I saw that a couple of you were wondering if anything you ever said or wrote would be "quotable" for history. Here's my attempt:
"The ACLU and those who agree with them want a state that favors their world view and behaves publically as though God does not exist and need not be heeded, thanked, or reverenced --and cannot be called upon by our leaders in times of national crisis."
Mea Culpa:
Go here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
This is ACLU's page to say, "Yes, we really do defend Christians also!" I'm not sure the info here really nullifies my quote, however.
I was surprised at their defense of street preaching, in particular --and defending students who pass out lit at school in non-instructional time. I'm thinking the ACLU has sometimes been on the other side of such cases.
I can't help but think that these are exceptional cases, depending on the lawyers involved --that the ACLU also has evidence of ridiculous oppression of Christians in public places.
Would they have defended the valedictorian's right to free speech, when the plug was pulled on her mic because she wanted to tell about the relationship of her faith to her success as a scholar? The school made a lousy point in this instance and disrupted what should have been a dignified occasion recognizing a scholar's right to innocuous free speech. Had she wanted to be vulgar and cuss like a sailor, I'd say she was out of order and should have her plug pulled. But religious speech should be protected. Yes, a Jewish or Muslim student should be able to quote some good tenets of their belief in a speech, too. I wouldn't advise an atheist to say "There is no God" in such a speech --but that's what he'll do when he's a professor at the tax-supported U's. He can still state his creed of self-sufficiency and "I can do anything I set my mind to" and promote a secular philosophy of life.
The ACLU has been particularly obnoxious when it comes to the evidence of Christian heritage of American government at all levels, tampering with town seals, mottos, memorials, etc. --preparing long before necessary for the time when other religions will make up larger portions of our population than they did when crosses were erected at ARlington Cemetary for all our nation's war-dead. Without meaning to "establish religion," our Christian and Deist founders nevertheless did favor the good influence of the Bible, Jesus, and religion in general upon the citizenry. They studied the Bible in public school. They celebrated the Christian holidays in the schools. They believed in reverencing the God of Creation and Nature, the God of the Bible in their public ceremonies and courts. As one forefather said, (and I don't have the citation or exact quote in front of me and don't know where to find it): "The Constitution was written for a religious people and won't work for any other." Because those people were taught to be moral and have self-control --and had a consensus about right and wrong to which they could appeal in their decision making.
Of course, the man who made the statement was talking about the main religion of the Colonials --Christianity --because that religion teaches The Golden Rule (Treat others as you'd want to be treated) and the Ten C's (Don't kill, murder, covet, lie and adulterate, in particular.) Christ taught love and forgiveness and generosity, the equality of all before the cross, the necessity of humility (we have all sinned) and compassion with non-judgmental attitude, in "Let He who is sinless cast the first stone."
The Bible does not tell us to refrain from defining and preaching the difference between good and evil --which is now viewed as being "judgmental." No, we are still to teach our children and other people's children the difference between good and evil --and government has a role to "restrain evil."
Gov't becomes horribly confused when it no longer recognizes immorality itself --and starts to pay for gay marriage, permit gay adoptions, makes legitimate and pays for transgendering (as in San Francisco gov't.), sanctions prostitution, strip bars and unrestrained porn. Legitimizing drugs would be another example. All of these things contribute to the decline of our families --and families need to be strong and healthy and "decent" in order to be the safety net for all its members --for those who can't get work, become disabled and ill, need comforting in times of emotional stress. Family businesses employed their own. Strong families are the bedrock of strong nations --and nations need to encourage families by restraining the influences that tear at the fabric of family life. Sexual sin always does that. Raising kids without good fathers tends to do that. Redefining family as we are doing now is an offense to the creator who designed us for heterosexual reproduction in marriage and no other sexual relationships.
Our tv culture has changed American culture, and not for the better. All of a sudden our young adults think they are characters on "Friends" and "Seinfeld" and think they can sleep around and shack up --with only a giggle of mild regret about the disappointments and depressions, jealousies and angers, diseases and abortions that actually result from such circumstances. TV suggests we can easily and often sleep around, divorce, re-marry and abort without deeply affecting ourselves and our children for life.
My generation was the Hippie Generation. Tim Leary said drugs were mind-expanding; the "make love, not war" creed of the Haight-Ashbury flower children has produced the moral relativism of today--with big support from the intellectual elites of universities.
We do well to examine American cultural roots and value the religion and book which were most influential on the best strengths of American Society.
As 19C. French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville wrote: "America is great because she is good. The secret of her goodness lies in her churches with pulpits aflame with righteousness. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
Have we ceased to be great? Are we on our way to the Fall of Rome? Sodom and Gomorrah?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
MORE ABOUT THE POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~~ by Barb
Parents who oppose voluntary prayer of sports teams because their little atheists might feel uncomfortable being silent for a moment while the others prayed, who object to ceremonial prayers to begin school banquets, as in the southern schools which pray before band festival banquets and before school games, asking the Creator to protect the students and remind them of fair play, etc.--people who oppose graduation prayers asking for blessing and guidance for the students --people who want the daily school day and government observances to favor secularists, humanists and atheists --as though those weren't distinct philosophies (world views with religious implications) --people who oppose military chaplains preaching the importance of believing in Christ at Christian military funerals, people who oppose Arlington Cemetary's and Mt. Soledad's memorial crosses--and people who oppose our tradition of mottos on money and in the pledge and state mottos like Ohio's, "With God all things are Possible" --
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
such people tend to be LIBERALS ON OTHER matters as well. They tend to vote in a block, it would seem. They are often the same ones who would see nothing wrong with the Boston sex educators' conference, Planned Parenthood sex ed., the gay-promoting books and cross-dressing book in kindergartens, the library access to porn by kids and adults. They are the people who opposed requiring the xxx web address for internet porn purveyors. They also typically support abortion on demand, without restrictions, and the whole gay agenda.
Mr. Faust, who is happy about his role in prohibiting Christians from conducting motivational, character-building assemblies (Power Teams) in our high schools may be one of those rare people who is liberal on religious issues, but conservative about sexual morals issues because, he wanted me to know he has successfully kept his son away from the Playboy website --which is commendable. Though I'm not sure any parent can be so sure of that, no matter where the computers are placed in the house.
In any case, a person who is afraid of Christianity's effect on culture--who sees something sinister in the Power Team ministry --implying something dishonest because they WERE upfront in their literature about their Christian motivations --such liberals are indeed worried about the wrong things.
This demonstration would have done no harm, but only good--and entertained in a wholesome manner.
The Anti-Christian Liberties Union (ACLU) works too hard straining at gnats and swallowing camels --works too hard majoring in the minors--and this censorship of the Power Team on the grounds of church-state separation is exactly what the ACLU would do.
Mr. Foust said to me: "'Most of you' "? What sort of love or logic drives you to jump from presumptuous personal insults in one sentence, to the next telling me about the Golden Rule? That's sad."
Did I mention the Golden Rule to him? He felt insulted by me, but to him I say, "If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it." I had said "MOST OF YOU" liberals would let their kids see any sort of entertainment --but not a motivational speaker who is also a Christian inviting students to a church "crusade." (Crusade, by the way, is the term Billy Graham and other ministers have often used to describe a series of Christian evangelistic meetings --nothing new or sinister about the word in this century. We weren't thinking of how the Muslims might interpret it.)
If Mr. Foust monitors his child's entertainment and computer use as he says, fine --but many liberals don't, because they see nothing wrong with our culture --except for the Christianity in it. Opposing Christianity in the public square is their biggest aim in life. They see no need to have more controls on entertainment and porn in order to have a culture that is decent for raising children. As it is, our popular culture is NOT decent --and not every child has parents who are protective. These are the kids who especially need to hear messages such as those the Power Team presented at schools and after school.
Mr. Faust knocked himself out preventing many rootless, unchurched, unprotected, poorly parented kids from seeing something that might've inspired them and motivated them, encouraged them for a lifetime. He should have first at least visited a presentation somewhere. As it is he judged cynically their perfectly honest material that says, in effect, "We're here to build the kingdom of Christ and the Christian churches --but we also have this motivational message for kids in the secular setting of schools."
There is nothing sinister about groups wanting to reach kids with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the school doesn't allow religious speech (except secularistic, humanistic, and atheistic), they should nevertheless be able to announce any legitimate religious events in the district deemed good for youth --like a presentation of Handel's Messiah--like the Power Teams.
I'd be far more impressed if Mr. Faust supported an anti-suicide, anti-drug, anti-peer-pressure campaign with a chance of making a difference because the presenters are like super heroes performing amazing feats of strength in a powerful, impressive way.
I'm not sure I'd care if the Arabian Knights made such a presentation(Mr. Foust's blog example.) I'd probably take my kids to the mosque afterward to see what they were saying.
If they were upfront and not deceitful in their methods, let them try. Truth is, other religions don't care that much for the souls of people and aren't offering them a Savior or Heaven. Christianity is the love religion.
I was on a school board and I don't remember them ever saying they were beleagured by groups wanting to do assemblies as Mr. Faust said. They get mail --and the school only has so much time and money for motivational speakers and assemblies --most of which do cost the district money. Our board looked for motivational speakers at one point.
As for the numbers of performances --you say they lie? I say they've been doing this for years and years --and they have more than one group going out. In our city, I believe there were three teams, one with extreme power skills, one with polynesian-type dance with fire and one with skate-boarding type skills. (That's hearsay from my husband.)
As for Christians who would criticize the power team in the public schools, they are probably just like secular liberals in their perspectives --like Hillary and Barrack and the rest of the democratic "christian" leaders. They are also probably criticizing something they've not witnessed --or they've been convinced by "liberal-think" that it's not politically correct to give a Christian opportunity to influence youth even with a secular message in public arena. It's ok for the atheists, humanists, secularists to do whatever they please every day in our public schools, however, because they say these are not "religions." Well they are. they have a philosophy of life and a world view.
In Rossford schools locally, a Christian band was going to play secular music for an anti-drug assembly(they were from the school) and when it was found out that they were a "Christian band," they were denied and another group was brought in --even though they were going to play secular music as I understood it. I don't recall how this was resolved.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Friday, May 25, 2007
POWER TEAM CONTROVERSY ~ hostility toward the Christian faith-- by Barb
Another gem from Prof. Friedman's Religion Clause
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"...yesterday's Houston Chronicle reports that a Christian motivational group, Power Team, finds that some public schools are cancelling its scheduled performances because of the group's evangelical ties. Power Team representatives say they do not mention religion in their public school performances. Their shows emphasize the importance of valuing life and dressing appropriately, as the group preaches against drugs and suicide.
2 comments:
John Foust said...
"I'm the fellow who led to the cancellation of the Power Team appearances in five Wisconsin school districts. I also alerted the administrators in the Houston area, too. My web site explains the full story.
The problem with the Power Team? They rely on the school assemblies to promote attendance at their evening revival meetings. In Elgin, IL a few days ago, they asked to distribute promotional literature during the assembly.
The Power Team and the churches regard the school assemblies as an inexpensive and vital form of advertising."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barb said...
John, I wouldn't be so proud of this if I were you. They had an anti-drug and anti-suicide message in the schools --and then invited people to religious-oriented rally later. I hope you never have a kid who commits suicide or gets on drugs --and then have to wonder if only they'd been inspired and encouraged by one of these ministries.... We've just had these groups in our city --and the Blade made it clear that these were Christian groups --and gave them really good publicity actually --and the churches and church members were passing out tickets with info on them --so people knew what they were.
So what's your beef?? If Christianity is true, this is a wonderful thing to do --to try to inspire the kids with positive role models who have faith in God. Most of the students are probably at least "nominally" Christian.
Christianity gives purpose and direction to life --and that's what some kids coming from miserable situations need. Christianity has helped millions to live better and happier lives than they otherwise would have.
Why can't people who are not of Christian faith just stay home from the later religious rallys? or let their kids go and discuss it after. After all, most of you would let your kid watch any sort of junk on TV and movies and have computer porn in their bedrooms. Can't you tolerate a little exposure to the child of Christmas, the Christ of Resurrection, the One who preaches the golden rule, love and forgiveness, equality of persons before God and compassion for the needy and downtrodden?
O no --that would be dangerous! You know, Jesus Christ should be admired by everyone for what He taught, at least. No one can make anyone else believe.
As for the promotional literature passed out at the schools, I believe that would be the 'ticket' invitations to the after school events? What is wrong with publicity to students for something wholesome? Many delinquents would be better citizens and might avoid jail if they were introduced to Christ in their teens.
What you did, John, was to stifle wholesome speech --to make the schools favor one philosophy only --the one that is preached every day in our schools -secularism/humanism --and in effect, atheism. Because the place that "educates" cannot be exposed to the possibility of a Creator --which just may be the most ultimate truth of all.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
NEW LOW AT SO. PARK --New Zealand Catholic Bishops, you go!
from Howard Friedman at Religion Clause (see my link list)
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Today's Dominion Post reports that the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has filed an appeal in the High Court at Wellington seeking reversal of a June 2006 decision (full text) by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority. The Authority rejected a challenge to CanWest TVWorks' televising last year of an offensive episode of the adult cartoon show, South Park. The show, mainly about an alcoholic's struggle to stay sober, contained one scene-- the so-called "Bloody Mary" episode-- showing the Pope being squirted with menstrual blood from a statue of the Virgin Mary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appalling use of freedom. Licentiousness! South Park has always contributed to the "coarsening" of culture. This episode is sickening --as is much of So. Park and "there oughtta be a law!"
Just like Gay Rights parades should be penalized for the grossness and offense to religion that they parade out --their mockery of nuns, e.g.
It's a foolish people who can't restrain by law these worst excesses of juvenile obscenity, including porn.
It's really ironic to call such immature humor "adult entertainment."
I would not want my kids to grow up around people who think South Park is funny. It may have funny elements, but the program obviously crosses the line of decency, and thus is unfit for anybody of decent morals to support.
I confess, however, that I have been known to laugh uproariously at The Simpsons –and appreciate Homer’s loyalty to Marge –and how she conquored her struggle with gambling. How Christian neighbor Ned Flanders was willing to stand outside the storm shelter to save Homer’s worthless hide. But why does that otherwise, often (but not always) good cartoon, have to use God’s name in vain? Some years back, we read that many artists working on this show were Christians--but obviously, there are writers of various world views contributing.
I hope the Catholic bishops prevail.
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES, HOWEVER --are among those who are sponsoring The Vagina Monologues for their students and others --along with a long list of state schools --and some other supposedly? religious schools like Bluffton College, Ohio University, Manchester College and Illinois Weslyan.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR COMMON SENSE: Catholic School Board can't insist its members be Catholic!
posted by Posted by Howard Friedman --PermaLink: 6:02 AM
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
from Religion Clause (see my link list)
"In Canada's Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court has ruled the Yellowknife Catholic school board that operates state-supported religious schools may not prevent non-Catholics from running in school board trustee elections. In Yellowknife Catholic Schools v. Euchner, (NWT Sup. Ct., May 23, 2007), the court, reviewing at length the statutory provisions on denominational schools, held that "it was the clear intention of the legislature that a candidate for election to the public denominational District Education Authority need not be of any particular religious faith." CBC News yesterday reported on the decision."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, Canada leads the way in imbecility! (Is that a word?)
