Are They Turning the U.S.into the fundamentalist christian republic of America?
 

Welcome to the fundamentalist christian republic of the united states.
Is this how you want your tax dollars to be used? Do you want the "education" in "Health, Education, and Welfare - HEW" to be religious
influenced moralizing? Well......you got it !!!

I'm afraid my tax dollars are already being used for much more sinister purposes in places like Iraq, Cuba and the Nevada desert.

I'm more upset about the fact that even our government is now of a mind to allow parents to pass the buck onto somebody else rather than fulfilling their responsibility and obligations!

They're YOUR children, YOU take care of them, if you leave it to someone else you're not going to like what they learn, I can almost guarantee it.

I wish that it weren't the case, but the fundies are destroying everything good about this country. My wife and I starting to look at each other and wonder where else in the world we could move to and be happy.

As I have said before, "Oh Lord, save me from your followers!"

...well shit guys, give him some suggestions.

Why are the most politically active Christians are fundamentalist extreemists? I am a Christian. I want Bush impeached. I believe that homosexuals should be treated as equals in every way. If I tried to enter the religious political arena, I would be laughed out of the building (or whereever I am). The most I can expect is president of the congregation in some random church or mayeb an elder. In order to be taken as an accurate representative iun the church, you have to become a pastor and become indoctronated by other conservative fundamentalists. Then you get noticed by being slightly more fundamentalist than the average pastor. Then you write for a fundamentalist publishing company (maybe CPH or something). Then you say something really extreme, like all gays should be either forced into therepy or killed. Now you can control the president. :thumbsup:

As soon as our kids are out of the house, we are moving to Canada. No bullshit.

"...Leavitt said in a statement unveiling the site last week that it was designed for parents who are embarrassed about talking with their children about sex."

It's sad that there are people like that. They weren't too embarrassed to fuck and make babies. Now they need a website to disseminate bad information to their offspring, who will breed more even more sexually repressed individuals. It spirals out of control.

How is absistence now a Christian fundamentalist belief? Last time I checked, it was the only method guarenteed to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Sure, placing condoms on cucumbers is loads of fun, but it also sends mixed messages to our children. Stressing abstinence is the best method of protecting our children for unwanted pregs. and STDs.

Also, why is the left so defiant about stressing abstinence education. I just don't get it.

Abstinence is indeed the only method that ensures no risk of pregnancy or STDs. However, teaching abstinence and only abstinence is NOT the best method of protecting our children -- it has been shown to be tremendously unsuccessful. Children who are taught abstinence only are much more likely NOT to use any form of protection when do have sex, and I think you know that. The "left" is not defiant about...argh, god, why am I bothering.

Abstinence is not just a christian fundamentalist belief, unless it is the only method to prevent pregnancy and std's that is discussed. When you stress that abstinence is the only method or only point out the bad points in the other methods, then you are trying to pass on fundamental beliefs.

The fact remains, with or without this abstinence discussion, there have always been and will always be kids out there that are having sex. If you continue to close your eyes to that, you are a sad, sad person.

This is not a fundamentalist christian idea. I think it's a little off base to call it that. The best way to prevent stds and unwanted pregnancy is abstinence.

Yes but it's also the most unrealistic way to prevent it. Kids are going to have sex, and lots of it.

On a funny side note, a study showed that kids who pledged abstinence until marriage were more likely to perform oral and anal sex. We're making our children do anal people.

well, you could go through the process and then come out as less extreme but incredibly vocal voice for the christian community. it might just leave you howling at the wind, but it could also mobilize the non-fundamental christian community. you never know...

Well, I've considered that. The fact is that there are no real liberal (pro homosexuality, pro other religions, pro women preachers, etc.) voices coming from the church. Either no one is crazy enough to try it, or people have tried and failed. Either way, I'd have to devote my life to this, and to be honest I don't think I can do it. I don't come across as a srtong enough Christian (being that I moved away from Christianity propor a while ago).

The thing that really gets me mad is that most people are basically good. The problem is the doctrine and dogma that are hammered into everyone's skulls since their baptism (or what have you). My father is a good man. He was a Lutheran pastor for over 10 years. I had every anti-homosexual, no sex before marriage, pray before every meal, Jesus loves me story in me before I could form a rational thought of my own. As luck would have it, I was best friends with an Arab Muslim and a Jewish kid. If the three of us didn't have each other, we'd probably all be religious zombies, hating each other out of ignorance induced fear. We all had the benifit of realizing that we shouldn't hate other religions, we shouldn't assume our religion is the right one, and we shoudlnt' force our beliefs down other peoples throats. I was damned lucky to have these friends. I'm not better than anyone (except Carrot Top), I just happened to get my morality from different places. It's the common themes in different moralities that really shine through in the end.

