Rainjack, if you think it’s parental responsibility then you are conservative.
If you think the government knows best about when and how to teach your 10 yr. old to use a condom…your a liberal.
If you think the government knows best…except for your kid…then you are an elitist liberal, i.e. Kerry, Clinton etc.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Based on statitistics, you can well say that many teens will have sex before they reach 20, but you certainly are in NO position to say what his daughter is going to do. She may very well save herself until marriage. And besides, who needs to be taught how to put on a condom. What absolute nonsense.[/quote]
yeah…the percentage of women that wait until marriage to have sex…what’s that?? .001%
‘based on statistics’ the odds of her not having sex before marriage are slim to none. I’m sure that a lot of daughters tell there dad that they are virgins but the vast majority of them are lying. if you think otherwise you’re a fool.
I think you’d be suprised at how many kids going through puberty don’t have a clue about birth control. making sure they know is a very good idea.
[quote]DPH wrote:
I’m not saying you’re a radical…
but are you going to teach your daughter how to use a condom?
If you are good for you…the sooner the better…you might be suprised at how young kids start experimenting with sex.
[/quote]
It seems to me that the responsibility of public education should be reading writing and arithmetic. I don’t see how condom application enters in to any of those areas.
Those of you who say that public education has to pick up the slack left by poor parenting - you are one of the major reasons that there is an outcry from the christian right.
I don’t share birth control secrets with my daughter. I just spend time with her.
I know there’s probably no way to quantify how affective that old-school approach is, but I think it’s far more effective than how to apply a condom.
By the way, Hedo - I must be conservative.
RSU:
The only flaming I do is firefighting:)
Straight as an arrow baby!
I’s just using the Conservative mentality to poke some fun at you my friend…no worries.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I’s just using the Conservative mentality to poke some fun at you my friend…no worries.[/quote]
I realize you mean this and the comment from which it originates in humor (albeit of the bitter variety), but it is these types of comments that reflect the oversimplification by the left of “conservative” positions on social issues like homosexuality. To hear you guys say it, one would think the concentration camps were already built and the roundups were about to begin. The conservative position on homosexuality, as articulated by Bush and most of the evil religious right (although, as one who “rejects all religion,” which is YOUR choice in this country, as opposed to in, say, Iran, you have probably not been in a church lately and therefore have likely not heard it firsthand), is one of respect, the respect that is due all people. I have never been in any Christian church in which anyone was turned away based on his or her sexuality; in fact they were welcomed with a love that even they did not expect (yes, I HAVE seen it firsthand).
The fact that Christians, and in fact the most of the country, oppose homosexual marriage (which is not the same as hating homosexuals), relates to its demonstrably damaging effects on the family, which, like it or not, is the foundation of society. Not the government, not the government schools, and not even the church. The facts is this: children do far better when raised in a two parent family. Period. Yes, there are bad apples - drunk and abusive fathers, a 50%+ divorce rate, etc., etc. Children raised in other than two-parent homes (which includes single-parent and homosexual settings), have a far greater incidence of social problems, including substance abuse, depression and suicide, because they lack the balance that comes from the influence of the opposite sexes. As one who was raised in a single-parent home, I have dealt myself with two of the three items aforementioned. See if you can guess which one I haven’t experienced 
We constantly hear about the “rights” of homosexuals. The fact is that they are protected under the same Constitution as the rest of us. What about the “rights” of a child to be raised in a home that is far more likely to be stable? It’s not about hate; it’s about reality.
Personally, I do not believe a Constitutional amendment is the answer, but that it should be left up to the states, but then there is the problem of the courts forcing their will on states that oppose it, but I guess this is another issue for another time…
I’ll attempt to weigh in here as this is one of the issues that I differ from the conservative viewpoint to an extent. I think it is perfectly ok to edjucate kids in school about sex at an early age. Understanding ones body, what it does, how it works and how to protect it should not be a taboo subject. Sex and sexuality have been demonized for a long time and the winds of change are blowing. I watched porn movies on my parents satellite dish when I was 5 or 6 years old. I am not scarred or damaged or any such thing. Human sex is not evil or bad, it is good. Does anyone here not like sex?
Ok so on to my point, Schools should send a note home to parents that the topic will be discussed on a given day and if the parents feel they would like to have the responsibility of educating their kids on matters of sex, then they send a not in excusing their kid from that class while it is being discussed. The go have a study hall or something.
The parents get to keep the right to edjucate thier kids on matters of sex. Or more precisely, they can stop the school from edjucating them. Of course kids learn things from places other than school or parents. So you still have the potential for another kid at school teaching them, the internet, televison, videos, magazines, etc… so if you want to trust all those other sources but not a school teacher, then be my guest. Personally I will teach my daughter about it and let the school teach her, and hopefully her mother will also. The more good sources of information they get the better the chances of them being safe and having fun.
