live in a country where people are free to be socialists and that’s the beauty of the whole thing but why hide behind “Christian Social Justice” lingo when it’s really socialism proof-texted from the Gospels only. Why don’t the Christian socialists in America confess it like the Marxist Christians in the U.K.?

Any thoughts on why the Wal-Mart-boycotting socialist Christians don’t just to come out and say, “We are socialists, who also love Jesus?” Why the secrecy? Any insights?

Every Black democrat in America should read today’s column by Nathan McCall in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution titled “Clinton gets proxy to play race card.” Hilary and her supporter’s antics are now playing the race card against Obama. Why? Perhaps the Clinton’s didn’t expect a non-white person to be in contention against established power brokers. Democrats with black leadership is meant for rhetoric only many would say.

McCall reminds us that Hillary Clinton seems ultimately self-interested and will use blacks as a means of getting into office if necessary (just as her husband did). Of course, this is not new. Democrats have been pimping the black community for years now.

This explains why the Democrats refuse to address the black genocide in America through abortion. Nearly 90 percent of all abortion facilities are in or near minority communities and over 43 percent of all black pregnancies end in abortion-- this is nothing less than a predatory removal of blacks from American society.

What’s even worse is that many blacks are willing to be reduced to being political pawns in the Clinton power surge.

Did Hilary Clinton recruit Bob Johnson, the billionaire former owner of Black Entertainment Television, to work in her “house” to do her bidding against Obama? Johnson made reference to Obama’s drug use while proffering the mythology about the Clinton’s deep commitment to black issues. What commitment? There is no evidence that the Clinton’s did anything for black people other than offering rhetoric and empty platitudes.

McCall reminds us that Johnson contributed little to black progress himself by creating a network to peddle misogynistic and denigrating images of black life as normal. Clinton’s enlisting a man who developed dehumanizing programs is even more evidence that black people are just a means to her political ends. John Edwards would never stoop to that level.

As McCall observes “having an African-American do her bidding on the racial front frees Hillary to stake out the moral high ground.” Black America’s beginning to see this more and more.

It gets worse. Bill Clinton’s reference to Obama’s vision as a “fairy tale” should be seen as nothing less than condescending. A fairy tale? Why does Bill think it ridiculous that a man like Obama could become president? What is it about Obama that stands out?

Clinton also referred to Obama as a “kid.” Or maybe Clinton should have just called him “boy” like the Jim Crow era ideologies would dictate. What do the Clinton’s really think of Obama? We’re learning America! It’s leaking out as the Clinton’s panic and recruit hoodwinked blacks into their house to do their bidding as McCall suggests. Why do the couple not feel that Obama is intelligent or mature enough to be president?

As McCall points out was Clinton “a kid” at 46 when he became President?

The Clinton’s have turned the democratic race into one about race. Their true views are leaking as they realize that their dream of ascending to presidency using blacks as a means may be collapsing because of a brown man.

Does the Clinton camp believe blacks to be stupid and not to catch their reductions of Obama in such a way that has nothing to do with the content of his character?

I am not an Obama supporter, by any means, but why black Democrats believe that Hilary Clinton actually cares about black issues exposes just how well the Clinton’s have bamboozled black America. McCall is right that the Clinton’s “aggressively racial maneuvers” may backfire on them on them in the end as their true views of blacks get exposed.

The Pew Research Center released a new report stating: “African Americans see a widening gulf between the values of middle class and poor blacks, and nearly four-in-ten say that because of the diversity within their community, blacks can no longer be thought of as a single race.”

Here are the key findings:

• Asked whether blacks can still be thought of as a single race, given the increasing diversity within the black community, 53% of blacks say they can, but 37% of blacks say they cannot.

• A 53% majority of African Americans say that blacks who don’t get ahead are mainly responsible for their situation, while just three-in-ten say discrimination is mainly to blame. As recently as the mid-1990s, black opinion on this question tilted in the opposite direction, with a majority of African Americans saying then that discrimination is the main reason for a lack of black progress.

• Blacks and whites concur that there has been a convergence in the values held by blacks and whites. On the popular culture front, large majorities of both blacks and whites say that rap and hip hop have a bad influence on society.

• Blacks and whites express very little overt racial animosity. As they have for decades, about eight-in-ten members of each racial group express a favorable view about members of the other group. More than eight-in-ten adults in each group also say they know a person of a different race whom they consider a friend.

• The most newsworthy African American figure in politics today - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama - draws broadly (though not intensely felt) favorable ratings from both blacks and whites. But blacks are more inclined to say that his race will detract from his chances to be elected president; whites are more inclined to say his relative inexperience will hurt his chances.