They pave the way for churches and Christian organizations to have to hire non-Christians, atheists, homosexuals and others whose lifestyles and beliefs are incompatible with their mission! This is literally inviting the foxes into the hen house. They already penalize broadcasters who say anything against homosexual lifestyle. This is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom and common sense.
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I read the links --a "public denomination distric ed authority" --would seem by title to preside over any sectarian schools that receive any public funds? And that could include non-catholic schools? But do other denominations have any tax-supported schools? ARe the Catholic schools tax-supported?
If the organization runs all kinds of religious schools, or would if such schools wanted government entanglement, then it should not be limited to Catholics.
However, if the trustees determine aspects of Catholic education only--as implied by the name "Yellowknife Catholic School Board" --then they should be Catholic.
I should be a judge instead of these guys.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Welcome, Sister Jeanette!
Jeanette has an artsy blog --pretty in pink --and you sit down and sip the tea with her on her couch --so to speak! We have our faith, marriage, age, kids and grandkids in common. We're both concerned here about the "culture wars" and our lost world, believing we share a "saving faith." She is Baptist and I am Free Methodist --both Bible believers and "just Christians."
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I should probably say, speaking for myself, that not everyone in my denomination (Free Methodist) thinks as I do about all the social issues, government's role, the War in Iraq, GOP and the issue of scientific origins of life. But I think most in my church would agree with me (and Jeanette) and be part of the much maligned, misunderstood, castigated "Religious Right." I am on the conservative end of the vine on these issues and she seems to be also--and we're right, of course! : D
I do not understand the link business one bit. Except that I have created a link for her in my list of blogs. So click on Js Cafe Nette in my link list to the right and you will find your way to her parlor for a chat.
And when she posts here, hopefully she'll indicate cross-post link to her blog.
Jeanette gives me credit for inviting her here, but the collaboration was her idea initially --and I'm honored to share in her blog, and have her share in mine. We might widen our little audience this way --and keep our blogs active with more frequent posting.
"God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Thursday, May 24, 2007
COLO. COURT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CHRISTIAN COLLEGES
News from www.Religion Clause.blogspot.com (Links to items in this article are availale on this website. I don't know how to do all that links transfer business if it doesn't copy and paste over here.)
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Court OK's Exclusion of Tuition Grants For Pervasively Sectarian Colleges
A Colorado federal district court on Friday upheld Colorado's exclusion of "pervasively sectarian institutions" from its tuition assistance programs for low-income students attending colleges and universities in the state. In Colorado Christian University v. Baker, (D CO, May, 18, 2007), the court rejected both free exercise and establishment clause attacks on the law. Relying largely on the Supreme Court's Locke v. Davey decision, the court applied a "rational basis" test to the free exercise claim. It found that the statutory exclusion furthers implementation of the prohibition in Art. IX, Sec. 7 of Colorado's state constitution barring state aid to any college or university controlled by any sectarian denomination. A press release by the University in response to the decision said that it believed that the decision would be overruled by the 10th Circuit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! It means that low income students have to attend secular colleges to get tuition assistance for which they are elegible. They have no academic choice. Of course, that's the way our public school funding is run, also. This is so wrong, I can't even think of what to say about it!!!! Always,the GI Bill students could choose any college. Pell grants went to any college. If Colorado wins this one, Christian ed is in big trouble. Only the rich will be able to afford a private Christian education. As it is now, people sacrifice a lot to send students out of state to such schools --because in-state tuition is so much lower, but there was still federal help for needy students attending any schools.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SEX CLUBS --HOORAY --Strickland is going to make a step in the right direction? Will wonders never cease?
Strip joints really serve no good purpose and should be shut down altogether. They just tempt men out of their homes and take food off the table --and cause spousal alienation and ultimately divorce --and that contributes to poverty.
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Patrons" need to be heading home by midnight. Don't they have to get up and go to work? or look for a job? It's safer for the women, too, I suspect --to have these distance rules and earlier closings. If it's not as much fun with restrictions, good, let 'em go out of business!
Porn, sex clubs, promiscuity --all become destructive, costly addictions --and I would think clubs are a source of frustration if men can't act on the arousal that occurs in such places. Fellows with impulse control issues might be inspired to rape, leaving such a place --or commit sex crime in their homes toward their own--especially if they add alcohol to the mix. Incest and molestation seem to be rampant among the sleazier elements of male society today. And I would think the same people are also among the patrons of sex clubs; there are way too many such poor souls.
One of my young acquaintances said his friend invited him to go with him to a strip bar--and my acquaintance replied, "Why would I want to share an erection with you?"
The friend said --"aw, it's not like that" --and my acquaintance replied, "Why then would I want to go to such a place and become immune to naked women such that I would NOT have an erection?"
You know, in the old days men could hardly wait to "have and to hold" --and got married as soon as it was legal without parental signature. I wonder if all the available online and sex club porn isn't delaying the normal urge to mate --sometimes because most women don't match up to the porn ideal? --or because some young men are spending more time with the computers and clubs than meeting women they might marry? or finding jobs that support marriage? And then they all wait until they are old, bald, paunchy and lose the chemistry of youth that attracts people to each other. They still have a chance --but have wasted a lot of time and the benefits of their youth --and it's worse for women who marry later --infertility and breast cancer are more common to those who bear children later --plus the greater risk of Down's syndrome in their babies.
Any attempts to regulate immorality and vice are worth the effort. BECAUSE YOUNG MEN GET TEMPTED INTO VILE HABITS by such places. There are probably millions who wouldn't be porn addicts if not for the easy accessibility of the internet porn today.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
A Blog Conversation about the Creation Museum
See at the end or this post on the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky, the post at Howard Friedman's blog, www.The Religion Clause.blogspot.com
that sparked these remarks by me and others
Barb said...
Asma makes assumptions --atheistic ones --and academic ones --about evolution vs. creation. Anyone who denies the possibility of design and designer in the universe is NOT basing his view solely on science. the evidence of design is there more than the evidence of descent from extinct common ancestors.
Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me. Or we should see some ongoing evidence of it. Why did it stop --and all of a sudden every creature reproduces after its own kind. "O it's happening --just too slowly to see it!" Yeah, right!
Wed May 23, 01:50:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Are you really out of your mind when you say the below comment "Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me"
I have only one thing thing to say, SHUT THE --- UP. YOUR PLACE IS IN THE KITCHEN OR IN THE CHURCH. GO THERE AND SHUT THE --- UP
Wed May 23, 03:31:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Barb--Any first year text on evolution addresses your concerns. I suggest you at least read one before you start spouting about what you think 'sounds' possible. Evolution has not stopped. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology that has been researched and studied by ten of thousands of scientists.
Wed May 23, 07:17:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
So? they all stood around and said the emperor's clothes were beautiful, too. Sometimes it's the minority (and even the laymen) who get it right. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of reputable, capable scientists who will tell you Darwin's evidence ain't there!
The first year text you recommend does not address the fact that Christians believe in the miracles recorded in the historcal accounts of the new testament --not just Jesus' miracles but those by Peter, John, Paul -- and the miraculous conversion of Saul the Jew who became known by his Greek name Paul --(Acts 9) These are recorded as history by multiple authors just 21 centuries ago, and those scriptures have been kept by the church and passed down. Everytime these 1st century Christians (and Christ) did a miracle like healing men who had been crippled from birth, thousands were converted --and the men with the message from God who could prove their divine source by what they did --were persecuted. The first disciples were not brave and Saul would never have become a Christian --had not the risen Jesus appeared to them and promised them that because He lives --they shall live also beyond the grave. "I go to prepare a place for you...." He said.
If I believe THAT, as I do, I see no reason to believe in the long, tedious, happenstance, lucky and capricious, unguided, uncontrolled, unproven process of Evolution.
As for the scientific evidence --yes, I know that even in the 90's the text books were saying things about evolution that embarrassed Patton of the Britisn Museum and Gould of America--because the claims were fictional --one scenario claimed that a couple of guys had simulated the conditions for life to evolve and had created life in a lab. They tried, but they did NOT succeed. The books used obsolete Lamarckian theories of purpose and need dictating evolutions in successive generations --"Man evolved to walk upright so he could carry his food in his hands going through the tall grasses of the African Savannah" --(actually in our text books) -- and giraffes evolved long necks so they could reach food at the top of the trees."
If you can't think this through and wonder why all creatures shouldn't therefore walk upright and carry food in their hands --and why any creatures HAD to reach the tree tops --when they also use their necks to eat from the ground --and why all creatures didn't need to do the same to survive and thus have long necks --anyway, even the evolutionists said the 90's texts in science were abysmal with speculated scenarios on why evolution occured that had no basis in scientific fact.
To have a trait it has to be in your genes -which come from your ancestors --but it's in the genes --and so the genes need all the info from the parent genes to be passed down --yes, occasionally there is a mutation--and its results are usually disaster. And generally rare -- the rule is for the parent genes to pass their traits to the child --and there are no NEW genes in the next generation that spontaneously appear --and creatures can't inter-mate with other categories successfully and pass those genes along --so the likelihood of missing links is poor when we should be, my husband says, standing knee-deep in trans-fossils --if that part of evolution were true. But even when they claim they have a trans fossil of a mammal resembling modern chimp or man, they can't prove it's transitional (most turned out to be frauds or something other than claimed) instead of a unique species or just a human or chimp variant (or a diseased mutation) that would have always begat its own kind or died out. In fact, now that we know about DNA --we know simple cells don't beget more complex cells and higher beings. the dna has to have those elements of DNA in them from the start. They just don't acquire complexity without a designer; it would take a miracle --millions of miracles to evolve all the diverse life forms --and miracles don't take eons of time.
Our Creator used His divine knowledge and created by design and command--the way our Jesus raised the dead, healed the lepers, blind and lame, and calmed the seas --by command. God had infinite knowledge, certainly greater than ours which can be stored in a computer and recalled with a keystroke. And He promised to delete our sins from His memory (the celestial computer?) --if we would simply have faith in the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, our Passover Lamb who writes my dna code/name in His book (memory /celestial mind/computer/Palm pilot.)
Anyone who resurrects 3 days after being crucified and comes out of the tomb --and an angel later rolls back the stone, and all the guards are dead -- and the angel sits there waiting for the women to find the empty tomb --And says "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" --I'm going to believe someone with that kind of power!
This is history -I believe it--I have no reason not to believe it. My own religious experience confirms my faith--and REASON is not excluded despite the insults of unbelievers to the contrary. How do we know God's guidance? by the Word of God preserved in Judeo-Christian scriptures --by reason applied to the study of these scriptures --by the witness of the Holy Spirit, God's felt presence. As the Bible says, "By the renewing of our minds." Inspired teachers, ministers, and modern writers who believe the Word also contribute to our understanding of God.
Darwin's theory is speculation without solid evidence. Yes, he categorized and studied the myriad of living creatures, organizing them for study. He was right about natural selection and survival of the fittest characteristics for adaptation to environment --but he never proved and no one has since proved --that one category of creature like an ape-man can become the ancestor of man or chimp. So far, the studies claim that DNA is traceable to one woman--and they call her EVe for obvious reasons. I assume they can trace to one man as well?
They now know that all the races came from one couple --just as the Bible says. This couple had the colossal genes for the whole human race. That they share gene traits in DNA with apes and other life forms --is only because life has the same design components in all mammals --all creatures --in the design of the dna of life.
Thu May 24, 12:14:00 PM EDT
From The Religion Clause blog by Prof Friedman at the UT Law School:
Last week's Chronicle of Higher Education carries a fascinating look at the new $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum's theme is the literal truth of the Biblical Genesis narrative. (See prior posting.) The Chronicle article titled Dinosaurs on the Ark? is written by Stephen T. Asma, a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Asma visited the museum and interviewed its director Ken A. Ham. Prof. Asma writes that Ham did not miss a beat in answering his surreal question about what dinosaurs on Noah's ark ate. Prof. Asma, who has written an Oxford University Press book on the culture and evolution of natural history museums, says that his sense of humor about the new museum fades when he thinks of the young children who will visit it without the tools for critically assessing its displays. The full article is well worth the time to read.
posted by Howard Friedman at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Methinks Asma is really afraid that kids will critically assess the claims of evolution after seeing the museum. If Darwinism is true, why are they protecting it from objections and scrutiny and evidence to the contrary? Because they have not and can not prove Darwinism is true, that's why.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
that sparked these remarks by me and others
Barb said...
Asma makes assumptions --atheistic ones --and academic ones --about evolution vs. creation. Anyone who denies the possibility of design and designer in the universe is NOT basing his view solely on science. the evidence of design is there more than the evidence of descent from extinct common ancestors.
Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me. Or we should see some ongoing evidence of it. Why did it stop --and all of a sudden every creature reproduces after its own kind. "O it's happening --just too slowly to see it!" Yeah, right!
Wed May 23, 01:50:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Are you really out of your mind when you say the below comment "Evolution doesn't even SOUND possible to me"
I have only one thing thing to say, SHUT THE --- UP. YOUR PLACE IS IN THE KITCHEN OR IN THE CHURCH. GO THERE AND SHUT THE --- UP
Wed May 23, 03:31:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
Barb--Any first year text on evolution addresses your concerns. I suggest you at least read one before you start spouting about what you think 'sounds' possible. Evolution has not stopped. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology that has been researched and studied by ten of thousands of scientists.
Wed May 23, 07:17:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
So? they all stood around and said the emperor's clothes were beautiful, too. Sometimes it's the minority (and even the laymen) who get it right. There are at least hundreds if not thousands of reputable, capable scientists who will tell you Darwin's evidence ain't there!
The first year text you recommend does not address the fact that Christians believe in the miracles recorded in the historcal accounts of the new testament --not just Jesus' miracles but those by Peter, John, Paul -- and the miraculous conversion of Saul the Jew who became known by his Greek name Paul --(Acts 9) These are recorded as history by multiple authors just 21 centuries ago, and those scriptures have been kept by the church and passed down. Everytime these 1st century Christians (and Christ) did a miracle like healing men who had been crippled from birth, thousands were converted --and the men with the message from God who could prove their divine source by what they did --were persecuted. The first disciples were not brave and Saul would never have become a Christian --had not the risen Jesus appeared to them and promised them that because He lives --they shall live also beyond the grave. "I go to prepare a place for you...." He said.
If I believe THAT, as I do, I see no reason to believe in the long, tedious, happenstance, lucky and capricious, unguided, uncontrolled, unproven process of Evolution.
As for the scientific evidence --yes, I know that even in the 90's the text books were saying things about evolution that embarrassed Patton of the Britisn Museum and Gould of America--because the claims were fictional --one scenario claimed that a couple of guys had simulated the conditions for life to evolve and had created life in a lab. They tried, but they did NOT succeed. The books used obsolete Lamarckian theories of purpose and need dictating evolutions in successive generations --"Man evolved to walk upright so he could carry his food in his hands going through the tall grasses of the African Savannah" --(actually in our text books) -- and giraffes evolved long necks so they could reach food at the top of the trees."
If you can't think this through and wonder why all creatures shouldn't therefore walk upright and carry food in their hands --and why any creatures HAD to reach the tree tops --when they also use their necks to eat from the ground --and why all creatures didn't need to do the same to survive and thus have long necks --anyway, even the evolutionists said the 90's texts in science were abysmal with speculated scenarios on why evolution occured that had no basis in scientific fact.