Now on the other hand, I don’t think the current administration is going to ruin our society. Generally state edjucation departments are responsible for what gets taught, so the federal gov’t doesn’t have much influence anyways.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Lots to catch up with here. I’m just going to go all over the map here.
RJ, first I want to address the idea you put forth about the country being founded on judeo-christian law. That is actually historically incorrect. Before the constitution it certainly was. Puritans were the uptight occupiers of this land. But the founders were all pretty strong secularists. I will go more into this if you like, but I just wanted to start with that point.
As far as prayer in school, 58% of the nation may be for it, but the prime directive of our constitution is to protect the individual rights of that 42% or even that .00004%. I agree with you that it is not the role of the school to teach condom use to children, although some education in certain demographics may help prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases… That is simply where they learn to read and write. Most definitely NOT where they practice worship.
On to some of the other fun stuff. I too have a daughter. I don’t know at what age I will start talking to her about sex. She is only 3 and a half, and all I want to do is spend time with her and my two boys and make sure that they have a strong self-esteem, so that when the time comes to make decisions about sex, drugs or other peer-pressured issues, they will have enough maturity to make the right decision. Perhaps teaching a ten year old how to put on a condom is a bit over the top, but it may not be too early to have discussions about how to deal with the pressure they will get to try sex or drugs.
I grew up in the 70’s, and people just didn’t talk about sex, but that didn’t prevent me from experiencing some abuse, which I kept silent about until I was in my late 20’s. The point is, if you create an environment where the child is afraid to communicate with you, you can’t properly protect them. God help the sorry SOB who even looks at my kids cross-eyed! But I think that my kids will talk to me about something like that or have enough self esteem and confidence to not let themselves become victims. In a strong religious environment, children not only don’t talk about it, they feel rotten inside because they feel responsible, and the father-figure, all-seeing, all-judging godhead looks down on them with shame, and they turn into adults with hang-ups and other problems as a result. What they need is an understanding, loving parent who they trust to hear what they say and to assure them that they are not responsible (right before kidnapping the person who did it, tying them to a tree somewhere out in the country and taking your time torturing them to death).
My experience is not unique. People may not talk about it, but it happens a lot. Even in those wonderful leave-it-to-beaver-like 40’s and 50’s weren’t any different. Small town America had plenty of dirty little secrets… Alcoholism was rampant, and children were neglected and abused with no protections from the law whatsoever. Although progress may be a bit uncomfortable for people, it is generally for the greater good.
Vegita,
That was a great point. I think you just hit the nail on the head on that subject. Not so sure I would like to know my kids are watching porn (better make sure that box of tapes is hidden better), but you are right that a more open attitude lessens the possibility of them being naive and being taken advantage of.
Lumpy:
As to your orignal point: I think you need to take a look at what the founding fathers talked about relative to God, and spirituality in general.
You are out of sync my friend…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Lumpy:
As to your orignal point: I think you need to take a look at what the founding fathers talked about relative to God, and spirituality in general.
You are out of sync my friend…[/quote]
He is not at all out of sync Zeb… that is the whole point to this discussion. He does not practice religion as the majority of Americans does, and that is his constitutionally protected right as an individual, and he shouldn’t be forced to comply to your belief system just as much as you should not have to conform to his. As a Christian, how would you like to be forced to practice paganism and know that if you didn’t agree to pagan spiritual law that you would be a criminal?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Lumpy:
As to your orignal point: I think you need to take a look at what the founding fathers talked about relative to God, and spirituality in general.
You are out of sync my friend…[/quote]
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)
John Adams, the country’s second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces”. Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”
It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:“I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” He referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac” and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.
Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of nature.”
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)
Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.
The words “In God We Trust” were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy witch hunts.
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lumpy:
As to your orignal point: I think you need to take a look at what the founding fathers talked about relative to God, and spirituality in general.
You are out of sync my friend…
He is not at all out of sync Zeb… that is the whole point to this discussion. He does not practice religion as the majority of Americans does, and that is his constitutionally protected right as an individual, and he shouldn’t be forced to comply to your belief system just as much as you should not have to conform to his. As a Christian, how would you like to be forced to practice paganism and know that if you didn’t agree to pagan spiritual law that you would be a criminal?
[/quote]
RSU:
Come on Roy, that is not at all what I meant! This is all about attacking President Bush because he stated he was a Christian, just as many, many Presidents before him have done.
No one is taking anyones right away relative to being an athiest or agnostic. However many, it seems would like to take President Bush’s right of being a Christian away.
By the way, I have no idea of Lumpys religious beliefs. However, if he does not believe in God he is indeed out of sync with the rest of American citizens, as about 90% do believe in that higher power!
Bingo.