• Three-quarters of blacks (76%) say that Obama is a good influence on the black community. Even greater numbers say this about Oprah Winfrey (87%) and Bill Cosby (85%), who are the most highly regarded by blacks from among 14 black newsmakers tested in this survey. By contrast, just 17% of blacks say that rap artist 50 Cent is a good influence.

• Over the past two decades, blacks have lost some confidence in the effectiveness of leaders within their community, including national black political figures, the clergy, and the NAACP. A sizable majority of blacks still see all of these groups as either very or somewhat effective, but the number saying “very” effective has declined since 1986.

• On the issue of immigration, blacks and whites agree that most immigrants work harder than most blacks and most whites at low-wage jobs. Also, blacks are less inclined now than they were two decades ago to say that blacks would have more jobs if there were fewer immigrants.

This report is not telling us anything new. Here’s why:

(1) Blacks have always been heterogeneous. In previous generations blacks were all forced to live in the same neighborhoods during segregation so the profound diversity among the black community was masked. This Pew report should remind America of the fact that all blacks do not think alike and never have. Therefore, using language like “the black vote” is as silly as using a phrase like “the white vote.”

(2) The report should awaken us to the fact that blacks are so heterogeneous that to talk about “black leaders” is brutish and primitive. Are there “white leaders?”

(3) The only people who seem to pimp the idea the lack of black progress in 2007 is due to white racism are the black elite. It seems that people on the street, Juan Williams, Bill Cosby, and others seem to understand that the lack of black progress, in some sectors, is the fault of individuals not taking advantage of the freedoms granted by the blood, sweat, and tears of their ancestors.

(4) The black middle-class are analogous and have the same materialistic worldview as middle-class whites but more hypocritical in some ways. While middle-class whites seem to despise “white trash,” middle-class blacks despise “ghetto” black folks, doing nothing to help them other than writing occasional checks during black history month or during the holiday season--as they live in gated communities, drive luxury vehicles, and send their kids to private schools-- many middle-class blacks are oddly the first to come out and defend communities and lifestyles that they refuse to embrace themselves. Many middle-class blacks who defend the 6 boys in Jena, Louisiana would never live in the neighborhood from which the boys came.

Overall, this report confirms what many of us have always known: black America is divided by class just like the rest of America.

The New York Times reports of a well-intentioned protest by a pastor to protest the ridiculous and dehumanizing lyrics of the type of hip hop shown on networks like BET and MTV.

Wearing white T-shirts with red stop signs and chanting “BET does not reflect me, MTV does not reflect me,” protesters have been gathering every Saturday outside the homes of Viacom executives in Washington and New York City. The orderly, mostly black crowds are protesting music videos that they say degrade women, and black and Latino men.

Among other things the protesters want media companies like Viacom to develop “universal creative standards” for video and music, including prohibitions on some language and images. Video vixens and foul-mouthed pimps and thugs are now so widespread, the protesters maintain, that they infect perceptions of ordinary nonwhite people.

“A lot of rap isn’t rap anymore, it’s just people selling their souls,” Marc Newman, a 28-year-old car salesman from New Rochelle, N.Y., said on Saturday. He was among about 20 men, women and children from area Baptist churches marching outside the Upper East Side residence of Philippe Dauman, the president and chief executive of Viacom Inc.

This is well intended but I doubt it will help much. Perhaps the Pastor should focus more on preaching about Jesus to fans of hip hop music as opposed to attacking the media corporations. Here’s why:

(1) As long as consumers want music that degrade women and celebrate stupidity someone is going to produce it and distribute it. No one forced to buy stupid music.

(2) The best way to protest is with your wallet. If people didn’t buy this music, or attend the concerts of the artists who produce the music, this type of hip hop would die.

(3) Viacom does not force artists to rap lyrics that degrade themselves and women. They freely choose to rap about those things on their own volition.

(4) If the public wants Viacom to act virtuously consumers are going to have change their preferences, artists are going to have to refuse to rap about ignorance, and, then, Viacom executives are left to make the risky decision to opt out of distributing filth. If Viacom could make money off of virtue it would.

Viacom does NOT need to create universal standards for content. Maybe morally debased consumers need to embrace virtuous preferences. If the culture is not morally formed citizens will not make moral decisions. Why isn’t this group protesting the malformed desires of hip hop’s consumers and artists as well?

Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard University, penned a challenging piece on Jena 6 and our current racial tensions. I have learned much from Patterson over the years. For example, he was the first person to help me realize that we often confuse issues of race and class in America by assuming the race as the single variable accounting for the cyclical plight of poor blacks.