To have a trait it has to be in your genes -which come from your ancestors --but it's in the genes --and so the genes need all the info from the parent genes to be passed down --yes, occasionally there is a mutation--and its results are usually disaster. And generally rare -- the rule is for the parent genes to pass their traits to the child --and there are no NEW genes in the next generation that spontaneously appear --and creatures can't inter-mate with other categories successfully and pass those genes along --so the likelihood of missing links is poor when we should be, my husband says, standing knee-deep in trans-fossils --if that part of evolution were true. But even when they claim they have a trans fossil of a mammal resembling modern chimp or man, they can't prove it's transitional (most turned out to be frauds or something other than claimed) instead of a unique species or just a human or chimp variant (or a diseased mutation) that would have always begat its own kind or died out. In fact, now that we know about DNA --we know simple cells don't beget more complex cells and higher beings. the dna has to have those elements of DNA in them from the start. They just don't acquire complexity without a designer; it would take a miracle --millions of miracles to evolve all the diverse life forms --and miracles don't take eons of time.
Our Creator used His divine knowledge and created by design and command--the way our Jesus raised the dead, healed the lepers, blind and lame, and calmed the seas --by command. God had infinite knowledge, certainly greater than ours which can be stored in a computer and recalled with a keystroke. And He promised to delete our sins from His memory (the celestial computer?) --if we would simply have faith in the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, our Passover Lamb who writes my dna code/name in His book (memory /celestial mind/computer/Palm pilot.)
Anyone who resurrects 3 days after being crucified and comes out of the tomb --and an angel later rolls back the stone, and all the guards are dead -- and the angel sits there waiting for the women to find the empty tomb --And says "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" --I'm going to believe someone with that kind of power!
This is history -I believe it--I have no reason not to believe it. My own religious experience confirms my faith--and REASON is not excluded despite the insults of unbelievers to the contrary. How do we know God's guidance? by the Word of God preserved in Judeo-Christian scriptures --by reason applied to the study of these scriptures --by the witness of the Holy Spirit, God's felt presence. As the Bible says, "By the renewing of our minds." Inspired teachers, ministers, and modern writers who believe the Word also contribute to our understanding of God.
Darwin's theory is speculation without solid evidence. Yes, he categorized and studied the myriad of living creatures, organizing them for study. He was right about natural selection and survival of the fittest characteristics for adaptation to environment --but he never proved and no one has since proved --that one category of creature like an ape-man can become the ancestor of man or chimp. So far, the studies claim that DNA is traceable to one woman--and they call her EVe for obvious reasons. I assume they can trace to one man as well?
They now know that all the races came from one couple --just as the Bible says. This couple had the colossal genes for the whole human race. That they share gene traits in DNA with apes and other life forms --is only because life has the same design components in all mammals --all creatures --in the design of the dna of life.
Thu May 24, 12:14:00 PM EDT
From The Religion Clause blog by Prof Friedman at the UT Law School:
Last week's Chronicle of Higher Education carries a fascinating look at the new $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum's theme is the literal truth of the Biblical Genesis narrative. (See prior posting.) The Chronicle article titled Dinosaurs on the Ark? is written by Stephen T. Asma, a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago. Asma visited the museum and interviewed its director Ken A. Ham. Prof. Asma writes that Ham did not miss a beat in answering his surreal question about what dinosaurs on Noah's ark ate. Prof. Asma, who has written an Oxford University Press book on the culture and evolution of natural history museums, says that his sense of humor about the new museum fades when he thinks of the young children who will visit it without the tools for critically assessing its displays. The full article is well worth the time to read.
posted by Howard Friedman at 1:10 PM on May 22, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Methinks Asma is really afraid that kids will critically assess the claims of evolution after seeing the museum. If Darwinism is true, why are they protecting it from objections and scrutiny and evidence to the contrary? Because they have not and can not prove Darwinism is true, that's why.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
SCOPES TRIAL ISSUE IN REVERSE --defending atheistic orthodoxy regarding origins
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12982 Read about:
Guillermo Gonzalez-- an astronomer with 69 peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious, secular science journals. He is known for the development of the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. He was recently denied tenure at Iowa State U. because he has a side interest that he pursues on his own time: Intelligent Design. He is therefore the enemy of the established scientific orthodoxy that states there is no designer for the process of evolution--or for origins by any other method.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/national-school-board-group-will-have.html
Liberals are also up in arms because "the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education will be Kenneth R. Willard from Kansas. In 2005, as a member of the state school board in Kansas, Willard voted in favor of changing the state's science standards to include several challenges to the theory of evolution. (See prior posting.) Because Willard's only opponent for the NASBE presidency withdrew for personal reasons after the nomination period was closed, Willard's election seems assured. Some scientists opposed to teaching intelligent design are pressing for states to write in the name of Ohio businessman Sam Schloemer, now on Ohio's State Board of Education, for NASBE president-- but the organization's bylaws do not provide for write-ins. Meanwhile, Willard says the teaching of evolution is an issue that should be left to each state. He says NASBE focuses on "issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic achievement among members of disadvantaged groups."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people only know what the pro-establishment media says about intelligent design.
They assume evolution to be proven true by evidence like the theory of gravity is proven by evidence.
They are woefully mis-led about this --along with most of the rest of the world.
The evidence of transition from one life category to another --(like ape to human via some common ancestor) --is not there --it's Darwin's theory to explain how we got here without a designer. Even a fossil with features of two creatures does not prove descent over the possibility of common design. Just because two dress-makers make a red dress with pockets and a 2 inch hem --doesn't mean the dresses came from the same source --just because they shared features. So it is that a fossil of an extinct creature that resembles 2 modern creatures just proves there was once a creature with the same features as others in its bio-family --say mammal. Most likely, any-so called primitive ambiguously human or ape fossils --are just one of many variants of homo-sapiens --or apes --not a transition. YOU CANNOT PROVE TRANSITION --without seeing some parent give birth to a transitional creature --which we never see. Even the rapidly evolving bacteria --are STILL bacteria. So far, even shared DNA --such as that of chimps and humans--can only prove design --not descent. We believers, however, do believe that God created the animals first --and that humans are the highest level of a design process --so the Designer can use similar features in the DNA codes for mammals without having them descend gradually upward over eons of time through "natural" processes without a designer. All mammals share DNA features --and the differences between us are still immense and not likely to have occured randomly, naturally by mating and natural selection without a designer/controller. Our DNA was more likely finagled in a celestial lab than by happenstance on the earth. And it is said we are made in the Image of God --so maybe that is why the atonement for our sins had to be by the blood of the Son of God --something to do with our DNA --which is written in the Lamb's Book of Life when we believe in Christ.
There is so much interdependence, design and complexity --and diverstiy and beauty in nature --One example is the bombadier beetle --which, if he evolved, would've exploded himself into non-existance in the process. He was carefully designed to ignite a small explosion to protect himself from his enemies. Imagine God's design team working that one out. It required a designer for sure. In fact, there's no other reason for him to have such a unique capability for his defense --except that the Divine Mind thought it was cool.
We who are such inventive creatures --were surely designed by a creative being --the way male and female complete one another --the way our hearts beat for a life time --and our brains function with such complexity and control over the rest of our being --the way our skin heals by itself --NO accident of natural selection.
Believing classical darwinism is true is as preposterous as looking at a cadillac in a junkyard and saying all the metal gradually formed the car --given enough years. In fact, the junkyard and the universe and a person's home prove the law of entropy --that things go from order to disorder without controlling forces.
Also, my husband's med school specialty was genetics --he says the DNA could not possibly have evolved from simple to more complex --as D's theory assumes. Darwin assumed, given enough time, all the diverse life forms would naturally evolve, by survival of the fittest and natural selection (which do occur within bio-families but not enough to transition from one category to another) --by mutations which are nearly always bad, not good --all of the life we see is supposed to have evolved from simple, one celled, self-replicating cells --without any guide or designer. Go look at a flower and tell me how this is possible --given eons of time --which is why the evolutionists are so committed to their theoretical "billions of years ago an accidentally formed live amoeba slithered out of the primordial pond and the right conditions were there to start replication into more diverse and complicated higher forms of nature"
Hubby says the millions of chemical reactions in cells necessary to make life --make Darwin's idea impossible.
ID theorists aren't saying Darwin should not be taught --he was right to observe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. --it just can't account for all the design complexity that exists no matter how much time is given for the process to naturally evolve all the life forms. So ID theorists observe the impossibility of Darwin's idea --and document evidence of design --and the impossibilities in nature for his theory to be true.
They do not teach Genesis, as ignoramuses assume. They are still committed to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording evidence for science theories --or against them.
Michael behe, a molecular microbiologist, researcher and prof at Lehigh U. --wrote Darwin's Black Box --to discuss the DNA complexity that must have been designed by/with some intelligence.
Yes, we still have the mystery of how can there be a God without beginning?? who made God? Well, how can there be a universe without a designer? Who made the universe? These are the two mysteries --and evolution's defenders do the world a grave disservice to rule out the one mystery and believe the other when they can't prove that God didn't design everything that is and speak it into being the way we speak results from the stored knowledge in a computer. if we can do things instantly because of computers; a Creator of this marvelous universe (look out your window!) can do anything in whatever time frame He chooses. Furthermore, those Christians who believe in both evolution and Christ's miracles and resurrections are inconsistant --because such a God doesn't need Darwin's time frame to accomplish Creation --and Darwin is NOT proven no matter what mumbo jumbo scientists utter.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Cross-posted at Js Cafenette
Guillermo Gonzalez-- an astronomer with 69 peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious, secular science journals. He is known for the development of the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. He was recently denied tenure at Iowa State U. because he has a side interest that he pursues on his own time: Intelligent Design. He is therefore the enemy of the established scientific orthodoxy that states there is no designer for the process of evolution--or for origins by any other method.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/national-school-board-group-will-have.html
Liberals are also up in arms because "the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education will be Kenneth R. Willard from Kansas. In 2005, as a member of the state school board in Kansas, Willard voted in favor of changing the state's science standards to include several challenges to the theory of evolution. (See prior posting.) Because Willard's only opponent for the NASBE presidency withdrew for personal reasons after the nomination period was closed, Willard's election seems assured. Some scientists opposed to teaching intelligent design are pressing for states to write in the name of Ohio businessman Sam Schloemer, now on Ohio's State Board of Education, for NASBE president-- but the organization's bylaws do not provide for write-ins. Meanwhile, Willard says the teaching of evolution is an issue that should be left to each state. He says NASBE focuses on "issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic achievement among members of disadvantaged groups."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people only know what the pro-establishment media says about intelligent design.
They assume evolution to be proven true by evidence like the theory of gravity is proven by evidence.
They are woefully mis-led about this --along with most of the rest of the world.
The evidence of transition from one life category to another --(like ape to human via some common ancestor) --is not there --it's Darwin's theory to explain how we got here without a designer. Even a fossil with features of two creatures does not prove descent over the possibility of common design. Just because two dress-makers make a red dress with pockets and a 2 inch hem --doesn't mean the dresses came from the same source --just because they shared features. So it is that a fossil of an extinct creature that resembles 2 modern creatures just proves there was once a creature with the same features as others in its bio-family --say mammal. Most likely, any-so called primitive ambiguously human or ape fossils --are just one of many variants of homo-sapiens --or apes --not a transition. YOU CANNOT PROVE TRANSITION --without seeing some parent give birth to a transitional creature --which we never see. Even the rapidly evolving bacteria --are STILL bacteria. So far, even shared DNA --such as that of chimps and humans--can only prove design --not descent. We believers, however, do believe that God created the animals first --and that humans are the highest level of a design process --so the Designer can use similar features in the DNA codes for mammals without having them descend gradually upward over eons of time through "natural" processes without a designer. All mammals share DNA features --and the differences between us are still immense and not likely to have occured randomly, naturally by mating and natural selection without a designer/controller. Our DNA was more likely finagled in a celestial lab than by happenstance on the earth. And it is said we are made in the Image of God --so maybe that is why the atonement for our sins had to be by the blood of the Son of God --something to do with our DNA --which is written in the Lamb's Book of Life when we believe in Christ.
There is so much interdependence, design and complexity --and diverstiy and beauty in nature --One example is the bombadier beetle --which, if he evolved, would've exploded himself into non-existance in the process. He was carefully designed to ignite a small explosion to protect himself from his enemies. Imagine God's design team working that one out. It required a designer for sure. In fact, there's no other reason for him to have such a unique capability for his defense --except that the Divine Mind thought it was cool.
We who are such inventive creatures --were surely designed by a creative being --the way male and female complete one another --the way our hearts beat for a life time --and our brains function with such complexity and control over the rest of our being --the way our skin heals by itself --NO accident of natural selection.
Believing classical darwinism is true is as preposterous as looking at a cadillac in a junkyard and saying all the metal gradually formed the car --given enough years. In fact, the junkyard and the universe and a person's home prove the law of entropy --that things go from order to disorder without controlling forces.
Also, my husband's med school specialty was genetics --he says the DNA could not possibly have evolved from simple to more complex --as D's theory assumes. Darwin assumed, given enough time, all the diverse life forms would naturally evolve, by survival of the fittest and natural selection (which do occur within bio-families but not enough to transition from one category to another) --by mutations which are nearly always bad, not good --all of the life we see is supposed to have evolved from simple, one celled, self-replicating cells --without any guide or designer. Go look at a flower and tell me how this is possible --given eons of time --which is why the evolutionists are so committed to their theoretical "billions of years ago an accidentally formed live amoeba slithered out of the primordial pond and the right conditions were there to start replication into more diverse and complicated higher forms of nature"
Hubby says the millions of chemical reactions in cells necessary to make life --make Darwin's idea impossible.
ID theorists aren't saying Darwin should not be taught --he was right to observe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. --it just can't account for all the design complexity that exists no matter how much time is given for the process to naturally evolve all the life forms. So ID theorists observe the impossibility of Darwin's idea --and document evidence of design --and the impossibilities in nature for his theory to be true.
They do not teach Genesis, as ignoramuses assume. They are still committed to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording evidence for science theories --or against them.
Michael behe, a molecular microbiologist, researcher and prof at Lehigh U. --wrote Darwin's Black Box --to discuss the DNA complexity that must have been designed by/with some intelligence.
Yes, we still have the mystery of how can there be a God without beginning?? who made God? Well, how can there be a universe without a designer? Who made the universe? These are the two mysteries --and evolution's defenders do the world a grave disservice to rule out the one mystery and believe the other when they can't prove that God didn't design everything that is and speak it into being the way we speak results from the stored knowledge in a computer. if we can do things instantly because of computers; a Creator of this marvelous universe (look out your window!) can do anything in whatever time frame He chooses. Furthermore, those Christians who believe in both evolution and Christ's miracles and resurrections are inconsistant --because such a God doesn't need Darwin's time frame to accomplish Creation --and Darwin is NOT proven no matter what mumbo jumbo scientists utter.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Cross-posted at Js Cafenette
Thursday, May 17, 2007
ACLU Opposes Bible as Lit in Schools --what's new?
The ACLU is at it again--fighting Bible as Lit courses in Texas. The claim is that the course is being taught as though it were true.
