Yes, it’s a new acronym that I invented, and will explain in the following story.
It all started the other day when I heard some commentary criticizing a former attorney general (who was also considered a “Christian”) for their support of educating people about condoms (in addition to other information about abstinence, etc.) in an effort to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease. Unfortunately, these people really felt that it was a despicable compromise for this person to endorse anything other than “abstinence only” in the context of sex education. They went on to explain that those who say “abstinence is good, but some/many will have sex anyway, so they should be told to do it safely” are basically supporting an evil position, and that you should just insist that they wouldn’t have that problem if they would just practice abstinence.
This kind of thinking (which I have heard a lot and obviously strongly disagree with) got me to thinking — about what a bunch of compromising hypocrites any Christian members of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) are. Since the Bible clearly teaches that we should not get drunk, then saying “well, if you’re going to get drunk at least don’t drive” is pretty much the exact same stance as outlined above, just a different issue. So there you have it - Compromisers Against Drunk Driving.
7 Comments
What policy does MADD have about educating young people about drinking? Abistinence. Hardly hypocritical.
Kristen is still asleep.
Sure, they encourage abstinence, but that’s not the exclusive approach of their anti-drunk-driving message, as the anti-condom crowd would propose on the sex ed issue.
The point is that of course I don’t believe that MADD is hypocritical for urging people not to drink as well as telling them that if they do they should not drive. I’m just trying to illustrate the folly of the people who would take that approach with sex education, that’s all.
Just in case anyone is unclear, this post was not meant to mock MADD at all, it was meant to mock people who think that condoms and other prevention measures have no place in being mentioned in any sex education curriculum, because “the message of abstinence should be enough on its own”. I’m just trying to point out how silly that line of thinking is, because by the same logic you would have to oppose groups like MADD, because you’d have to say that they should only be promoting not getting drunk.
A quick look at the wikipedia page for MADD makes them look pretty abolitiony. Your straw man appears to be way clear of reality.
Hmm, for some reason I remember seeing a whole lot of commercials / radio ads / other promotional materials sponsored by MADD that clearly state “if you’re going to drink, don’t drive”. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. Either way, my point remains the same - we can take MADD (specifically, as an organization) out of the equation if that’s a sticking point.
Kristen says that I’m not being clear so I’m going be more verbose. First I’ll give my interpretation of your argument–correct me where I’m wrong.
Some Christians hold inconsistent policy positions. One example of this is what they believe is the right thing to do concerning education about sex versus education about drinking alcohol. While they think that putting safe sex education along side a message of sexual abstinence compromises the message and creates a murky morality they seem to be alright with educating kids how to get drunk safely along side a message of alcoholic abstinence. This position is inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy and compromises clear teachings of the Bible.
And the point I’m trying to make:
There are very few Christians who think kids should be taught how to get drunk responsibly even thought they think they should abstain from alcohol. That probably includes whoever you were listening to the other day. Also, using MADD as part of an example doesn’t work out since MADD, to my knowledge, does no teach children how to get drunk safely but strongly advocates children abstain from alcohol, let alone drunkeness.
Yeah, I am with you, and you have summarized my argument well.
I’d agree that most Christians would take the approach (when dealing with kids, which isn’t exclusively what I’m talking about, but it’s relevant) that they should just be taught to not drink.
What I’m saying is that if such a Christian were to hear a message (from MADD or any other organization) that says “if you’re going to drink, don’t drive” it seems like they would be less likely to vilify that person/organization as “compromising” (assuming they had some sort of Christian affiliation, so maybe MADD isn’t a good example) than they would (and do) for the similar line regarding sex education.
Whether either message is specifically directed at kids or not is (I think) a secondary issue. Like I said before, I heard the “if you’re going to drink, don’t drive” line in various media presentations a lot as a kid, whether it was “targeted” at me or not.
Also, the Bible doesn’t put any age limits on its opposition to drunkenness or non-marital sex, although I recognize that when you’re talking about “educational” programs, you’re generally talking about kids.