I believe in God. I believe that God loves man. I belive that in the eyes of God, every man, woman, and child is created equally. I believe that the golden rule is God's greatest gift to mankind. This is getting too philosophical, getting back to the political aspect...

In order for someone like myself, a faithful liberal, to rise to power in a given religion, there needs to be a strong base of also liberal followers upon which to build the political power. There exists no such group that has any sort of influence. I'd be boring to them. Another flower smelling hippy with no connections with reality. I'd be there for them to ridicule and hate. "Those liberals are too cowardly to get anything done. Would that liberal have gone after Osama like Bush did?! Hell no! Those anti-freedom pegans will get theirs our way. The good christian way." Obviously that was an exaggeration, but that seems the general concensus. We need an atheist president, or at least a rpesident who knows that God's house is church, not the Whitehouse.

I'm going to live my life as a good, moral man. I'll go to non-violent, legal protests when I want to show my support for something. I'll only step up to the plate if no one else will.

yeah, while this makes me laugh, it's mostly because my mother of all people brought this up to me the other day. Even on the phone...well...it's a little odd.

just think back to your high school days...abstinence is rather difficult. Instead why don't we give a balenced sex ed? You know...one that says you really shouldn't have sex, but if you do please use some protection! This is what happens when you don't use protection, (show disgusting picture of some poor dude who let w/e STD he got fester). The End.
:-D

Because premarital sex is a mortal sin in the eyes of the fundamentalist... meaning you stand a very good chance at going to hell to suffer for all eternity if you lost your virginity out of wedlock. Practical solutions and comprimise are of no use to a fundamentalist when souls are on the line. Absolute morality only.

edit: I know not all fundamentalists feel compelled to legislate their morality. My post is referring to those militant few who try to convert the rest of us, not only through the bible.. but through our government.

So explain exactly just how you can successfully teach kids about condoms on cucumbers without undermining a program that stresses abstinence

Is "condoms on cucumbers" a phrase that gets you hot? I couldn't at first figure out why you used it twice. Then I googled the phrase. Imagine my complete lack of surprise when it turns out to be used by fundamentalists to attack sex education! You are clearly a person who understands the value of rhetoric. I want to thank you, though. In my googling I found out from The Light Party that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Owned!

Honestly, my sex ed class in highschool was kinda like what was mentioned earlier, abstinence was the BEST, but if something was gonna happen, use protection..two forms if possible (condom and pill at the time if possible, as depo, nuvaring, norplant, etc were not widely used) and STDs were fairly highly stressed, as was the need to use a condom every single time all of hte time, etc as it only took one slipup.

at the time, i thought there was a bit of paranoia, but honestly, it instilled enough of a threat to 1, keep my mind on protection, 2, not sleep around with every lady possible, and 3, have a sex life that was safer than it would have been had i only been taught abstinence bc i know i still would have slept around..

oh, a google on "cucumbers on condoms" is pretty hilarious..

[QUOTE=Kadath]Is "condoms on cucumbers" QUOTE]


Most of y'all are too young to remember, but when I was in school, that's what we actually did. Since I haven;t been in HS in a number of years, perhaps you, will, or some of the other boys can tall us what they use now.

I love that, no matter what, you can almost always shift the burden of ultimate loserdom to Carrot Top. He's a great punching bag.

For my $0.02- I don't now, nor have I ever been able to comprehend where people get off thinking that telling someone simply, "don't do it" is a viable deterrant to ANYTHING. It worked for Nancy Reagan and drugs [sarcasm] and it's REALLY working for reducing sexual activity in young people [also sarcasm].

You don't have to give the kids lessons in positions and fingering technique, but how about simply telling them, 1. the reasons why sex is dangerous, 2. how to best protect themselves.

I've always equated the "abstinence only" approach to trying to reduce car accidents by suggesting everyone just stay off the road, just because it's "the only way to be sure". Bullshit. Teach them the harsh reality of young pregnancy, STD's, and arm them with humankind's best weapon of all time: knowledge.

Problem is, abstinence is only really expected of the female. The church turns a blind eye to men getting their rocks off before marriage. Abstinence is BS anyways, we are sexual creatures and sex should be a pleasurable part of everybody's life. Problem is, they (fundies) have made it into this demon-act of lust and sin which makes everybody overly curious and secretive of it.
As a female, I blame this abstinence-christian thing for my fear of sex in my youth. Not fear really, but more of "oh, I could NEVER." I regret not giving myself that opportunity to explore my sexuality before marriage.