I'm sure a Bible course can be taught as a BOOK without insisting it all be viewed as history. However, I don't want any teacher suggesting that it is NOT historically true either. We don't need the deliberate undermining of faith, anymore than we need the teacher to cultivate Christian faith in those whose parents want them to believe something else or nothing.
Children need to be taught the Bible just to be EDUCATED for understanding western culture, western civ, western lit, western thought, etc.
All students should know what is meant by "the prodigal son" "the golden rule" "adam and eve" "the forbidden fruit" They should know the stories behind Easter and Christmas and Good Friday. They should know the story of Passover --and the Passover lamb theme throughout the Book.
Because they are such popular and great writings, significant in western culture, they should be exposed to the 23rd Psalm, the Love chapter, the Ten Commandments, the Proverbs and the Psalms and the biblical account of creation. They should know the history of Christ's life, some of his teachings, the claims about Him, and the stories and letters of the Early church. They should know the stories of Job, Noah, Jonah, Ruth and Boaz, the Battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon and Bathsheba, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Jonathan, Samson and Delilah and Esther the Queen. The story of Deborah is a good one to reinforce the idea of women as leaders.
They should know that Christianity teaches equality of persons --as sinners, as recipients of the Holy Spirit, as redeemed people. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek (Gentile), slave nor free."
They should know the meanings of words like sin, redeemed, salvation, baptized, adultery, fornication, annointed, justified, compassion, mercy, grace, eternity, prophecy, the Body of Christ.
So much of western literature alludes to these Biblical stories,characters and themes. Why should our students be ignorant in the name of church and state separation?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
I'm sure a Bible course can be taught as a BOOK without insisting it all be viewed as history. However, I don't want any teacher suggesting that it is NOT historically true either. We don't need the deliberate undermining of faith, anymore than we need the teacher to cultivate Christian faith in those whose parents want them to believe something else or nothing.
Children need to be taught the Bible just to be EDUCATED for understanding western culture, western civ, western lit, western thought, etc.
All students should know what is meant by "the prodigal son" "the golden rule" "adam and eve" "the forbidden fruit" They should know the stories behind Easter and Christmas and Good Friday. They should know the story of Passover --and the Passover lamb theme throughout the Book.
Because they are such popular and great writings, significant in western culture, they should be exposed to the 23rd Psalm, the Love chapter, the Ten Commandments, the Proverbs and the Psalms and the biblical account of creation. They should know the history of Christ's life, some of his teachings, the claims about Him, and the stories and letters of the Early church. They should know the stories of Job, Noah, Jonah, Ruth and Boaz, the Battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon and Bathsheba, Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Jonathan, Samson and Delilah and Esther the Queen. The story of Deborah is a good one to reinforce the idea of women as leaders.
They should know that Christianity teaches equality of persons --as sinners, as recipients of the Holy Spirit, as redeemed people. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek (Gentile), slave nor free."
They should know the meanings of words like sin, redeemed, salvation, baptized, adultery, fornication, annointed, justified, compassion, mercy, grace, eternity, prophecy, the Body of Christ.
So much of western literature alludes to these Biblical stories,characters and themes. Why should our students be ignorant in the name of church and state separation?
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Revised Links to Greenville College Today Show --and Choir My Space
Go here to see my alma mater, Greenville College, on the Today Show --Dec. 2006
Go here--
to see my alma mater's choir singing exquisite choral music --and from there you can link to some other college choirs --and Jars of Clay --the Dove Award winning contemporary Christian group who got their start as musicians at Greenville.
The software is not working well, so if there are no links -copy and paste the following addresses into the address bar. The first is for the Today Show and the second is the choir music site.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1c17d7e6-ab83-4773-9746-ff3a02605b7b&f=05&fg=copy
http://www.myspace.com/gcchoir
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Go here--
to see my alma mater's choir singing exquisite choral music --and from there you can link to some other college choirs --and Jars of Clay --the Dove Award winning contemporary Christian group who got their start as musicians at Greenville.
The software is not working well, so if there are no links -copy and paste the following addresses into the address bar. The first is for the Today Show and the second is the choir music site.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1c17d7e6-ab83-4773-9746-ff3a02605b7b&f=05&fg=copy
http://www.myspace.com/gcchoir
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
WHAT IF WE PRAYED???
What if even the unbelievers --and all the believers --would pray for peace? and for the safety of our soldiers and the civilians --and the ones who were recently kidnapped? What if even the scoffers and skeptics would get on their knees and say something like:
"Father God --if you are OUT there --PLEASE HELP US NOW! Forgive us our sins --show us what they are - that we may truly repent! Show us yourself and your Truth --and help us. Soften the hearts of the tyrants in Iran, in No. Korea, in China and Cuba. Soften the hearts of Osama and the Taliban and the imams and mullahs who are preaching hatred. Bring peace to Jerusalem! And just in case the Christians are right and the Bible is true --I pray all this in the name of Jesus --because you said that what we ask in Jesus' name will be done according to your will. You said the prayers of righteous people avail much. We fall short of your standard and plead for your mercy. We are unworthy but ask you to please protect us from diseases, the hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, droughts, famine, tsunamis, volcanos, global warming and fires --and could you please return the honey bees that we may have the blessings of the harvest you have so faithfully given us for years? We'll give you all the praise. In the name of Jesus we pray these things. AMEN."
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
"Father God --if you are OUT there --PLEASE HELP US NOW! Forgive us our sins --show us what they are - that we may truly repent! Show us yourself and your Truth --and help us. Soften the hearts of the tyrants in Iran, in No. Korea, in China and Cuba. Soften the hearts of Osama and the Taliban and the imams and mullahs who are preaching hatred. Bring peace to Jerusalem! And just in case the Christians are right and the Bible is true --I pray all this in the name of Jesus --because you said that what we ask in Jesus' name will be done according to your will. You said the prayers of righteous people avail much. We fall short of your standard and plead for your mercy. We are unworthy but ask you to please protect us from diseases, the hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, droughts, famine, tsunamis, volcanos, global warming and fires --and could you please return the honey bees that we may have the blessings of the harvest you have so faithfully given us for years? We'll give you all the praise. In the name of Jesus we pray these things. AMEN."
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
JERRY FALWELL --MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, EDUCATOR, ADMINISTRATOR, PATRIOT, ACTIVIST
I respected Falwell, agreed with him, and noted that he mellowed and learned how to be less strident in addressing opposition through the years.
He would have been more popular if he had been a slender, more handsome man --like Billy Graham. Probably would have lived longer, too. Fortunately, Jesus says that while man looks on the outside, God looks at our hearts. We are often the losers when we refuse a messenger of God because of his appearance.
Falwell didn't pretend to be perfect, but no one was able to accuse him of scandal of any kind that I ever heard about. He did leave quite a legacy in his very successful University.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
He would have been more popular if he had been a slender, more handsome man --like Billy Graham. Probably would have lived longer, too. Fortunately, Jesus says that while man looks on the outside, God looks at our hearts. We are often the losers when we refuse a messenger of God because of his appearance.
Falwell didn't pretend to be perfect, but no one was able to accuse him of scandal of any kind that I ever heard about. He did leave quite a legacy in his very successful University.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
TRANSGENDERING --still a mental illness --desire for mutilated, dysfunctional body
Last night on MSNBC, there was a documentary about transgenders. The American Psychiatric Ass'n. (or whatever it's called) says this is a mental problem. Supposedly they previously ruled that homosexual orientation was NOT a mental illness --but I know many pschiatrists would disagree with that who say the APA is run by politics on this topic.
Transgenders' Lament: Because doctors don't recognize transgendering as a condition to be accommodated with surgery, they can't get coverage. San Francisco, however, does cover transgender surgery for its employees and that may be a sign of coverage to come.
Sadly, these young people, who would have been fine looking, normal-looking heteros given time to mature, got it in their heads at early ages that they were in the wrong bodies. One afr. american fellow (wannabe girl) never realized that one could cross over and pass with the help of surgery --to be the other sex--until he got out in the world and saw a transgender performance in NYC. So he is working on being a girl in every way he can, waiting for surgery.
It was sad to see normal-looking little boys and little girls growing up to want to mutilate themselves to become the opposite sex --given that while homosex is a difficult and sometimes lonely lifestyle --transgendering has to be even worse for dating. A transgendered female (boy to girl) proably can't bear children --and in one rare case of a TGgirl with a normal hetero boyfriend, she still had her male equipment. There just aren't very many normal males who want a girl with a penis instead of a uterus. And we know that some fellows who find out the girl who enticed them is really a guy underneath the clothes --have turned violent, repulsed that they've been chasing a bio-male --at least turned off.
One therapist was a girl turned male --who wanted to be with males --so was in appearance a guy and oriented to guys like a girl --but really a girl genetically.
Transgender social life includes a sorority/fraternity in many cities called "Ballroom" --I thought they meant dancing --I'm thinking otherwise. The fixation is on the sexual equipment, having it or not having it. Wanting to be something God did not make them to be. So their whole lives revolve around this preoccupation. The activities of the Ballroom social life of allnight parties in elaborate clothing were totally sex-focused, superficial, based on looks and sexual attributes --maybe no more so than a beauty pageant --except the activities were outlandish, to say the least.
I found it VERY interesting that one transgender boy (formerly a girl) plays on the girls' soccer team --because "he" would be too small --his body would only be right for the girls' team. So what about other small boys? Can they apply to play soccer on the girls' team? Since we've let girls play footbal with guys, have we already paved the way for all teams to be sexually integrated --and why not let all small guys play on the girls' teams? But then won't girls lose team spaces to boys with their greater athletic prowess despite size, and the whole idea of sports for girls will be eroded because of small guys and transgender "guys" on hormones --who will get all the team spaces. So we'll have basketball teams by height for short people and soccer for small guys and another team for girls --and more and more competition for team times and games and sports monies.
If you wonder how kids could grow up wanting to transgender, all you have to do is find an Oprah forum on the topic --where mothers write in and wonder if their kid is a transgender because he likes the color pink --because he likes to wear her high heels, carry a purse and put scrunchies on a towel on his head --pretending to have long hair, likes to put on Mom's make up and jewelry, etc. etc. Then if there is a father, he is incensed that mom is feminizing the boy by just allowing him to identify with her interests instead of encouraging male identity --because she doesn't realize she has a role --nor does he know how to manifest HIS role as a father toward a baby who quite naturally would play with make up and let his mom and sister put nail polish on him --just to entertain him.
Parents are the key when kids want to transgender. They need to celebrate the child's given gender and delight in it --passing that joy on to the child. There are ways. How many mothers bad-mouth men to their kids? No wonder some little boys would want to be women. LIkewise, I know of an irritable brow-beating husband --whose daughter was lesbian.
There is no one road that leads to Rome in sexual identity issues. But parents should do all they can to deliberately guide their children's sexual self-image toward normalcy, especially in this age of cultural confusion on sexual identity.
A person on the program said we shouldn't be looking for a cause --but figure out how to accommodate these youth so they can live happily. But they CAN'T LIVE HAPPILY --EVER --being in such basic rebellion against how God made them to be--exchanging perfectly healthy bodies for mutilated ones and mega doses of hormones to change their secondary sexual characteristics --thus living a charade that isolates them romantically from most normal men and women. Maybe I don't have enough faith in med. technology, but can a transgender male ever father a child --can a transgendered female ever have a womb and give birth? What a hormonal mess that would be.
I say, yes we SHOULD look for a cause --to prevent this preoccupation in children and this desire for self-mutilation and bio-dysfunction. It's preposterous that ANY so-called experts would encourage cross-gendering in children --before those children's normal hormones have kicked in. Kids don't know WHAT they want, really, because they haven't the maturity or the life experience to make such an important, life-altering decision for themselves. Children of 5 or 6, e.g., have no idea what their sex organs are for --nor any idea of normal or good sexual experience. This is not the age to let them make this choice by allowing them to cross-dress, etc. I'm sorry to be so insulting, but such experts are IDIOTS!!!! All sexual self-image problems are cases of "arrested development," --except when there is a chromosomal abnormality or ambiguous genital development--which is extremely rare. These are the ones entitled to confusion who may have choices to make, including surgery. The best thing is to go with the hormones you are given. There is nothing abnormal about the original hormone levels of homosexuals and transgenders.
And a final question--why should anyone spend the money for this kind of self-mutilation--to exchange a healthy body for a dysfunctional one? And why should insurance money or taxes ever cover such expense, when the whole world suffers from curable life-threatening diseases for lack of basic immunizations and preventative care?
It's a self-indulgent preoccupation. Transgenders need to "get a life" --and get to the root of the pain over the way God made their bodies to be male or female.
An interesting case study in the area of sexual identity is Rosie O'Donnell. She was a delightful lady in her first show, fun and good-natured. Since coming out of the closet, she walks like a Mack truck and thinks she has to be mad and assertive all the time --trying to be manly, I guess. Maybe she's taking male hormones.
Any good actor can act like the opposite sex --and that's what this is all about -charades and mutilation based on a mis-guided preference to be the opposite sex.
The program did report honestly that there is no known bio-cause for transgender desire (or homosexual orientation)--only speculation about hormonal washes of the fetus during pregnancy. I think it's like homosexuality; you can find reasons for desire to be the other sex or to be with the other sex in one's upbringing and childhood experiences, in a child's imagination, lack of knowledge, or misunderstanding of childish sexual feelings.
One possibility: if a mother watches Oprah, daytime TV, and her child sees children on TV wanting to be the other sex as though it were a legitimate desire, the child will think he/she HAS a choice to transgender --and the mother will think so, too.
Oprah's experts told them to accommodate the child's cross-dressing, transgender toys and play interests, rather than channeling them toward a sex identity that would match their bodies, genes and hormones.
There is so much culture to counter!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Transgenders' Lament: Because doctors don't recognize transgendering as a condition to be accommodated with surgery, they can't get coverage. San Francisco, however, does cover transgender surgery for its employees and that may be a sign of coverage to come.
Sadly, these young people, who would have been fine looking, normal-looking heteros given time to mature, got it in their heads at early ages that they were in the wrong bodies. One afr. american fellow (wannabe girl) never realized that one could cross over and pass with the help of surgery --to be the other sex--until he got out in the world and saw a transgender performance in NYC. So he is working on being a girl in every way he can, waiting for surgery.
It was sad to see normal-looking little boys and little girls growing up to want to mutilate themselves to become the opposite sex --given that while homosex is a difficult and sometimes lonely lifestyle --transgendering has to be even worse for dating. A transgendered female (boy to girl) proably can't bear children --and in one rare case of a TGgirl with a normal hetero boyfriend, she still had her male equipment. There just aren't very many normal males who want a girl with a penis instead of a uterus. And we know that some fellows who find out the girl who enticed them is really a guy underneath the clothes --have turned violent, repulsed that they've been chasing a bio-male --at least turned off.
One therapist was a girl turned male --who wanted to be with males --so was in appearance a guy and oriented to guys like a girl --but really a girl genetically.
Transgender social life includes a sorority/fraternity in many cities called "Ballroom" --I thought they meant dancing --I'm thinking otherwise. The fixation is on the sexual equipment, having it or not having it. Wanting to be something God did not make them to be. So their whole lives revolve around this preoccupation. The activities of the Ballroom social life of allnight parties in elaborate clothing were totally sex-focused, superficial, based on looks and sexual attributes --maybe no more so than a beauty pageant --except the activities were outlandish, to say the least.