In a September 30th New York Times op-ed piece Patterson rightly says that what happened in Jena, LA and the current state of black America goes well beyond the antiquated appropriation of racial reasoning. Patterson writes:

The circumstances that far too many African-Americans face — the lack of paternal support and discipline; the requirement that single mothers work regardless of the effect on their children’s care; the hypocritical refusal of conservative politicians to put their money where their mouths are on family values; the recourse by male youths to gangs as parental substitutes; the ghetto-fabulous culture of the streets; the lack of skills among black men for the jobs and pay they want; the hypersegregation of blacks into impoverished inner-city neighborhoods — all interact perversely with the prison system that simply makes hardened criminals of nonviolent drug offenders and spits out angry men who are unemployable, unreformable and unmarriageable, closing the vicious circle.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other leaders of the Jena demonstration who view events there, and the racial horror of our prisons, as solely the result of white racism are living not just in the past but in a state of denial. Even after removing racial bias in our judicial and prison system — as we should and must do — disproportionate numbers of young black men will continue to be incarcerated.

Like many others, Patterson fails to see is that the crisis in black America, especially among black males, is primarily a moral one. To what Patterson said, I would add the following:

(1) Patterson calls for prisons to reintroduce rehabilitation as an integral method of dealing with offenders. Sadly, the best any government-run rehabilitation can do for a struggling inmate is to offer shallow behavior modification which has been proven not to work long-term. A man in prison has deep emotional, psychological, and spiritual issues. Prison rehabilitation is incapable of transforming and healing the soul of man who has acted out of his own lacerated wounds.

(2) Black fatherlessness is having a devastating affect on the masculine formation of black boys. This is a moral issue. Cultivating the attributes of love, commitment, intentional formation, care, teaching, time, and discipline that boys need to learn from their fathers, and other men who care about their development, cannot be engendered by a tax incentive.

(3) Rejecting the ghetto-fabulous mindset is a moral problem. On what basis do we expect a young black male to reject the self-sabotaging ghetto-mentality? Money and success? In a country as vain and immoral as America at times the market not only supports and encourages stupidity it also provides incentive for young black boys to pursue with recklessness. “Do yo’ chain hang low?” “Read a book!”

(4) The type of healing and restoration men need when exiting the prison system is moral at the core. While it is true that these men will need job training, new skills, etc., these men need, more than anything else, to embrace a new vision for what it means to be a man. Having a masculine identity that pursues whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, beautiful, commendable, praiseworthy, and the like requires a radically transformed and renewed mind and soul. It takes a morally formed masculine identity to make job skills and family commitments cultivate cycles of human flourishing.

When black men are given the moral formation to pursue a radically transformed view of themselves as men they will become the kinds of men who fight evil in the world instead of fighting each other and are intentional about raising another generation of girls and boys to do the same thereby making the world a better place.

From WPBF:

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- A pioneering megachurch pastor and prominent Christian broadcaster has died in Fort Lauderdale.

The Rev. D. James Kennedy died early Wednesday morning at his home due to complications from cardiac arrest in December. The 76-year-old Kennedy had not been seen publicly since then; his retirement was announced on Aug. 26.

Kennedy took the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale from a congregation of 45 in 1959 to a megachurch of nearly 10,000 members today.

[Ed. Note: More information is at the Washington Post, Coral Ridge Ministries, and a memorial site.]

The City of Atlanta, and several other cities, have been debating whether or not to pass a law prohibiting saggy pants. Here’s the story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Atlanta officials did not decide Tuesday whether they should become fashion police.

However, they did agree to continue to debate whether the city should regulate whether folks can walk around Atlanta with saggy pants and exposed undies. Council members expect to create a 10- to 12-member task force soon to further the debate and decide whether Atlanta should — or can — pass a law to control fashion.

Either way, the issue drew heated discussion from a crowd of about 55 who packed the first City Council committee debate on the subject Tuesday afternoon. Here’s what some folks had to say:

Dave Walker, East Atlanta: “We got old and forgot there are fads. They come and they go and no legislation is going to get rid of natural trends. We have no right to legislate what folks wear.”

James Allen, Atlanta: “It bothers me as a black man. They dress down. They talk down. Some of the things they do are downright low down. It sickens me. We need to teach them in a way they will become prospects, not suspects.”

Yemaya Bourdain, senior at Clark Atlanta University: “This is absolutely asinine. I can’t believe this is the best you guys can come up with. As if we don’t have enough already targeting our black youth. Who can this help?”

Clyde Wilson, Atlanta: “It is a problem. Not just the men wear their clothes down; the women do. If you dress like a prostitute, they are going to treat you like one.”