More signs of an emerging, U.S. Christian Republic:
Public schools that allow "equal time" to a "reparative therapy" message from "ex-gay" speakers, would seem to be risking exposure to lawsuits for providing a forum, on school premises, for advocates of a practice that has been determined by a U.S. medical professional association as unsound and detrimental to mental health:
(Is a medical association of 36,000 member physicians, wrong??)
The fact that any public schools in the U.S. even consider it appropriate to allow an "ex-gay" equal time, "reparative" therapy message to be delivered on school property, is a sign that, in some areas, a fundamentalist Christian influence is given at least "equal time". To expose students to this anti-scientific, mental health threatening therapy as an "alternative" or a "relief", seems to me to be an abusive practice on the part of some public school educators. Given the position of the dominate U.S. association of mental health physicians, which evolved carefully and thoughtfully over a 27 year period, what.....other than inappropriate influence of religion on the judgment of school administrators, would cause them to expose students to a mental and emotional health threatening message?

I just can't seem to bring myself all up-in-arms about this. They want to stress abstinence and a lot of you don't. Well, so what? Is the government going to teach your kids how to act, or are you?

No...they are exposing public school students in some areas of the country, and they want to increase the number of areas.....to an option of "reparative therapy", that the medical community of menatl health physicians has stated prominently....is not "reparative" and is not "therapy"....and that is a specifically "unhealthy" to perform on people.....especially on emotionally vulnerable students.

Can you think of another instance where public school administrators would permit this to happen? It seems like religious influenced child abuse, to me. It seems to me that by allowing this message on school property, educators expose themselves to potential criminal violations and exposure to successful and costly civil litigation. What would motivate them to take these risks....to expose students to alternative therapies declared to be unhealthy by a majority of medical experts in their field ?

Isn't this irresponisbility and abuse, by definition, religious influenced fanaticsim? There is no controversy in the medical community, as far as policy. Why, then is it permitted in public schools, if not for a trend towards inappropriate religious fundamentalist influence in public administration?

how is stressing abstinence a form of child abuse?

This is the description of the "form of child abuse" in the May 28, 2006 LA Times article. The fundamentalist religious interference in schools that I find abusive is:
Some teens commit suicide because of self esteem issues. Why would schools cave in to groups who want to target students who have sexual orientations that have been determined medically, not to be "abnormal" or a "disorder". The medical practitioners believe that "reparative therapy" erodes self esteem. There is no medical or emotional disorder that justifies "reparative therapy".

No one suggests sending a message to students who are attracted to the opposite sex that they should consider "reparative therapy" to reorient themselves to a same sex attraction.....so why, if medically, it has been determined that it is not helpful, but actually harmful to perform "reparative therapy", is it offered...in schools....for students to consider, as an "option" to "cure" a disease that medicine says does not exist.

All students, from a standpoint of social responsibility and control of STD's should be given instruction in safe sex practices and even in abstinence, if it is communicated without moralizing and religious based justification. One group who develops an sexual attraction to members of their own sex should not be mistreated by being told...by outsiders who are permitted to come into their schools to speak to them, that they should consider "reparative therapy".

Such a message is condescending and sends students a message that they should consider repairing a "disorder", or implies that they are "abnormal". The mental health experts have determined that the opposite is true...that they are normal, that they have no disease, simply because they are sexually attracted to members of their own sexual gender.

Are you saying that it is appropriate to send a school sanctioned, abstinence message specifically to these students, because of their sexual orientation?

I see what you were saying now, but that issue isn't going to get fixed until science can show with 485% verifiable scientific proof that homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, and every other gender identity-ism is not a 'choice' but a bonafide genetic trait.

i hope this isn't off topic... but really, what difference does it make if it's a choice or not?

I agree, as far as societal attitudes.....but...when it comes to what public school administrators choose to expose students to....they seem to have an obligation not to put some students in entirely avoidalbe situations where they receive a message that is contradictory to medical practice, or threatens self esteem. When schools start down a religiously driven "road" that exposes students to "therapy" choices that are not medically approved, for "disorders" that are specifically ruled out medically as pathological or treatable, or even as "abnormal", where does it stop?

