Hijack Haven

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No, I’m for teaching comprehensive sex education across the land and persuading the religious from demonizing contraception. If you did this, most of this problem would go away. [/quote]

This is why I have no more interest in this topic on this line of discussion. You actually contend that if we stop “demonizing contraception”, most of the problem of unwanted pregnancies will go away.

Absurd. Dumbest thing I have read here in months. The high number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the inner cities, for example, are not the result of religious objections to use of contraception while engaging in frequent sex - it has virtually nothing to do with the problem.

You simply have no idea what is going on with this phenomenon - “if only we were more tolerant of contraception, the problem would go away!” Good Lord.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
James Madison, Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm [/quote]Christian convictions were once the anchor for all of this.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Christian convictions were once the anchor for all of this.[/quote]

And the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment, which took a more realistic view of humanity than did its continental counterparts.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Government…to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.[/quote]

The above statement, unfortunately, says alot.

Can you imagine the founding fathers saying “Life, liberty in government a proved doses, and the pursuit of happiness”? No, I don’t think so.

“liberty run amok”…funny and sad all at once.
[/quote]

I also wonder where “liberty runs amok”.

Las Vegas?[/quote]

In the confines of my mind, it doth run amok…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
James Madison, Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm[/quote]

More evidence–if any were needed–that The Federalist is the most profound and neglected treatise on human behavior in 300 years.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Just reading through this thread, and I was thinking about this scenario. What about the guy who knows he’s not the father, and doesn’t want to give this government blood test? Will you arrest him and draw his blood against his will?[/quote]

He doesn’t have to give the blood he can just give the money, if he wants to prove he’s not (just like in custody court) the father he can take a paternity test.

You’re forgetting this is how it is already, and the blood wouldn’t be able to be used for anything besides paternity test so civil rights argument goes out the window.

[quote]But the real question is, as a “conservative”, why would you be so willing to embolden the power and scope of the government? I thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government and decreased government involvement? I thought conservatism was supposed to represent personal liberty, free from the shackles of the government?

Did something change?
[/quote]

This would give the government less power. They can’t just hand out my damn money whenever they want.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, shouldn’t this be a state issue and not a federal issue? Why the hell are presidential candidates talking about something that is probably a state issue of welfare benefits?[/quote]

Do you know what Santorum was running for in 1994?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No, I’m for teaching comprehensive sex education across the land and persuading the religious from demonizing contraception. If you did this, most of this problem would go away. [/quote]

This is why I have no more interest in this topic on this line of discussion. You actually contend that if we stop “demonizing contraception”, most of the problem of unwanted pregnancies will go away.

Absurd. Dumbest thing I have read here in months. The high number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the inner cities, for example, are not the result of religious objections to use of contraception while engaging in frequent sex - it has virtually nothing to do with the problem.

You simply have no idea what is going on with this phenomenon - “if only we were more tolerant of contraception, the problem would go away!” Good Lord.[/quote]

Touching on sex and contraceptive education, true story to follow.

In a state north of here, two pairs of teens are in a car, making out. Well things get pretty hot in the front seat, but the fella has a condom and the gal is willing. But in the back seat, the Back Seat Boy forgot his condom, so, good friend that he is, Front Seat boy removes his condom, everts it, and hands it to Back Seat Boy who, of course, puts it on and puts it to use with Back Seat Girl.

Need I explain the rest? Back Seat Girl becomes pregnant with Front Seat Boy’s contribution to the party, and all four teens have moved to my state and claim welfare benefits. And of course, both Boys deny paternity: after all, the baby does not have Back Seat Boy’s DNA and Front Seat Boy denies having had sex with Back Seat Mama.

No Einsteins here, and I sure hope that give up on the idea of home schooling this poor kid.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Touching on sex and contraceptive education, true story to follow.

In a state north of here, two pairs of teens are in a car, making out. Well things get pretty hot in the front seat, but the fella has a condom and the gal is willing. But in the back seat, the Back Seat Boy forgot his condom, so, good friend that he is, Front Seat boy removes his condom, everts it, and hands it to Back Seat Boy who, of course, puts it on and puts it to use with Back Seat Girl.

Need I explain the rest? Back Seat Girl becomes pregnant with Front Seat Boy’s contribution to the party, and all four teens have moved to my state and claim welfare benefits. And of course, both Boys deny paternity: after all, the baby does not have Back Seat Boy’s DNA and Front Seat Boy denies having had sex with Back Seat Mama.

No Einsteins here, and I sure hope that give up on the idea of home schooling this poor kid.
[/quote]

Not going to lie…this is the strangest story I have ever heard.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Seems to me, that conservatives want less government in their lives, except in areas that they want to use the hammer of government to drive their morals and beliefs. In those cases, they seem to be just fine with “more” government. In this regard, they’re really no different than the liberals they claim to despise so much.
[/quote]This may be true in some cases, but I don’t think it is here

I would say people that back this don’t envision it bringing more gov’t into their lives. It would bring more gov’t into other peoples lives. People don’t like that - so it might wind up saving some money (the money of the people who support this). Saving money = less gov’t interference in their lives.