I found it VERY interesting that one transgender boy (formerly a girl) plays on the girls' soccer team --because "he" would be too small --his body would only be right for the girls' team. So what about other small boys? Can they apply to play soccer on the girls' team? Since we've let girls play footbal with guys, have we already paved the way for all teams to be sexually integrated --and why not let all small guys play on the girls' teams? But then won't girls lose team spaces to boys with their greater athletic prowess despite size, and the whole idea of sports for girls will be eroded because of small guys and transgender "guys" on hormones --who will get all the team spaces. So we'll have basketball teams by height for short people and soccer for small guys and another team for girls --and more and more competition for team times and games and sports monies.
If you wonder how kids could grow up wanting to transgender, all you have to do is find an Oprah forum on the topic --where mothers write in and wonder if their kid is a transgender because he likes the color pink --because he likes to wear her high heels, carry a purse and put scrunchies on a towel on his head --pretending to have long hair, likes to put on Mom's make up and jewelry, etc. etc. Then if there is a father, he is incensed that mom is feminizing the boy by just allowing him to identify with her interests instead of encouraging male identity --because she doesn't realize she has a role --nor does he know how to manifest HIS role as a father toward a baby who quite naturally would play with make up and let his mom and sister put nail polish on him --just to entertain him.
Parents are the key when kids want to transgender. They need to celebrate the child's given gender and delight in it --passing that joy on to the child. There are ways. How many mothers bad-mouth men to their kids? No wonder some little boys would want to be women. LIkewise, I know of an irritable brow-beating husband --whose daughter was lesbian.
There is no one road that leads to Rome in sexual identity issues. But parents should do all they can to deliberately guide their children's sexual self-image toward normalcy, especially in this age of cultural confusion on sexual identity.
A person on the program said we shouldn't be looking for a cause --but figure out how to accommodate these youth so they can live happily. But they CAN'T LIVE HAPPILY --EVER --being in such basic rebellion against how God made them to be--exchanging perfectly healthy bodies for mutilated ones and mega doses of hormones to change their secondary sexual characteristics --thus living a charade that isolates them romantically from most normal men and women. Maybe I don't have enough faith in med. technology, but can a transgender male ever father a child --can a transgendered female ever have a womb and give birth? What a hormonal mess that would be.
I say, yes we SHOULD look for a cause --to prevent this preoccupation in children and this desire for self-mutilation and bio-dysfunction. It's preposterous that ANY so-called experts would encourage cross-gendering in children --before those children's normal hormones have kicked in. Kids don't know WHAT they want, really, because they haven't the maturity or the life experience to make such an important, life-altering decision for themselves. Children of 5 or 6, e.g., have no idea what their sex organs are for --nor any idea of normal or good sexual experience. This is not the age to let them make this choice by allowing them to cross-dress, etc. I'm sorry to be so insulting, but such experts are IDIOTS!!!! All sexual self-image problems are cases of "arrested development," --except when there is a chromosomal abnormality or ambiguous genital development--which is extremely rare. These are the ones entitled to confusion who may have choices to make, including surgery. The best thing is to go with the hormones you are given. There is nothing abnormal about the original hormone levels of homosexuals and transgenders.
And a final question--why should anyone spend the money for this kind of self-mutilation--to exchange a healthy body for a dysfunctional one? And why should insurance money or taxes ever cover such expense, when the whole world suffers from curable life-threatening diseases for lack of basic immunizations and preventative care?
It's a self-indulgent preoccupation. Transgenders need to "get a life" --and get to the root of the pain over the way God made their bodies to be male or female.
An interesting case study in the area of sexual identity is Rosie O'Donnell. She was a delightful lady in her first show, fun and good-natured. Since coming out of the closet, she walks like a Mack truck and thinks she has to be mad and assertive all the time --trying to be manly, I guess. Maybe she's taking male hormones.
Any good actor can act like the opposite sex --and that's what this is all about -charades and mutilation based on a mis-guided preference to be the opposite sex.
The program did report honestly that there is no known bio-cause for transgender desire (or homosexual orientation)--only speculation about hormonal washes of the fetus during pregnancy. I think it's like homosexuality; you can find reasons for desire to be the other sex or to be with the other sex in one's upbringing and childhood experiences, in a child's imagination, lack of knowledge, or misunderstanding of childish sexual feelings.
One possibility: if a mother watches Oprah, daytime TV, and her child sees children on TV wanting to be the other sex as though it were a legitimate desire, the child will think he/she HAS a choice to transgender --and the mother will think so, too.
Oprah's experts told them to accommodate the child's cross-dressing, transgender toys and play interests, rather than channeling them toward a sex identity that would match their bodies, genes and hormones.
There is so much culture to counter!
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Monday, April 30, 2007
I TOLD YOU SO! --Dems Wasting No Time --showing their true colors
I TELL YOU -THE DEMS ARE KILLING THEMSELVES!
FROM THE AMERICAN FAMILY ASS'N:
A new bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the House of Representatives by homosexual Congressman Barney Frank. The bill (HR 2015) would force organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, day care centers, Christian business owners, adoption agencies, public schools, municipalities and a host of other businesses and organizations to hire homosexual applicants.
ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or "gender identity." Such acts would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties.
The same day that ENDA was introduced, another bill — commonly called the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) — cleared committee for a full vote by the House. The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements.
The intent of the Hate Crimes Act is to give special status to homosexuals. Republicans tried to expand the “protected class” in the bill to include senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses, the military and more. Democrats defeated all amendments, projecting the welfare of homosexuals above other classes of citizens. The House Judiciary Committee then passed the bill on strict party lines —20 Democrats for and 14 Republicans against.
Take Action
Send an e-mail to President Bush asking him to veto ENDA (HR 2015) and the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) bills.
Call your representative and ask him or her to vote against ENDA and the Hate Crimes Act. You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. If you don’t know your representative's name, simply give the operator your address and you will be given his or her name and connected with his or her office.
Forward this e-mail to your pastor, family and friends. Ask your pastor to urge members to send this e-mail and to call your Representative.
Send an email to President Bush
____________________________________
As I predicted --figure skating gay couples in competition with hetero couples may be next. They don't want GENDER as a criterion in hiring either.
The challenge of course will be to prove that failure to hire had something or nothing to do with orientation or gender. The courts will be tied up with the new democrat-created legal messes.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
FROM THE AMERICAN FAMILY ASS'N:
A new bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the House of Representatives by homosexual Congressman Barney Frank. The bill (HR 2015) would force organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, day care centers, Christian business owners, adoption agencies, public schools, municipalities and a host of other businesses and organizations to hire homosexual applicants.
ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or "gender identity." Such acts would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties.
The same day that ENDA was introduced, another bill — commonly called the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) — cleared committee for a full vote by the House. The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements.
The intent of the Hate Crimes Act is to give special status to homosexuals. Republicans tried to expand the “protected class” in the bill to include senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses, the military and more. Democrats defeated all amendments, projecting the welfare of homosexuals above other classes of citizens. The House Judiciary Committee then passed the bill on strict party lines —20 Democrats for and 14 Republicans against.
Take Action
Send an e-mail to President Bush asking him to veto ENDA (HR 2015) and the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) bills.
Call your representative and ask him or her to vote against ENDA and the Hate Crimes Act. You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. If you don’t know your representative's name, simply give the operator your address and you will be given his or her name and connected with his or her office.
Forward this e-mail to your pastor, family and friends. Ask your pastor to urge members to send this e-mail and to call your Representative.
Send an email to President Bush
____________________________________
As I predicted --figure skating gay couples in competition with hetero couples may be next. They don't want GENDER as a criterion in hiring either.
The challenge of course will be to prove that failure to hire had something or nothing to do with orientation or gender. The courts will be tied up with the new democrat-created legal messes.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Sunday, April 29, 2007
DEMS LEAVE US BREATHLESS! House Judiciary Committee Approves Hate Crimes Bill After Rejecting Proposed Amendments
Democrats are losing no time in reminding us of how far left they can be --and why we haven't had a democrat legislature for several years. I think they'll do themselves in with their anti-Biblical Christianity legislation. I hope so, anyway.
A link to the latest on hate crimes legislation:
Religion Clause: House Judiciary Committee Approves Hate Crimes Bill After Rejecting Proposed Amendments
Barb said...
I think the concern is legitimate about the possibility of associating hate crime with liberals' interp of hate speech --because people blogging have already been accused viciously of bigotry akin to racism and Imus-type racist remarks if they quote the Bible or teach any kind of understanding of homosexual origins other than what is considered PC by liberals.
People like Montel have derided ex-gays for suggesting that gays can really change --because, to social liberals, why SHOULD they change since there is nothing wrong or undesirable about homosexual orientation and acts--and since they erroneously believe the orientation is innate from birth rather than cultivated by life experience in formative years.
Talking heads in media and in gay community blast social conservs and Christians in particular for what happened to Matt Shepherd --not allowing anyone to blame homosexuals and their supporters for their crimes against others. Of course matt's killers were not the religious right but a couple of loaded blokes from a bar with a visceral dislike for anyone different from them --hate crime, sure, but would they have loved him any more or made him any less dead if he had not been gay?
Murder is murder and it doesn't matter whom you kill or why--the penalties should be severe --and hatred should be assumed. You don't kill those you love. I see no reason to punish more the killer of a homosexual than the killer of a neighbor or spouse. They all deserve the death penalty. There may be some extenuating circumstances to make courts more lenient --but there is no reason to say hating or killing a gay is worse than hating or killing anyone else.
In Canada and Sweden? it has been criminalized to preach the Bible on homosexuality --such preaching or statements against homosex are called "hate speech" by some college and corporate rules.
Therefore, it's no stretch to see Christians'free speech curtailed, to see persecution of Christians who take a pro morality stance by liberal definitions of "hate crime" as speech.
Sun Apr 29, 05:01:00 PM EDT
A link to the latest on hate crimes legislation:
Religion Clause: House Judiciary Committee Approves Hate Crimes Bill After Rejecting Proposed Amendments
Barb said...
I think the concern is legitimate about the possibility of associating hate crime with liberals' interp of hate speech --because people blogging have already been accused viciously of bigotry akin to racism and Imus-type racist remarks if they quote the Bible or teach any kind of understanding of homosexual origins other than what is considered PC by liberals.
People like Montel have derided ex-gays for suggesting that gays can really change --because, to social liberals, why SHOULD they change since there is nothing wrong or undesirable about homosexual orientation and acts--and since they erroneously believe the orientation is innate from birth rather than cultivated by life experience in formative years.
Talking heads in media and in gay community blast social conservs and Christians in particular for what happened to Matt Shepherd --not allowing anyone to blame homosexuals and their supporters for their crimes against others. Of course matt's killers were not the religious right but a couple of loaded blokes from a bar with a visceral dislike for anyone different from them --hate crime, sure, but would they have loved him any more or made him any less dead if he had not been gay?
Murder is murder and it doesn't matter whom you kill or why--the penalties should be severe --and hatred should be assumed. You don't kill those you love. I see no reason to punish more the killer of a homosexual than the killer of a neighbor or spouse. They all deserve the death penalty. There may be some extenuating circumstances to make courts more lenient --but there is no reason to say hating or killing a gay is worse than hating or killing anyone else.
In Canada and Sweden? it has been criminalized to preach the Bible on homosexuality --such preaching or statements against homosex are called "hate speech" by some college and corporate rules.
Therefore, it's no stretch to see Christians'free speech curtailed, to see persecution of Christians who take a pro morality stance by liberal definitions of "hate crime" as speech.
Sun Apr 29, 05:01:00 PM EDT
Friday, April 27, 2007
LIBERALS BLAST ABSTINENCE SEX ED --by not reporting the whole truth
Comments on the topic of Abstinence Sex Ed. by me and others from Noocular Option blog--starting with the FACTS re: World Magazine's April 26th issue on this topic.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the issue:
I saw in the blade an article that had a box inset showing the age of legality for gun ownership and directions on the process for getting guns, --in article telling how Cho got his guns and ammo --the point was to discuss gun procurement in Ohio and show how easy it is in US. I personally am pretty clueless about guns and never think of having one in my purse--to me this piece of info took me one step closer to knowing how to get started on buying one to protect myself from outraged bloggers --not that I will - but it suggested the idea to me in a motivating way --information is needed to take the next step in any new endeavor.
In the case of value-neutral, non-judgmental, information-only sex ed, they move students closer to the idea to become sexually active --where to get the condom and how to use it as though it's ok for them to become sexually active in jr. high and high school--6th grade or whenever. They BELIEVE religiously in being non-judgmental about any kind of sexual activity regardless of age. The moral they will teach, believe me, is that "you CAN say no." (not you OUGHT to say no for your own good.) They will teach that "no one can tell you what to do with your body" --despite parental and church efforts to do just that --and "Don't have sex until you are ready." ABSOLUTELY a triple whammy of condonement for someone of any age or marital status to have sex.
Here's an excerpt from "safer Choices, level 1" --the comprehensive,, medically accurate curriculum that Senate democrats in Iowa voted in with the help of 3 republicans to replace their abstinence-based curriculum:
"Explain that one person will read the direction on the worksheet while the other practices unrolling a condom over two fingers." Then the reader reads to the partner with the condom,
"As soon as erection occurs...pinch the tip of the condom between thumb and forefinger to get rid of any air pockets and to create a space for the semen during ejaculation. Put the condom against the head of the erect penis..." (I hope the kids are still demonstrating on their fingers?)
The article in World magazine about this (this week's, by the way) said everyone in senate seemed embarrassed, in the hushed chamber -- the reader continued to read aloud "about the genital mechanics that occur just after two people have sex." Someone noted the senators squirmed like red-faced schoolboys. Yet, they found this to be good education for mixed-company-sex-ed with students reading to demo partners; they passed the legislation.
ACTUALLY, the study which was used for media's recent condemnation of abstinence-based sex ed, did NOT say what Planned Parenthood types claimed. Senior researcher at Mathematica Policy who did the research said they found "no evidence" that abstinence programs increase rate of unprotected sex. And they did find that the students in the program COULD identify STD's better than a control group --(they learned about diseases one gets for unprotected sex) --and they knew better than the control group that birth control pills were no protection against the STD's, only pregnancy. This was based on evaluation of 4 programs out of 100's across the nation.
THIS DATA INCLUDED SCHOOLS WHERE AGE 9-11 WERE THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE THE ABSTINENCE EDUCATION --WHICH WAS NOT REINFORCED AT OLDER AGES. tHEY WERE TESTED about their sexual activity a year later and then 5 years later without reinforcing the program in the interim. Obviously, ages 9-11 are a little young to take it all in --the value of abstinence, since the boys aren't even in puberty yet.
The research group's conclusion was not that abstinence education failed --but that "targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient." and said their findings "provide no info on the effects such programs might have if they were implemented for high school youth or began at the earlier ages, but ALSO served youth through high school."
Safer sex lobbyists used the study dishonestly to support their ideas that condoms are the panacea, providing safety while parenthetically telling kids "of course abstinence is safer but we want you to be comfortable knowing just how to use condoms correctly." so bring on the banana demo! --or in this case the sexually explicit, 2-fingered-partner-demo with erotic explicitness about erect penises.