Naomi Ward, Atlanta: “I am supportive of the ordinance. It is not just unsightly. It is what it represents. It is restrictive and constrictive. It restricts the physical movement. And it constricts the mind.”

Are you kidding me? A law? Is this the best use of the law? We are moving closer and closer to a police state. Here’s why this is silly:

(1) The law won’t change the mentality that says, “wearing pants below my butt is a good thing.” How is a law going to change that? Oh wait, this does work, right? Making the drinking age 21 sure has curbed “under age drinking.”

(2) How do you enforce a crazy law like this? How many inches below the waist will be illegal? Will police officers need to get outfitted with a special holster for tape measure alongside their guns and handcuffs?

Ok, saggy pants are unpleasant to look at but I’m not sure wearing pants low should be illegal. What aren’t we, instead, seeking to affect the mentality that embraces saggy pants as good? Maybe we want to pass a law because changing a mind-set would require getting personally involved in the lives of people who wear saggy pants. We would much rather pass a silly law than to roll up our sleeves and sacrifice our own time to offer those individuals a different vision for their own dignity. This requires time and energy and it comes with with no guarantees for change. It’s risky.

Laws of this type expose our own apathy to show real compassion and commitment to those people with whom we disapprove. Is it possible that those who seek such laws don’t see those that wear baggy pants as human beings who can be reasoned with and persuaded to behave otherwise? “These people are stupid, pass a law,” the law-seekers conclude. If you want a kid to stop wearing his pants below his butt then personally get involved in his life. This is how true virtue is cultivated--from one person to another. Passing fashion laws will not cultivate character, virtue, nor wisdom. It’s an impersonal, materialist solution to a problem that needs personal attention and care.

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that saggy pants may be cry for help?

Fox News reports:

The nation’s poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office. The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That’s down from 12.6 percent in 2005. The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration. In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

The poverty numbers are good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. However, the numbers released Tuesday represent economic conditions from a year ago.

The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits. It differs by family size and makeup. For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level is $20,444. The poverty rate — the percentage of people living below poverty — helps shape the debate on the health of the nation’s economy.

Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, reminds us of what it means to live as “the poor” in America:

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Important items to remember:

(1) Those living “in poverty” is never a static population. People cycle in and out of poverty over time.
(2) Unemployment numbers remain steady. Both the number of unemployed persons (7.1 million) and the unemployment rate (4.6 percent) were about unchanged in July. The jobless rate has ranged
from 4.4 to 4.6 percent since September 2006. (Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
(3) Raising the minimum wage will not reduce the poverty rate but increasing the number of jobs will in the short-term.
(4) The low-skilled labor market continues to experience job loss due to advances in technology (robots, “self-check out” lanes, etc.)
(5) There has been considerable job growth since 2003. On August 3, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in July. Our economy has now added jobs for 47 straight months.
(6) According to White House data:

(a) Real GDP Grew At A Strong 3.4 Percent In The Second Quarter Of 2007. The economy has now experienced nearly six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.7 percent a year since 2001.

(b) Real After-Tax Per Capita Personal Income Has Risen By 11.4 Percent

(c) Real Wages Rose 1.3 Percent Over The 12 Months Ending In June. This is faster than the average rate during the 1990s, and it means an extra $782 in the past year for a family with two average wage earners.

(d) Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Productivity Growth Has Averaged 2.8 Percent Per Year. This is well above the average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

In the end, the current poverty rate reduction is simply a result of a combination of the factors listed above. In order to continue reductions in poverty the business sector needs more freedom to create jobs to meet the needs of our changing communities. Tax burdens and frivolous government regulation continue to stifle entrepreneurial creativity and innovation. Additionally, the moral dimensions of poverty need continued attention by the various mediating institutions like the church and other non-profits. Poverty is multi-layered and material solutions alone will not bring about long-term reductions.

One of the sad legacies of the civil-rights movement is that anyone who makes a critical comment about bad dimensions of black life in America is automatically branded a racist. This is silly. The New York Times reports today on the uproar regarding a recent BET satirical cartoon called “Read A Book” which is circulation in YouTube.com. Some are claiming that the video is racist.

In a gloss on the hip-hop videos frequently shown on BET, an animated rapper named D’Mite comes on with what looks like a public service message about the benefits of reading, but devolves into a foul-mouthed song accompanied by images of black men shooting guns loaded with books and gyrating black women with the word “book” written on the back of their low-slung pants. The uncensored cut is making the rounds on YouTube, while a cleaner version was shown on BET.

