Vaccinate? Now?

I'm all for vaccination. I don't want my child to get Whooping Cough or Polio. I'm undecided, however, on vaccinating my daughter for HPV. I don't want to give her another reason to decide that sexual promiscuity is acceptable. Let's get this straight: the HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It prevents HPV, and it's good only for 5 years. What are we saying, "Go for it girls, you have five years to go at it?" Now we have even more encouragement for sexual promiscuity with the availablity of the HPV vaccine to males. (In this area, Planned Parenthood is offering it to boys as young as 9.) Males are little more than carriers of HPV, so we're vaccinating men to prevent disease in women. Does this make sense? Here's where education comes in. Don't spread it, and it won't spread.
Call me delusional, and unrealistic. People will be people and have sex, right? Make love, not war and all that sexual revolution garbage? The HPV vaccine helps save lives. We want people to be safe. We ban transfats and make vaccines, but we don't get to the root of the problem. Maybe a future First Lady will work to fight out-of-wedlock sex the way the current First Lady is working to fight childhood obesity (which is an important goal, don't get me wrong).
We all nod and say smoking, drinking, transfats are bad and are health risks, but how many people say "free love" (read sex whenever with whomever) falls in the same category? We have vaccines and pills for that, and if not we can yank out whatever "tissue" we don't want. When are we going to face the fact that there is massive fallout from the sexual revolution? When tween boys and girls are getting vaccinated for an STD, shouldn't someone besides a few blogger admit there's a problem? Go, get your shots if you want. I think I'll try the actual parenting approach and actually teach my daughter what scripture says: Thou shalt not commit adultery, meaning, monagomy is the only acceptable option, sex is limited to the marriage, and anything else is hazardous to one's mental and physical health and, yes, immoral and improper for a child of God.

Reliquiae

Think I'll pass on seeing the Relics of Mother Theresa here in St. Louis at Sts. Theresa and Bridget Catholic Church on Thursday. Curious as I am to see what might be there, according to the paper, the relics include the following: sandals, crucifix, hair and blood. I can understand the sandals and crucifix, but how does one even collect the other two? Sounds somewhat creepy to me. Who gets the job of collecting the biologicals even? Thanks for the invite, but no thanks.

Ripped from the Headlines

Three news stories and one ad measured on the BO-radar today.
1) The Today show has changed its wedding contest rules to allow same-sex couples to participate. If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then it's little wonder same-sex rights are becoming mainstream. The secular media and church denominations have become so accepting of such that it is eroding family values. Sorry, guys, family values are not "make your own family of whomever you want" and call it good. Sure, there is a human bond of people, but a family is still mom, dad, children. We've eliminated dads from the picture long ago, now we're working on the rest.
2) An article in today's Post-Dispatch outlines why a person has decided not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The reason given is as follows:

I've been uneasy with it for awhile, ever since I genuinely paid attention to the fact that I've been making a loyalty oath to a political system. In my heart, my life, I want no king but Jesus, and I want no association--political, geographic, ethnic--that transcends the Kingdom of God. The tension goes far beyond a pledge, of course, The question, as Shane Claiborne says, is not whether we ARE political, but HOW we are political.

Luther reminds us in his Table of Duties that scripture says we are to submit to the governing authorities. It is not wrong to formally declare loyalty as a citizen to the United States, our government under which we live. We're not merely addressing niceties to a scrap of cloth, but saying that we will submit to the authority of "the Republic for which it stands." It's better than being deported to Russia.
3) Presbyterians in their convention supported a proposal to encourage the U.S. government to end aid to Israel if the country doesn't stop expansion into disputed territories. It's fine to be globally concerned as a church body, but maybe the Presbyterians should work on getting their doctrine and church body in order before worrying about international incidents which do not involve them. Work, instead to realign your doctrine and practice. I encourage all church bodies so to do.
4) Need a bed? Try a John of God crystal healing bed. I don't even want to know.

Oh, Joy.

I have to remember to change my car presets today and remove 99.1 as one of them. I'm not sure with what I'll replace it. It won't be JOY.
I'm not sure which is more bothersome: losing classical music or gaining CCM (contemporary Christian music). Perhaps it is losing one to gain the other.
I would not agree that the assesment of "JOY's Listeners as enemies of high culture--champions of derviative, evangelical schmaltz who killed off Brahms to win souls in St. Louis County." They didn't really kill classical. They seized an opportunity. That's business. In an era of arts-cuts, this is symptomatic of a different ailment, but that's another topic. Regardless, the classical station in the Gateway City will cease broadcasting tonight c. 10pm.
As for JOY winning souls, who knows? Their poster misquotes Joshua 6:16--gaining a radio station is not tantamount to the taking of Jericho. The article indicates people who call in and say their life has changed by listening. How permanent of a change are we talking here? Which soil, so to speak? Those who hear the word and receive it with joy and then fall away when trials come, or good soil? We can't say how the Holy Spirit works, but who's to say that Classic 99 didn't bring souls to Christ with some of their programs? Why does it have to be CCM?
As for people not wanting "to hear dirty lyrics when they get in the car with their kids;" sure, they lyrics aren't dirty, but do you really listen to the lyrics? There isn't much about Jesus there either. Come to think of it, the only Christian band I really listen to has the d-word in their lyrics. Their message about Jesus is quite explicit, too. Classic 99 music didn't have dirty lyrics either, as I recall. Why do we want to swap advanced music for CCM? The article is clear that the target audience is the same as those who listen to soft rock. I heard a snippet of CCM the other day as I was traveling. It sounded exactly like soft rock. I can hardly take soft rock for too long on a good day; to add ego-centered lyrics under the guise of being Christian is hardly tolerable. And I fit the demographic of JOY!
The whole premise bothers me. CCM is like undercooked hot dogs. Might be nourishing, but more often than not will make one ill. Christianity is all about Jesus. They say a Christian radio station is "more of a Christian community than entertainment," and they're "not church, but. . .a daily connection you don't get in church." Thanks. I'll take my church with Jesus as the focus, you can keep your praise choruses. . .we love you, so much for what you've done for us. . .what was that, exactly?
As a Post Script, buried in the article were two interesting comments: "The Lutheran Church has its own mission, and that's not classical music," and "We were told in our first meeting with KFUO, 'We're only going to sell if we get top dollar.' " In the words of Uncle Marty, what does this mean?