You say, let the parents teach the values --I say, let the parents teach their own LACK of values to counterract the sex ed if that's the case --let the parents encourage their kids with condom demonstrations and put girls on the pill. the school could tell a kid if he's convinced he's going to have pre-marital sex to go see the school nurse and let her demonstrate the banana method. Don't do it to MY kid in mixed company AT ALL --no demonstrations. You can say that condoms are a method of birth control, the only one that provides any protection against disease --but don't demonstrate and don't be morally neutral if you're going to discuss sex with MY kid on my dollar. And that's what sex educators WANT to do all too often -as they march the whole class down to planned parenthood so they'll know where to go for their sex paraphernalia and abortions.
When abortion and pill came in (70's) we had PP as the authority on sex ed and used their approaches and we saw a sea change in our culture that has continued despite abstinence education which has at least helped reinforce the parents who want morality in their youth.
The TV show "Friends" --and many like it --are examples of the cultural result of value- neutral (half-truth)liberal sex ed philosophy--schools may teach abstinence but the tv shows and movies do not --they instead give a false impression that there is no negative fall-out to promiscuous extra-marital sex --that it's the married who have troubles and kill each other and have painful divorces --but the promiscuous just bed hop gleefully without consequence. Both sides of the debate agree that the culture promotes free sex --but we don't agree what our response should be with other people's kids.
The conclusion of the research group was that a one shot sex ed dose was not enough as in these programs --that they should have reinforcment at other grade levels. Because they did conclude that where these 4 programs were used, the programs did not delay age of first intercourse for most of them nor limit number of partners. (what if the control group was a church group and the abstinence study group was an inner city group --then the similarities in onset and number of partners would be commendable --both having been taught abstinence --one at home and one at school.)
Fact is that 15 previous evaluations supported the superior effectiveness of abstinence education in reducing promiscuity, pregnancies and raising age of first intercourse--compared to control groups --and compared to the youth prior to abstinence curriculum --during PP sex ed. I remember that Teen Aid was taught in a jr. high in CA. that had an extremely high pregnancy rate in jr. high --after Teen Aid, the stats turned around.
In "MY" ideal class, they would learn also that condoms don't cover broken hearts or HPV (venereal wart potential and the cervical cancer that comes with) and that women should have annual PAPs no matter what their activity level or partner's known history --and that condoms have a percentage of failure rate that would keep you off any airplane.
In my program, the girls in separate classes would also learn how to better protect themselves from predators and rapists, and to go to hospital immediately after a rape without bathing to prevent pregnancy and catch a rapist by collecting the dna. They would learn the value of birth and nursing babies --even in late teens rather than later provides optimal protection against breast cancer --but I would give them all the reasons to delay sex until marriage and achieve some educational goals first ideally --admitting that most today don't wait for the wedding and thus take some additional risks with their relationship by not waiting. the value of monogamous marriage would be stressed --the role of functional marriage as the best mental health unit in the country for the couple and their offspring--the harm and dangers of pornography --how porn and illicit sex can become addictive and harm chances for future happiness--the fact that a male, especially, is normal if he's thinking about sex most of the time --and wanting it --but how putting off the pursuit until maturity, after education and marriage, will pay big dividends --how early sexual activity can short-circuit one's marital and educational potential --and health.
At the same time, I would tell kids that it is preferable to marry earlier rather than co- habit or sleep together --even though all acadmeic and financial goals are not met. Couples used to marry right after high school or during college, either because a baby was on the way or they didn't want one to arrive before marriage and they couldn't wait for sex --opportunity being prevalent after they had cars and lack of chaperonage in homes, colleges, and boarding houses --all of which used to promote and chaperone for chastity to protect a young lady's reputation as a virgin.
I'd give a mini-marital relationship course --not to impose on their parents but to use for themselves in the future. And encourage churches as free resources for books, etc. on marrige.
April 26, 07 --the World magazine source.
_________________________________
What follows is the rest of our discussion from the start-- about Nookular's cartoon of a pregnant girl in graduation gown.
Barb:
For awhile, the teen pregnancy rate DID go down after abstinence education replaced value-free, morally neutral sex ed and after welfare reform said girls would not be paid for every additional baby nor supported staying home indefinitely.
Even the Montel tv show took a stand --I remember when Montel faced off with a mom on welfare with several children. She said, "if the gov't can pay to send a man to the moon, why can't they pay me to stay home and make more and more beautiful children as I do?" --and Montel said, "Why should I work my behind off to support your kids in addition to my own?" or words to that effect.
There was a lot of protest of the LBJ Great Society and the epidemic of teen moms --yet a nat'l spokesperson for Planned Parenthood told a meeting of area school board members, "We can't tell kids to wait until they are married to have sex because their parents didn't. We'd be stepping on toes." I said at that meeting, that the welfare moms I knew wish they DID have a faithful, working, loving husband to help them raise their children and that this was an ideal worth advocating and waiting for. i said i didn't think most MOms would disagree. The gentleman sniffed dismissively, giggled and said HE was still exploring his sexuality and poo-poohed the idea of waiting for marriage.
Nevertheless, the abstinence programs came in with much nation-wide grass roots effort --and stats were really good with some programs --where schools REALLY taught it effectively (TEEN AID had great stats reducing jr. high pregnancies in one CA district) --which I suspect is not being done now with our worse stats. Another program was Sex Respect. Some of them involved take home pages to share with parents.
I've never thought we needed any million dollar programs, however, to just tell people the ideals to strive for which make for stable marriages and happy futures. A Creative and resourceful health teacher/sex educator ought to be able to make up good curriculum within certain guidelines. I used to observe that most sex ed. and other education monies got spent on staff dinners for the board, administration and later, the staff, with a speaker from the Red Cross or PP.
Also contributing to the increase in teen sex activity are family-watched TV programs like Friends and Seinfeld and some reality shows--which make casual (and promiscuous) sex seem natural, commonplace, inconsequential, inevitable and harmless.
I suggest that if the stats have slipped --if we have more teen moms again--it's the culture --and perhaps the way some schools implement their sex ed programs. For awhile, they were finding that a combined church effort with abstinence pledges and the school abstinence sex ed, the youth, on average, were at least delaying onset of sexual activity by a couple of years.
posted by: Barb on Sat, 4/21 01:19 AM EDT
PS--you guys are too young to remember when GRID ( gay-related-immune deficiency, now AIDs), HPV, Herpes were the epidemics that surprised the Sexual Revolution of the 70's. Previously, nearly all the most common STD's had been curable with penicillen.
Playboy clubs and the soft-core porn magazine suddenly were respectable and mainstream among the middle and upper class businessmen; sports illustrated had their swimsuit edition; Larry Flynn and Hugh Hefner were celebrity porn kings; Sex ed was value neutral (ed. message to teens: "No one can decide for you what is right for you." Parents said, "what? not your church or parents? --it's all your choice? from a smorgasbord of options?" the liberal credo prevailed -- "no one can define morality for others."
So we saw diseases galore --teens on birth control pills, and then came the condom emphasis ---but condoms weren't very reliable. The illustration was given by abstinence advocates --would you fly an airplane that had a 20 per cent (whatever it was) failure rate in preventing pregnancy, etc.? And also, condoms can't prevent or mend broken hearts.
Sexually active teens in love who get dumped are going through their own divorces --considered to be one of the higher causes of teen suicide. We knew of an attempted suicide that left a wonderful, bright girl blind --and I understood the issue was a broken love relationship.
I know this is long --but I think it's relevant and VERY important as we talk about sex ed policy.
posted by: Barb on Sat, 4/21 01:46 AM EDT
I agree it's important to discuss sex ed. What I don't agree with is abstinence only policies. Apparently when states agree to accept fed money for these programs, they give up the option of teaching safe sex practices in unison. Now that studies have shown that abstinence-only programs don't work, I think it's important that we stop wasting taxpayer money with these programs
posted by: Chris on Mon, 4/23 12:10 PM EDT
Problem is, Chris, the other kind of sex ed (value free and often explicit) and putting daughter on the pill --were in vogue when the teen pregnancy rates were highest. So condoning, non-judgmental methods of presenting birth control methods, do not work either.
I remember seeing a sex ed film where the guy had a key to his relative's vacant apartment and he wanted his girlfriend to go there with him. And the lesson was --that they were smart and responsible to go to the drugstore and get condoms and spermicide.
Another film for jr. high showed VD germs as little animated, villainous macho soldiers with evil grins --boys would identify with them, I figured.
Another featured a teen boy who had many contacts --and he was featured as responsible and good when he found out and told all of them that he had an STD.
Another film featured all these famous people throughout history who were said to have had STD's. message: it's common --inevitable --normal.
I really wonder how they teach the abstinence material --with what enthusiasm and thoroughness. If the teacher doesn't believe in it, that will be evident.
Will the sex educator teach that early sex activity is risky to their emotional health and their ability to stay happily and monogamously married some day? that they could wear out their "perma-bondability" --like sticky tape that has been used too much.
Will they teach that 2 virgins who marry one another will likely never have an STD --(granted other rare methods of getting AIDS, etc.)
What is the message with a 6th grade or jr. high sex ed class that demonstrates how to put a condom on a banana --or says the school nurse has condoms if you think you need them. Is it good to tell youth that they are expected to say yes early in adolescence --that condoms will make them safe?
Have you heard of the Boston sex ed conventions promoting dental dams for oral sex and various ways to have orgasmic activity "safely"? Absolutely without any suggestions that promiscuous, early sex activity is just plain foolish --harmful--dangerous -short-circuiting to your potential to be happily, monogamously married some day --will they tell them that having sex early feels like divorce when you break up? that condoms can't cure a broken heart.
We know now that condoms are the only protection from disease (and some vaccinations for hepatitis and now, hpv) --and condoms aren't that reliable--and using them correctly in the throes of passion is unlikely for the inexperienced --better to avoid the experience until much later.
It is better to teach that waiting for marriage is not only possible but best for your future happiness and health. And that if you are going to risk your future, at least use condoms, get vaccinations, and consider the pill in case of condom failure--which won't prevent disease. I would also recommend teaching to girls that rape victims should go straight to the ER immediately without bathing to prevent pregnancy and identify DNA of rapist.
Dobson also said to have sex ed separate for girls and boys because there are natural barriers of privacy that can be --but should not be --eroded by co-ed sex ed. It's also embarrassing --should be embarrassing --to discuss private body parts, developing breasts and acne in front of the opposite sex when you are young and obviously going through those changes while they talk about it on the films.
I remember the product of co-ed sex ed who went around the school bus asking 6th grade girls if they had pubic hair yet --on the field trip for gifted kids.
If anybody thinks my explicit language here is inappropriate --imagine it with the kids.
posted by: Barb on Mon, 4/23 01:53 PM EDT
By the way, the small type of your new blogsite is probably going to discourage or at least cause more eyestrain to the over 40 crowd --whose eyes start to change and become more far-sighted --
posted by: Barb on Mon, 4/23 01:54 PM EDT
Barb, your evidence on sex ed programs not working seems anecdotal. I think we need to look at the goals of the intended programs. Sex ed, I believe, isn't intended to tell children "don't do it". I think that's the parent's job. It's supposed to educate them on not getting diseases or getting pregnant. If there are studies showing that, for instance, children taking sex ed classes are just as likely to get diseases or pregnant than those that don't participate in these classes....then I would have to come to the same conclusion (they don't work). But I haven't seen such studies come out. But we have seen the contrary evidence on abstinece-only.
p.s. sorry for the small type!
posted by: Chris on Tue, 4/24 09:49 AM EDT
Let me add, and I'm sure Chris would agree, that any decent sex-ed program should promote abstinence as the first and best choice. What we're opposed to is abstinence-ONLY sex-ed, which is really not "sex-ed" at all. There are good and bad decisions to be made once a person decides to forgo cellibacy, and I think sex-ed should prepare young adults to make the better choices. Of course, in a perfect world, my daughter would wait 'till she's married. But, if she does not, and the odds are she won't, I'd prefer that her behaviors were as risk-averse as possible. That will involve knowledge of birth control methods, and measures to lower the risk of disease.
posted by: Don on Tue, 4/24 12:38 PM EDT
The anecdotal material I posted was about actual sex ed films I have seen in public schools in Lucas Co. during the value-neutral phase of sex ed. I've been reading reports on sex ed and results now for at least 20 plus years and I KNOW that value-free sex ed with the planned parenthood approach was a statistical disaster --in combination with LBJ's Great Society pay for every baby born out of wedlock to a teen --which became an intergenerational source of family income. During the sexual revolution of the 70's and the PP style sex ed, pregnancy rates among unmarried teens skyrocketed in comparison to the 50's.
If I recall, The rate was something like 1 out of 40 white girls in the early 60's --and that figure went to 1 out of 5 --from 2 1/2 % to 20 per cent. For afr. am. girls it was 4 out of 10 and it rose to 8 out of 10 --girls pregnant before marriage. 40 % to 80 %. approx. I used to have those figures memorized for sure --this is pretty close from the 60's to the 90's.
There are several issues here:
Really protective parents who manage to keep their children young, who monitor their tv and movies, music and internet use --don't want the public schools, on their tax monies, to "sophisticate" our children, give them sexual PERMISSION by their sex ed approaches --permission to be sexually active as a teen --by a NON-JUDGMENTAL approach which said, "Yes, abstinence is best --but you'll probably not wait, and here are the ways to use condoms, where to get them; we'll give them to you, --and by the way --you should wait until YOU ARE READY to have sex. No one can tell you what to do with your body --etc. etc. You can say no." Of course, kids "feel ready to have sex" before they SHOULD have sex. So what kind of advice was that??? Some feel ready at 13 and the sex educators imply that's ok AS LONG AS YOU USE PROTECTION.
Well, it's not ok in the view of responsible parents. We want them WARNED about sexual activity outside of marriage --and told all the BENEFITS of waiting for marriage --the importance of monogamy and fidelity --the perma-bondability factor --the fact that if you find it easy to take your pants off with a series of different people, this could be a problem for you forever. That chastity is the best road to a happy marriage with a good sex life. This is simply true for people who follow Biblical precepts of love and respect, who work at the marriages for their children's sake as well as their own.
I kept my kids out of co-ed sex ed classes in public school after I saw their lousy movies and listened to the counselors and Planned Parenthood-style (and Red Cross-style, also) sex educators and looked at the life skills courses they wanted to buy and did buy. I used Focus on the Family materials, a tape series, as I recall.
I want schools to do sex education --not co-ed --and not condoning pre-marital sex. Our society sanctions marriage as the rightful place for sexual activity. I said, "If you can't wait, get married." The other thing is chaperonage --but yes, anybody's kids can get around the parents and the rules and teachings.
So I would teach, if you are going to be sexually active, see your doctor for the birth control pill AND use condoms. But you will be wisest if you don't say yes to pre-marital sex. Once you have the first experience, you can not save it for your bride or groom. There is something wonderful about knowing that you and your spouse were the first and only --if you work to make a good marriage. There are no memories of other people in your marital bed.
today, most parents are blinded --especially by their daughters --seeing them as more mature and level headed than they are sometimes. They can't imagine their daughters wanting to have sex and they overly trust them because they LOOK and act virtuous and mature. They talk about their trust and their certainty that their kids couldn't get the cart before the horse --when, in fact, they have so much opportunity to indulge temptation these days --with parents out of the houses, colleges that make no pretense of being parentis in locis who try to protect virtue by curfews and chaperoning. At least the EFFORT of chaperoning by parents and school --sets a standard.