The cartoon, which represents an effort by the network to broaden its programming, was the subject of an article on Friday in The Los Angeles Times, which noted that the network has been “long criticized for showing gangsta rap videos and those with scantily clad female dancers.”

The video does have bad language but it’s meant to make a point: stupid is as stupid does. The cartoon is protesting the fact that the ghetto-mentality encourages the following:

(1) Ignorance as a goal. The cartoon encourages viewers to read. You rarely ever hear popular radio hip hop encouraging listeners to enlighten their minds. A strong emphasis on education has always been a strong pillar of black life in America until recently.

(2) Irresponsible fatherhood. The cartoon encourages men to take care of their own kids. Popular radio hip hop often celebrates parental irresponsibility.

(3) Financial irresponsibility. The video encourages viewers to buy property instead of rims for their cars. What’s odd is that Chris Rock makes the exact same comments about the stupidity of wasting money on rims for worthless vehicles but Rock is never called “racist.”

(4) Bad personal hygiene and grooming. The video encourages viewers to take better care of themselves--dental care, bathing, deodorant, etc.

The burning question remains: how is this video racist? BET does not need to apologize for showing the satire. I hope more cartoons like this emerge to expose just how the self-sabotaging dimensions of the ghetto-mentality are destroying a segment of American culture.

What we really need is a conversation on what constitutes real racism. Pointing out ignorance, regardless of the racial expression, moves us closer to the truth and to confuse this with racism will keep many blacks from making any progress. In fact, to point out ignorance and conclude that such comment is the same as mocking blacks in general is the most racist position of them all. “Black” and “ghetto ignorance” are not synonyms."

What is most helpful is if black cultural elites would put the black-community-as-sacred-cow to death. It’s not helping any of us.

Time Magazine recently reported that birth-control pills on college campuses will surge in price this year due to new legislation regarding Medicaid.

For decades college campus health centers have been a resource for budget-conscious female students seeking birth control. Because of agreements with pharmaceutical companies, most campus clinics were able to distribute brand name prescription contraceptives, from pills to the patch to a monthly vaginal device like NuvaRing, for no more than a couple of bucks.

As a result of new legislation, Time reports, “brand name prescription prices for campus clinics rose from about the $3 to $10 range per month to the $30 to $50 range.”

A 2006 survey conducted by the American College Health Association (ACHA) found that 39% of undergraduate women use oral contraceptives. Many providers are afraid that if the convenience of free or cheap birth control on campus is taken away, female students might just get turned off by prescription birth control methods altogether and use other less effective ones like condoms or Plan B, known as the morning after pill.

Pill using college students do have access to cheaper both control pills but many young women refuse to reveal to their parents the reality of their sexual activity; nor are students interested in managing insurance co-pays, etc., the story reports. Some expect that clinics will simply start referring college women to Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills.

Maybe we should try this:

(1) How cheap would it be for a woman not to dehumanize herself by not having sex with a man who does not have moral fortitude to publicly committed himself before God, and others, to devote his life to seeing that she becomes the radiant, captivating woman that God intends for her to be? Not having sex outside of marriage cost exactly $0.00 per month.

One student said the price increase “will cut into the kinds of notebooks I buy to the kind of groceries I get to the cable package that I order,” she laments. Hmmm. It’s too bad that her soul seems less valuable than her cable package.

(2) Someone needs to tell women that they don’t have to have sex before they’re married and that it’s ok not to. This represents some failure in family nurture and parental involvement in the formation of children. Most parents never talk to their children about sex grounded in the God-designed dignity of women. Here’s the result: a recent University of Texas study reports the top ten reasons college-age women give for having sex outside of life-committed marriage.

WOMEN’S TOP TEN
1. I was attracted to the person
2. I wanted to experience physical pleasure
3. It feels good
4. I wanted to show my affection to the person
5. I wanted to express my love for the person
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release
7. I was “horny”
8. It’s fun
9. I realized I was in love
10. I was “in the heat of the moment”

(3) Perhaps college girls should be reminded that sex is designed for making more people. Sadly, college girls in America have been raised to view sex in purely narcissistic terms divorced from marriage and having kids. Non-marital sexuality is decidedly self-oriented, as the above list reveals. Perhaps college-age women should have been taught as little girls exactly how sexual love requires the stability of marriage and family life in order to find is deepest fulfillment and most powerful expression. Do college women want to discover the best sex possible? Obviously not. Many, it seems, are willing to settle for “animalized” versions instead. Why are so many college-age women willing to settle?

Perhaps the story title should read, “Narcissistic Sex and Sex Used To Mediate Past Pain Will Now Cost College Women More Money.”