It’s not hypocrisy, it is a suboptimal… “solution” to a suboptimal situation - that’s how I see it anyway

Forgive my hijack of all these hijacks in Hijack Haven, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the moderators who have had the sore displeasure of dealing with my numerous loooong posts and the many edits I discover to be necessary after posting said numerous loooong posts. I am almost alwys hurried when typing these nowadays. Your patience is appreciated. This almost deserves it’s own thread =D

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
James Madison, Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm[/quote]

More evidence–if any were needed–that The Federalist is the most profound and neglected treatise on human behavior in 300 years.
[/quote]

I agree. Shame the Democrats had to start out by shooting Publius dead though. A portent of things to come.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I gotta say I thoroughly enjoyed this video:

Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up (feat. Eminem) - YouTube [/quote]

That was pretty funny

How religion has been used to promote slavery

Here’s a link to the states with the most religious Americans:http://www.gallup.com/poll/153479/Mississippi-Religious-State.aspx

Do these results align with your expectations?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s a link to the states with the most religious Americans:http://www.gallup.com/poll/153479/Mississippi-Religious-State.aspx

Do these results align with your expectations?[/quote]

Yes. The South has always been known to be fervent in her religiosity.

Wherever:

Christian Groups Take Issue With Anti-Bullying Laws

of religious freedom.

Focus on the Family is planning to counter the “Day of Silence,” an annual event to protest LGBT bullying set for April 20, with its own “Day of Dialogue”. The evangelical organization’s aim is to muffle an effort that “crosses the line in a lot of ways beyond bullying into indoctrination, just promoting homosexuality and transgenderism.”

The group has been advocating an anti-anti-bullying message for years. When a California school adopted an anti-bullying rule that mentioned gays and lesbians in 2010, backlash ensued.

“The school introduced anti-bullying lessons, but really they’re teaching elementary school kids about gay marriage,” Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family, told ABC. “We think parents should have the right to teach kids about it in their own way.”

In March, a Christian hard rock band delivered an unusual message to Iowa high school students at an assembly about bullying. “They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42,” one parent told the La Crosse Tribune.

Socially conservative groups nationwide have lobbied state legislatures to strike down and limit anti-bullying measures, The Guardian’s Katherine Stewart reports.

Last month a Christian, family-values lobbying group convinced Arizona lawmakers to kill an anti-bullying bill that it said carried a gay friendly agenda, according to the Arizona Daily Star. The state Senate’s minority leader, David Schapira, blamed the president of the lobbying group for killing the bill, calling her a “legislative terrorist.”

“Cathi Herrod, an unelected lobbyist, killed a bill that would protect all Arizona kids purely because of her intolerance of gay kids,” he said.

Materials on the Center for Arizona Policy’s site tell Christian parents that their children have the responsibility to share their faith with others, and Herrod, the center’s president, wrote in a statement that she opposed the anti-bullying bill in Arizona because it encouraged LGBT tolerance.

In recent years, concerns about bullying have garnered national attention. But when you look behind the curtain at what is driving this nationwide dialogue, you find out that the groups that are pushing the “anti-bullying” campaigns are the same organizations working to redefine marriage and to force cultural acceptance and affirmation of homosexual lifestyles.
Other states have passed legislation that specifically protects religious bullies. In 2011, Michigan passed a bill with a provision that allows bullying based on “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

The law, called Matt’s Safe School Law, was named after Matt Epling, a gay teenager who killed himself in 2002 after bullies assaulted him. The clause was removed following outrage from lawmakers and Epling’s parents.

An anti-bullying bill introduced last year in Tennessee contained similar language regarding faith-based bullying:

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying prevention task forces, programs, and other initiatives formed by school districts, including any curriculum adopted for such purposes, shall not include materials or training that explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda, make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or teach or suggest that certain beliefs or viewpoints are discriminatory when an act or practice based on such belief or viewpoint is not a discriminatory practice as defined in 4-21-102(4).
Like the early version of the Michigan bill, this measure originally was introduced in the wake of a gay teen’s suicide. Last year, the Tennessee Senate passed a so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill that would have prohibited teachers from acknowledging any sexuality other than heterosexuality to students between kindergarten and eighth grade. It was voted down in the state House.

Anti-bullying backlash doesn’t only come from Christian groups. Orthodox Jewish and Christian groups came together in Toronto last year to protest an anti-bullying measure ?as a vehicle to indoctrinate children into embracing a new sexual revolution.? It focused on the measure’s call to establish a gay-straight alliance, and add support for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

?To force, especially Christian, classrooms or schools to have homosexual clubs would, of course, be an affront to their family values,? said Charles McVety, president of Christian Canada College. ?And what does this have to do with bullying? Nothing.?

Besides loving thy neighbor, what does the Bible say about bullying?

?Anyone who claims to be in the light, but hates his brother is still in the darkness.? 1 John 2:9

According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 9 out of 10 LGBT teens report being bullied at school and these students are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers.

Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-273-8255 for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.