The lack of standards today is surely a factor in the high promiscuity and divorce rate, i imagine. I can't get over how many young women are leaving their husbands for other men--and husbands are getting custody. meanwhile, husbands are slaves to computer porn, which doesn't help monogamous marriage either.
posted by: Barb on Wed, 4/25 12:40 AM EDT
Barb, it sound like we are stuck on the issue of education vs. condonement. Surely schools can teach without condoning. I would bet that most responsible parents would favor sex ed taught in unison with an abstinence slant. I doubt that teaching only one or the other would be effective.
posted by: Chris on Wed, 4/25 10:42 AM EDT
Here's the issue:
I saw in the blade an article that had a box inset showing the age of legality for gun ownership and directions on the process for getting guns, --in article telling how Cho got his guns and ammo --the point was to discuss gun procurement in Ohio and show how easy it is in US. I personally am pretty clueless about guns and never think of having one in my purse--to me this piece of info took me one step closer to knowing how to get started on buying one to protect myself from outraged bloggers --not that I will - but it suggested the idea to me in a motivating way --information is needed to take the next step in any new endeavor.
In the case of value-neutral, non-judgmental, information-only sex ed, they move students closer to the idea to become sexually active --where to get the condom and how to use it as though it's ok for them to become sexually active in jr. high and high school--6th grade or whenever. They BELIEVE religiously in being non-judgmental about any kind of sexual activity regardless of age. The moral they will teach, believe me, is that "you CAN say no." (not you OUGHT to say no for your own good.) They will teach that "no one can tell you what to do with your body" --despite parental and church efforts to do just that --and "Don't have sex until you are ready." ABSOLUTELY a triple whammy of condonement for someone of any age or marital status to have sex.
Here's an excerpt from "safer Choices, level 1" --the comprehensive,, medically accurate curriculum that Senate democrats in Iowa voted in with the help of 3 republicans to replace their abstinence-based curriculum:
"Explain that one person will read the direction on the worksheet while the other practices unrolling a condom over two fingers." Then the reader reads to the partner with the condom,
"As soon as erection occurs...pinch the tip of the condom between thumb and forefinger to get rid of any air pockets and to create a space for the semen during ejaculation. Put the condom against the head of the erect penis..." (I hope the kids are still demonstrating on their fingers?)
The article in World magazine about this (this week's, by the way) said everyone in senate seemed embarrassed, in the hushed chamber -- the reader continued to read aloud "about the genital mechanics that occur just after two people have sex." Someone noted the senators squirmed like red-faced schoolboys. Yet, they found this to be good education for mixed-company-sex-ed with students reading to demo partners; they passed the legislation.
ACTUALLY, the study which was used for media's recent condemnation of abstinence-based sex ed, did NOT say what Planned Parenthood types claimed. Senior researcher at Mathematica Policy who did the research said they found "no evidence" that abstinence programs increase rate of unprotected sex. And they did find that the students in the program COULD identify STD's better than a control group --(they learned about diseases one gets for unprotected sex) --and they knew better than the control group that birth control pills were no protection against the STD's, only pregnancy. This was based on evaluation of 4 programs out of 100's across the nation.
THIS DATA INCLUDED SCHOOLS WHERE AGE 9-11 WERE THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE THE ABSTINENCE EDUCATION --WHICH WAS NOT REINFORCED AT OLDER AGES. tHEY WERE TESTED about their sexual activity a year later and then 5 years later without reinforcing the program in the interim. Obviously, ages 9-11 are a little young to take it all in --the value of abstinence, since the boys aren't even in puberty yet.
The research group's conclusion was not that abstinence education failed --but that "targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient." and said their findings "provide no info on the effects such programs might have if they were implemented for high school youth or began at the earlier ages, but ALSO served youth through high school."
Safer sex lobbyists used the study dishonestly to support their ideas that condoms are the panacea, providing safety while parenthetically telling kids "of course abstinence is safer but we want you to be comfortable knowing just how to use condoms correctly." so bring on the banana demo! --or in this case the sexually explicit, 2-fingered-partner-demo with erotic explicitness about erect penises.
You say, let the parents teach the values --I say, let the parents teach their own LACK of values to counterract the sex ed if that's the case --let the parents encourage their kids with condom demonstrations and put girls on the pill. the school could tell a kid if he's convinced he's going to have pre-marital sex to go see the school nurse and let her demonstrate the banana method. Don't do it to MY kid in mixed company AT ALL --no demonstrations. You can say that condoms are a method of birth control, the only one that provides any protection against disease --but don't demonstrate and don't be morally neutral if you're going to discuss sex with MY kid on my dollar. And that's what sex educators WANT to do all too often -as they march the whole class down to planned parenthood so they'll know where to go for their sex paraphernalia and abortions.
When abortion and pill came in (70's) we had PP as the authority on sex ed and used their approaches and we saw a sea change in our culture that has continued despite abstinence education which has at least helped reinforce the parents who want morality in their youth.
The TV show "Friends" --and many like it --are examples of the cultural result of value- neutral (half-truth)liberal sex ed philosophy--schools may teach abstinence but the tv shows and movies do not --they instead give a false impression that there is no negative fall-out to promiscuous extra-marital sex --that it's the married who have troubles and kill each other and have painful divorces --but the promiscuous just bed hop gleefully without consequence. Both sides of the debate agree that the culture promotes free sex --but we don't agree what our response should be with other people's kids.
The conclusion of the research group was that a one shot sex ed dose was not enough as in these programs --that they should have reinforcment at other grade levels. Because they did conclude that where these 4 programs were used, the programs did not delay age of first intercourse for most of them nor limit number of partners. (what if the control group was a church group and the abstinence study group was an inner city group --then the similarities in onset and number of partners would be commendable --both having been taught abstinence --one at home and one at school.)
Fact is that 15 previous evaluations supported the superior effectiveness of abstinence education in reducing promiscuity, pregnancies and raising age of first intercourse--compared to control groups --and compared to the youth prior to abstinence curriculum --during PP sex ed. I remember that Teen Aid was taught in a jr. high in CA. that had an extremely high pregnancy rate in jr. high --after Teen Aid, the stats turned around.
In "MY" ideal class, they would learn also that condoms don't cover broken hearts or HPV (venereal wart potential and the cervical cancer that comes with) and that women should have annual PAPs no matter what their activity level or partner's known history --and that condoms have a percentage of failure rate that would keep you off any airplane.
In my program, the girls in separate classes would also learn how to better protect themselves from predators and rapists, and to go to hospital immediately after a rape without bathing to prevent pregnancy and catch a rapist by collecting the dna. They would learn the value of birth and nursing babies --even in late teens rather than later provides optimal protection against breast cancer --but I would give them all the reasons to delay sex until marriage and achieve some educational goals first ideally --admitting that most today don't wait for the wedding and thus take some additional risks with their relationship by not waiting. the value of monogamous marriage would be stressed --the role of functional marriage as the best mental health unit in the country for the couple and their offspring--the harm and dangers of pornography --how porn and illicit sex can become addictive and harm chances for future happiness--the fact that a male, especially, is normal if he's thinking about sex most of the time --and wanting it --but how putting off the pursuit until maturity, after education and marriage, will pay big dividends --how early sexual activity can short-circuit one's marital and educational potential --and health.
At the same time, I would tell kids that it is preferable to marry earlier rather than co- habit or sleep together --even though all acadmeic and financial goals are not met. Couples used to marry right after high school or during college, either because a baby was on the way or they didn't want one to arrive before marriage and they couldn't wait for sex --opportunity being prevalent after they had cars and lack of chaperonage in homes, colleges, and boarding houses --all of which used to promote and chaperone for chastity to protect a young lady's reputation as a virgin.
I'd give a mini-marital relationship course --not to impose on their parents but to use for themselves in the future. And encourage churches as free resources for books, etc. on marrige.
April 26, 07 --the World magazine source.
_________________________________
What follows is the rest of our discussion from the start-- about Nookular's cartoon of a pregnant girl in graduation gown.
Barb:
For awhile, the teen pregnancy rate DID go down after abstinence education replaced value-free, morally neutral sex ed and after welfare reform said girls would not be paid for every additional baby nor supported staying home indefinitely.
Even the Montel tv show took a stand --I remember when Montel faced off with a mom on welfare with several children. She said, "if the gov't can pay to send a man to the moon, why can't they pay me to stay home and make more and more beautiful children as I do?" --and Montel said, "Why should I work my behind off to support your kids in addition to my own?" or words to that effect.
There was a lot of protest of the LBJ Great Society and the epidemic of teen moms --yet a nat'l spokesperson for Planned Parenthood told a meeting of area school board members, "We can't tell kids to wait until they are married to have sex because their parents didn't. We'd be stepping on toes." I said at that meeting, that the welfare moms I knew wish they DID have a faithful, working, loving husband to help them raise their children and that this was an ideal worth advocating and waiting for. i said i didn't think most MOms would disagree. The gentleman sniffed dismissively, giggled and said HE was still exploring his sexuality and poo-poohed the idea of waiting for marriage.
Nevertheless, the abstinence programs came in with much nation-wide grass roots effort --and stats were really good with some programs --where schools REALLY taught it effectively (TEEN AID had great stats reducing jr. high pregnancies in one CA district) --which I suspect is not being done now with our worse stats. Another program was Sex Respect. Some of them involved take home pages to share with parents.
I've never thought we needed any million dollar programs, however, to just tell people the ideals to strive for which make for stable marriages and happy futures. A Creative and resourceful health teacher/sex educator ought to be able to make up good curriculum within certain guidelines. I used to observe that most sex ed. and other education monies got spent on staff dinners for the board, administration and later, the staff, with a speaker from the Red Cross or PP.
Also contributing to the increase in teen sex activity are family-watched TV programs like Friends and Seinfeld and some reality shows--which make casual (and promiscuous) sex seem natural, commonplace, inconsequential, inevitable and harmless.
I suggest that if the stats have slipped --if we have more teen moms again--it's the culture --and perhaps the way some schools implement their sex ed programs. For awhile, they were finding that a combined church effort with abstinence pledges and the school abstinence sex ed, the youth, on average, were at least delaying onset of sexual activity by a couple of years.
posted by: Barb on Sat, 4/21 01:19 AM EDT
PS--you guys are too young to remember when GRID ( gay-related-immune deficiency, now AIDs), HPV, Herpes were the epidemics that surprised the Sexual Revolution of the 70's. Previously, nearly all the most common STD's had been curable with penicillen.
Playboy clubs and the soft-core porn magazine suddenly were respectable and mainstream among the middle and upper class businessmen; sports illustrated had their swimsuit edition; Larry Flynn and Hugh Hefner were celebrity porn kings; Sex ed was value neutral (ed. message to teens: "No one can decide for you what is right for you." Parents said, "what? not your church or parents? --it's all your choice? from a smorgasbord of options?" the liberal credo prevailed -- "no one can define morality for others."
So we saw diseases galore --teens on birth control pills, and then came the condom emphasis ---but condoms weren't very reliable. The illustration was given by abstinence advocates --would you fly an airplane that had a 20 per cent (whatever it was) failure rate in preventing pregnancy, etc.? And also, condoms can't prevent or mend broken hearts.
Sexually active teens in love who get dumped are going through their own divorces --considered to be one of the higher causes of teen suicide. We knew of an attempted suicide that left a wonderful, bright girl blind --and I understood the issue was a broken love relationship.
I know this is long --but I think it's relevant and VERY important as we talk about sex ed policy.
posted by: Barb on Sat, 4/21 01:46 AM EDT
I agree it's important to discuss sex ed. What I don't agree with is abstinence only policies. Apparently when states agree to accept fed money for these programs, they give up the option of teaching safe sex practices in unison. Now that studies have shown that abstinence-only programs don't work, I think it's important that we stop wasting taxpayer money with these programs
posted by: Chris on Mon, 4/23 12:10 PM EDT
Problem is, Chris, the other kind of sex ed (value free and often explicit) and putting daughter on the pill --were in vogue when the teen pregnancy rates were highest. So condoning, non-judgmental methods of presenting birth control methods, do not work either.
I remember seeing a sex ed film where the guy had a key to his relative's vacant apartment and he wanted his girlfriend to go there with him. And the lesson was --that they were smart and responsible to go to the drugstore and get condoms and spermicide.
Another film for jr. high showed VD germs as little animated, villainous macho soldiers with evil grins --boys would identify with them, I figured.
Another featured a teen boy who had many contacts --and he was featured as responsible and good when he found out and told all of them that he had an STD.
Another film featured all these famous people throughout history who were said to have had STD's. message: it's common --inevitable --normal.
I really wonder how they teach the abstinence material --with what enthusiasm and thoroughness. If the teacher doesn't believe in it, that will be evident.
Will the sex educator teach that early sex activity is risky to their emotional health and their ability to stay happily and monogamously married some day? that they could wear out their "perma-bondability" --like sticky tape that has been used too much.
Will they teach that 2 virgins who marry one another will likely never have an STD --(granted other rare methods of getting AIDS, etc.)
What is the message with a 6th grade or jr. high sex ed class that demonstrates how to put a condom on a banana --or says the school nurse has condoms if you think you need them. Is it good to tell youth that they are expected to say yes early in adolescence --that condoms will make them safe?
Have you heard of the Boston sex ed conventions promoting dental dams for oral sex and various ways to have orgasmic activity "safely"? Absolutely without any suggestions that promiscuous, early sex activity is just plain foolish --harmful--dangerous -short-circuiting to your potential to be happily, monogamously married some day --will they tell them that having sex early feels like divorce when you break up? that condoms can't cure a broken heart.
We know now that condoms are the only protection from disease (and some vaccinations for hepatitis and now, hpv) --and condoms aren't that reliable--and using them correctly in the throes of passion is unlikely for the inexperienced --better to avoid the experience until much later.
It is better to teach that waiting for marriage is not only possible but best for your future happiness and health. And that if you are going to risk your future, at least use condoms, get vaccinations, and consider the pill in case of condom failure--which won't prevent disease. I would also recommend teaching to girls that rape victims should go straight to the ER immediately without bathing to prevent pregnancy and identify DNA of rapist.
Dobson also said to have sex ed separate for girls and boys because there are natural barriers of privacy that can be --but should not be --eroded by co-ed sex ed. It's also embarrassing --should be embarrassing --to discuss private body parts, developing breasts and acne in front of the opposite sex when you are young and obviously going through those changes while they talk about it on the films.
I remember the product of co-ed sex ed who went around the school bus asking 6th grade girls if they had pubic hair yet --on the field trip for gifted kids.