Doogie,
Thank you for taking the time to go find all of that. I was dreading having to go dig all that up, and I doubt that I would have been able to compile a list so thorough. It pretty much sums up my beliefs, and also outlines my fear of this administration.
Earlier in the thread someone asked what the harm was of fringe groups like the theocons, nambla, peta, etc. I say, nothing at all. They are an unavoidable plague on any society as large and diverse as ours. However, none of those other groups you mentioned have a mole in the White House. Bush is neck deep in the group that I mentioned earlier, and has way too often mentioned that he believe God works through him, that he is doing “God’s will”, and so on. Hard to argue with someone who believes he is following God’s Will. Not so different from OBL actually, if you want to examine the ideologies. He is also taking policy advice from a group called the Aposlitic Congress, a group whose core system is basically Assembly of God, apocolyptic fundamentalists who believe that Armageddon is nigh. This information is all public, but tends to fly way under the radar, and the mainstream news doesn’t seem to pick up on that. Religious fundamentalism has absolutely NO PLACE in government.
Zeb, the issue is not that the President is a Christian. As you pointed out, many of our presidents were. The point is that he is heavily influenced by the radical religious right, as can be demonstrated in this administration’s voting record (as I pointed out earlier, identical in his first year in office to the Taliban). Maybe the goal of implementing Biblical Law in government doesn’t bother you, but it is quite Orwellian to me, and it goes AGAINST what this country was founded on (see Doogie’s excellent post on that).
Jim Quinn (conservative talk radio Pittsburgh area) comments that you can tell what the left is up to by what they accuse the right of i.e. Lumpy is worried about his atheism being infringed on. The reality is that there is far more danger of the left imposing their anti-religion viewpoint on the rest of us.
This is NOT about freedom of religion, or whether you are opposed to abortion. We are talking about people who want to impose Biblical Law on America. These people believe that DEMOCRACY is “mob rule” and an “obstacle” to Biblical Law.
You can complain that you don’t want the federal government deciding what’s best for your family… well I certainly don’t want the CHURCH deciding either!
Christian Reconstructionism
Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of “Biblical Law.” Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.
Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.
For much of Reconstructionism’s short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders’ expectations. As Reconstructionist author Gary North observes, “We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer.”
What is Reconstructionism?
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: “The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.”
(excerpt)
Planet Rainjack compared PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) NAACP (National Asssociation for the Advancement of Colored People) NOW (National Organziation of Women) with NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) a group that advocates adult men have sex with underage boys.
He then said that 10 year olds are being taught how to unroll a condom in public school.
From Andrew Sullivan:
Friday, October 22, 2004
?THEOCRATS FOR BUSH: Here’s a revealing tale about what’s happening in the Republican party. It’s a story that needs to be followed up. Kudos to Beliefnet for breaking it. The gist:
The Republican National Committee is employing the services of a Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a ‘Christian nation’ and the separation of church and state is ‘a myth.’
David Barton, the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders, was hired by the RNC as a political consultant and has been traveling the country for a year–speaking at about 300 RNC-sponsored lunches for local evangelical pastors. During the lunches, he presents a slide show of American monuments, discusses his view of America?s Christian heritage – and tells pastors that they are allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
It gets worse. Barton is on the board of advisers for a Christian Reconstructionist group - people who believe that America should scrap its constitution and go back to Biblical law. When I have described the trend within the GOP as theocratic, I am sometimes criticized for hyperbole. But this is the reality. Barton is the vice-chair of the Texas GOP. Figures.
(this is just one guy, there are Christian Reconstructionists in Bush’s Faith Based Initiative office, as well as working as key figures in the RNC re-election campaign. I also mentioned Antonin Scalia, and 41 out of the 51 Republican Senators. Add House Majority leader Denny Hastert to this list. This is not “just a few people” who want “freedom of religion”)
Religion should be a private thing, not thrust upon others who may not have the same beliefs.
It is unrealistic to criticize that anyone wants to stop Bush from having the ability to be a Christian. However, why should he impose his religious views on those that are not Christian?
Freedom of religion is a right. Imposing his views on others based on his religion is a violation of that right. The only thing left to do is to play word games concerning morals and religion.
However, there have been some good suggestions concerning freedom of religion that takes everything into account. For example, having a moment for personal prayer or reflection at the beginning of school would be appropriate.
It is important to keep religion away from the governance of people. The US was founded by people who didn’t want someone elses religion forced upon them. Ironic that a certain religious group is trying to impose its “morals” on the rest of society.
You don’t have to be an athiest or hate God in order to feel the seperation is important. By stating these things I am not being anti-religious. I just want it to be a personal choice to accept the morality or strictures imposed by a religion. I should choose to accept a religion, not have it forced upon me.
Also, people do know the difference between right and wrong without needing to choose one religion to define it for them.