If anybody thinks my explicit language here is inappropriate --imagine it with the kids.
posted by: Barb on Mon, 4/23 01:53 PM EDT
By the way, the small type of your new blogsite is probably going to discourage or at least cause more eyestrain to the over 40 crowd --whose eyes start to change and become more far-sighted --
posted by: Barb on Mon, 4/23 01:54 PM EDT
Barb, your evidence on sex ed programs not working seems anecdotal. I think we need to look at the goals of the intended programs. Sex ed, I believe, isn't intended to tell children "don't do it". I think that's the parent's job. It's supposed to educate them on not getting diseases or getting pregnant. If there are studies showing that, for instance, children taking sex ed classes are just as likely to get diseases or pregnant than those that don't participate in these classes....then I would have to come to the same conclusion (they don't work). But I haven't seen such studies come out. But we have seen the contrary evidence on abstinece-only.
p.s. sorry for the small type!
posted by: Chris on Tue, 4/24 09:49 AM EDT
Let me add, and I'm sure Chris would agree, that any decent sex-ed program should promote abstinence as the first and best choice. What we're opposed to is abstinence-ONLY sex-ed, which is really not "sex-ed" at all. There are good and bad decisions to be made once a person decides to forgo cellibacy, and I think sex-ed should prepare young adults to make the better choices. Of course, in a perfect world, my daughter would wait 'till she's married. But, if she does not, and the odds are she won't, I'd prefer that her behaviors were as risk-averse as possible. That will involve knowledge of birth control methods, and measures to lower the risk of disease.
posted by: Don on Tue, 4/24 12:38 PM EDT
The anecdotal material I posted was about actual sex ed films I have seen in public schools in Lucas Co. during the value-neutral phase of sex ed. I've been reading reports on sex ed and results now for at least 20 plus years and I KNOW that value-free sex ed with the planned parenthood approach was a statistical disaster --in combination with LBJ's Great Society pay for every baby born out of wedlock to a teen --which became an intergenerational source of family income. During the sexual revolution of the 70's and the PP style sex ed, pregnancy rates among unmarried teens skyrocketed in comparison to the 50's.
If I recall, The rate was something like 1 out of 40 white girls in the early 60's --and that figure went to 1 out of 5 --from 2 1/2 % to 20 per cent. For afr. am. girls it was 4 out of 10 and it rose to 8 out of 10 --girls pregnant before marriage. 40 % to 80 %. approx. I used to have those figures memorized for sure --this is pretty close from the 60's to the 90's.
There are several issues here:
Really protective parents who manage to keep their children young, who monitor their tv and movies, music and internet use --don't want the public schools, on their tax monies, to "sophisticate" our children, give them sexual PERMISSION by their sex ed approaches --permission to be sexually active as a teen --by a NON-JUDGMENTAL approach which said, "Yes, abstinence is best --but you'll probably not wait, and here are the ways to use condoms, where to get them; we'll give them to you, --and by the way --you should wait until YOU ARE READY to have sex. No one can tell you what to do with your body --etc. etc. You can say no." Of course, kids "feel ready to have sex" before they SHOULD have sex. So what kind of advice was that??? Some feel ready at 13 and the sex educators imply that's ok AS LONG AS YOU USE PROTECTION.
Well, it's not ok in the view of responsible parents. We want them WARNED about sexual activity outside of marriage --and told all the BENEFITS of waiting for marriage --the importance of monogamy and fidelity --the perma-bondability factor --the fact that if you find it easy to take your pants off with a series of different people, this could be a problem for you forever. That chastity is the best road to a happy marriage with a good sex life. This is simply true for people who follow Biblical precepts of love and respect, who work at the marriages for their children's sake as well as their own.
I kept my kids out of co-ed sex ed classes in public school after I saw their lousy movies and listened to the counselors and Planned Parenthood-style (and Red Cross-style, also) sex educators and looked at the life skills courses they wanted to buy and did buy. I used Focus on the Family materials, a tape series, as I recall.
I want schools to do sex education --not co-ed --and not condoning pre-marital sex. Our society sanctions marriage as the rightful place for sexual activity. I said, "If you can't wait, get married." The other thing is chaperonage --but yes, anybody's kids can get around the parents and the rules and teachings.
So I would teach, if you are going to be sexually active, see your doctor for the birth control pill AND use condoms. But you will be wisest if you don't say yes to pre-marital sex. Once you have the first experience, you can not save it for your bride or groom. There is something wonderful about knowing that you and your spouse were the first and only --if you work to make a good marriage. There are no memories of other people in your marital bed.
today, most parents are blinded --especially by their daughters --seeing them as more mature and level headed than they are sometimes. They can't imagine their daughters wanting to have sex and they overly trust them because they LOOK and act virtuous and mature. They talk about their trust and their certainty that their kids couldn't get the cart before the horse --when, in fact, they have so much opportunity to indulge temptation these days --with parents out of the houses, colleges that make no pretense of being parentis in locis who try to protect virtue by curfews and chaperoning. At least the EFFORT of chaperoning by parents and school --sets a standard.
The lack of standards today is surely a factor in the high promiscuity and divorce rate, i imagine. I can't get over how many young women are leaving their husbands for other men--and husbands are getting custody. meanwhile, husbands are slaves to computer porn, which doesn't help monogamous marriage either.
posted by: Barb on Wed, 4/25 12:40 AM EDT
Barb, it sound like we are stuck on the issue of education vs. condonement. Surely schools can teach without condoning. I would bet that most responsible parents would favor sex ed taught in unison with an abstinence slant. I doubt that teaching only one or the other would be effective.
posted by: Chris on Wed, 4/25 10:42 AM EDT
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Letter from my attorney friend in India on Va. Tech --and My Response
Hello Barb. Ma'am !!
Its me John
..... I heard and read about the Korean student on a shooting rampage killing
33 innocent students for some personal grudge. I say that he was always a
potential fanatic and those who knew him should have taken due care to avoid
him. I'd go a step further in formulation of preventive arrests of potential
and dangerous-minded people. In most cases these people reveal their plan to
their peers who simply brush off the matter as fantasy. Two families from
India were told that [their]children who were victims shall soon be dispatched
to their homes for rites. Imagine being the parent of a child who set off
for a distant land for higher and better studies; and to forget about their
ever being there in the first place, they will never be seen again. It's . .
. it's very very sad, Ma'am.
Did the people fail to show sufficient love to the young boy, or was it
political hatred, or a host of combined reasons? Being a student of
psychology, we look for reasons as to what prompts these killers to go on
such a rampage, harming those with whom they never had strained relations --absolute strangers.
The consequences of such acts are felt by several families, some of whom are
unable to take it.
The message is simple. We must be prepared to lose our dear ones if and when
we have to. We must practice detatchment deep within our minds with those
who we love and feel for and care for. We must practice calmness of the mind
and avoid displaying our emotions publicly.
________________________
Dear John,
Yes, how very sad for the families --all of them --who sent their children to college at V. Tech with high hopes --so many very bright and beloved students and teachers. One was from Toledo here, a Catholic school grad, an exemplary student and person, now a prof at Va. Tech, who had worked on solutions for handicapped people and had much accomplishment to his name and left behind wife and 3 children.
About your last paragraph, which is Hindu philosophy, is it not? not only can we NOT detach from people we love, but according to the great teacher, Jesus, we should not detach in the way you describe. Detachment to me means distancing oneself --being remote from someone emotionally. The killer did that. That was his problem. He would not speak even to those who were trying to be friendly to him. He had come here as an Asian child at 8 and experienced ridicule from cruel school kids in elementary school for his difference (including language difficulty). His detachment led him to be totally self-focused and emotionally dead to the feelings of others --and sociopathic as a result. We should be on the lookout for such people but not to avoid them. As you said, he didn't know his victims, for the most part. The ridicule of him PLUS the detachment FROM him for his painful inability to relate-- both helped to push him over the edge. The angels weep. God weeps, for this was not HIs plan for this child or the others.
I can't imagine living as a dormitory suite mate with someone who would never speak to you or have courteous, polite exchange. I would want to do an intervention --and force him to receive caring interest --overwhelm him with genuine kindness and concern. I don't hear that anyone really tried very persistently to reach through his hateful, remote exterior. Instead, he retreated from people and was so scary in his isolation that they retreated--which is what you seem to be recommending as a solution. But just avoiding him did not help. He turned his wrath on strangers --just to make a statement. His real statement was: "I am sick! And I hate you all for not caring about me! I'll show YOU and the world that I was significant!"
Jesus called sinners the "sick who need the Physician" and said that was why he hung out sometimes with blatant sinners of his Hebrew culture--the "winebibbers and the harlots." For He was the Great Physician --the healer of our hurts, the forgiver of our sins.
In John 4:6, there is a story in which Jesus spoke to a woman at a well who was not a Jew, but a Samaritan, (sort of like Shia vs. Sunnis --because both claimed Abraham and Jacob as religious/cultural forefathers.) He told her HE knew she lived with a series of 5 husbands, the present man not being her husband. From that, SHE knew He was a prophet --for otherwise, she was a stranger to him. Yet he spoke knowledge of her life and also gave words of life to her about the Living water that only He could give.
He knows each of us the way He knew the Samaritan woman at the well. To her and to us, He says, "whosoever drinks the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
Jesus said to her, "You worship you know not what; we [Jews] know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
The woman said unto Him, "I know that the Messiah is to come who is called Christ; when He is come, He will tell us all things."
Jesus replied: "I that speak unto you am HE."
The tragedy from a Christian perspective is that people die everyday without being reconciled to God because they did not believe in Christ. The Creator sends His Living Word, His Living Message, in Jesus --His Son, the only begotten of the Father --the ONLY Savior --and tells the world to spread the news, that our escape from mortality is through believing in Jesus and confessing our sinful state to Him, in faith believing that He hears through His Holy Spirit present on the earth and in the hearts of believers.
This same Jesus tells us to NOT be detached from troublesome people but to love enemies, brothers, neighbors. We can never be snobbish, thinking ourselves better than others, and please God. We must NOT transcend beyond troublesome people through meditation --but, intstead, be PRO-ACTIVE; love them in Jesus' name --to tell them about HIM, so they may recognize their need and experience His love and forgiveness--for eternal life beyond the grave.
"Because I live, you shall also live." --said Jesus, to those who believe and receive. "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father except by me." He is the Shepherd and the Gate, the Cornerstone of the Church and of LIfe.
We've all been given this choice and a greater tragedy than U.Va's is that so many of us are rejecting this free gift of salvation --choosing instead to join the mockers and the scornful who refused to believe even though they saw His miraculous powers and heard His claims and teachings.
the woman at the well? she believed --and ran home to bring the others to meet Jesus and he spent 2 days with these Samaritans--and they believed --and were saved by their faith.
The Samaritan woman? An unlikely missionary whose faith planted a church!
Its me John
..... I heard and read about the Korean student on a shooting rampage killing
33 innocent students for some personal grudge. I say that he was always a
potential fanatic and those who knew him should have taken due care to avoid
him. I'd go a step further in formulation of preventive arrests of potential
and dangerous-minded people. In most cases these people reveal their plan to
their peers who simply brush off the matter as fantasy. Two families from
India were told that [their]children who were victims shall soon be dispatched
to their homes for rites. Imagine being the parent of a child who set off
for a distant land for higher and better studies; and to forget about their
ever being there in the first place, they will never be seen again. It's . .
. it's very very sad, Ma'am.
Did the people fail to show sufficient love to the young boy, or was it
political hatred, or a host of combined reasons? Being a student of
psychology, we look for reasons as to what prompts these killers to go on
such a rampage, harming those with whom they never had strained relations --absolute strangers.
The consequences of such acts are felt by several families, some of whom are
unable to take it.
The message is simple. We must be prepared to lose our dear ones if and when
we have to. We must practice detatchment deep within our minds with those
who we love and feel for and care for. We must practice calmness of the mind
and avoid displaying our emotions publicly.
________________________
Dear John,
Yes, how very sad for the families --all of them --who sent their children to college at V. Tech with high hopes --so many very bright and beloved students and teachers. One was from Toledo here, a Catholic school grad, an exemplary student and person, now a prof at Va. Tech, who had worked on solutions for handicapped people and had much accomplishment to his name and left behind wife and 3 children.
About your last paragraph, which is Hindu philosophy, is it not? not only can we NOT detach from people we love, but according to the great teacher, Jesus, we should not detach in the way you describe. Detachment to me means distancing oneself --being remote from someone emotionally. The killer did that. That was his problem. He would not speak even to those who were trying to be friendly to him. He had come here as an Asian child at 8 and experienced ridicule from cruel school kids in elementary school for his difference (including language difficulty). His detachment led him to be totally self-focused and emotionally dead to the feelings of others --and sociopathic as a result. We should be on the lookout for such people but not to avoid them. As you said, he didn't know his victims, for the most part. The ridicule of him PLUS the detachment FROM him for his painful inability to relate-- both helped to push him over the edge. The angels weep. God weeps, for this was not HIs plan for this child or the others.
I can't imagine living as a dormitory suite mate with someone who would never speak to you or have courteous, polite exchange. I would want to do an intervention --and force him to receive caring interest --overwhelm him with genuine kindness and concern. I don't hear that anyone really tried very persistently to reach through his hateful, remote exterior. Instead, he retreated from people and was so scary in his isolation that they retreated--which is what you seem to be recommending as a solution. But just avoiding him did not help. He turned his wrath on strangers --just to make a statement. His real statement was: "I am sick! And I hate you all for not caring about me! I'll show YOU and the world that I was significant!"
Jesus called sinners the "sick who need the Physician" and said that was why he hung out sometimes with blatant sinners of his Hebrew culture--the "winebibbers and the harlots." For He was the Great Physician --the healer of our hurts, the forgiver of our sins.
In John 4:6, there is a story in which Jesus spoke to a woman at a well who was not a Jew, but a Samaritan, (sort of like Shia vs. Sunnis --because both claimed Abraham and Jacob as religious/cultural forefathers.) He told her HE knew she lived with a series of 5 husbands, the present man not being her husband. From that, SHE knew He was a prophet --for otherwise, she was a stranger to him. Yet he spoke knowledge of her life and also gave words of life to her about the Living water that only He could give.
He knows each of us the way He knew the Samaritan woman at the well. To her and to us, He says, "whosoever drinks the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
Jesus said to her, "You worship you know not what; we [Jews] know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
The woman said unto Him, "I know that the Messiah is to come who is called Christ; when He is come, He will tell us all things."
Jesus replied: "I that speak unto you am HE."
The tragedy from a Christian perspective is that people die everyday without being reconciled to God because they did not believe in Christ. The Creator sends His Living Word, His Living Message, in Jesus --His Son, the only begotten of the Father --the ONLY Savior --and tells the world to spread the news, that our escape from mortality is through believing in Jesus and confessing our sinful state to Him, in faith believing that He hears through His Holy Spirit present on the earth and in the hearts of believers.
This same Jesus tells us to NOT be detached from troublesome people but to love enemies, brothers, neighbors. We can never be snobbish, thinking ourselves better than others, and please God. We must NOT transcend beyond troublesome people through meditation --but, intstead, be PRO-ACTIVE; love them in Jesus' name --to tell them about HIM, so they may recognize their need and experience His love and forgiveness--for eternal life beyond the grave.
"Because I live, you shall also live." --said Jesus, to those who believe and receive. "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father except by me." He is the Shepherd and the Gate, the Cornerstone of the Church and of LIfe.
We've all been given this choice and a greater tragedy than U.Va's is that so many of us are rejecting this free gift of salvation --choosing instead to join the mockers and the scornful who refused to believe even though they saw His miraculous powers and heard His claims and teachings.
the woman at the well? she believed --and ran home to bring the others to meet Jesus and he spent 2 days with these Samaritans--and they believed --and were saved by their faith.
The Samaritan woman? An unlikely missionary whose faith planted a church!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)