Intelligent design and creationism are controversial, but they are not health or self esteem issues. Sexual preference and orientation are considered to be non-negotiable choices and a normal part of development, by those licensed medical practioners who treat abnormalities. Public schools need to be "in synch" with public health policy and medical science. Will schools next offer speakers a forum who promote "reparation therapy" to "cure" "self abuse", delivered by ex-masturbators? Will ex-birth control pill ingestees take the stage at schools to relay a message that it is abnormal to take the pill to regulate hormone imbalances.

Will schools next permit speakers who discredit medically approved treatments for medically recognized disorders......maybe surgery or blood transfusions, or even antibiotics, on religious or prevelant socially prejudicial grounds.
"Race mixing" can lead to challenges in life, as difficult in some locales as those that same sex couples are often confronted with. Should "ex-race mixers" be given a forum to guide students into avoidance of a lifetime of being stared and pointed at, in public, or for bearing mix raced children who suffer from the effects of prejudice?

Once the door is open to allow a message to students from allegedly "rehabbed" "ex" practitioners of a given practice....the inference, by the very presence and message of these speakers....at a school....is that students are doing something that is abnormal or unapproved....and that their conduct or orientation must be "repaired" or changed to a "more normal" or more "positive" level.

As long as the 'religious' anything considers those 'alternative lifestyles' choices, then they will continue to support reparitive therapy and/or legislation of prohibition against those lifestyles. Choices can be punished or outlawed whereas genetic 'anomolies' (forgive my choice of wording, I didn't know what else to call it at this point) cannot be repaired with therapy or outlawed.

Of course you have no evidence to prove that homosexuality is non-negotiable, just your opinion that is backed up by the opinion of other people with letters behind their name.

How is this opinion "The ex-gay movement considers same-sex attraction to be a gender-identity disorder, brought on by inadequate parenting, unmet emotional needs and, often, childhood sexual abuse" any less valid that the opinion that someone is born a homosexual. Both are nothing more than opinions. Neither are fact.

The only 'logical' stop would be to stop teaching religion, or non-religion, in the public school system. It is because we've allowed, or in some cases even demanded, that the school system take over the parents responsibility. If parents would take their responsibility back, we wouldn't be facing these issues on a public school basis.

Public schools shouldn't even be 'synching' these issues. They have nothing to do with preparation for adult life in the social and economic world. These issues should be assumed by the parents.

which is why the school system should not be made to handle these issues. This is part of the 'it takes a village' crap that causes problems, doesn't work, and only divides us. These are all issues that should be discussed between parents, children, and their doctors/priests/anyone else in a capacity to deal with this that isn't in the school environment.

bingo.

The problem isn't the ex-gays wanting equal time. The problem is discussing homosexuality in school to begin with. Keep all that crap out of school. Teach kids how to read, write, do math. Prepare kids to think for themselves and to solve problems. Period.

Public schools should not make a forum available to people who communicate an advocacy for therapies that are specifically disapproved in policy statements of major and well recognized medical practitioner associations, or describe a sexual orientation that mental health care practitioners, at every level...M.D., PhD, and MSW have determined as not being pathological, or a "disorder", or even abnormal, or as something that should be "treated" via medical care or therapy,........that are intended to alter sexual orientation.

The medical community couldn't be less ambiguous: don't "eff" with it.....attempting to influence anyone to become an "ex" hetero or "ex" homo
sexual, implies that their current orientation is "negative" or not normal, or flawed. This increases the risk to the already fragile self esteem of teen aged,
or younger students, in an area that is part of their core identity....during a key stage in their final development into adulthood.

An "ex"-gay message, sanctioned by schools is a mental and emotional health
issue. Where does a public school stand, legally, after it permits such a message and the communication of a reparative therapy option....for a "condition" or "disorder", that the medical community has declared does not exist, and that there is no medically approved "treatment", nor is there a need for one?

Isn't letting this "ex"-gay message be delivered to students in public schools, an extra legal, and medically unsound, decision by school administrators?
If it isn't then....what is it? Is there any other justification to allow this, that is not rooted in religious fundamentalist beleif, or ignorant or misinformed bigotry against the sexual orientation of others? Are school administrators qualified to determine the validity of healthcare policy or of scientific medical determinations accepted in the medical community? I thought that was under the authority of state medical review and licensing boards, or the FDA.

The medical community says homosexuality is not pathological and that there is no "disorder" to "treat" or to provide "therapy" for. Why then....the posts that focus on whether homosexuality is a "choice". Why is that relevant?
Shouldn't the focus be on why public schools would permit delivery to students, the message of advocacy for a "reparative therapy" that the medical community has determined to be non-effective, and actually risks harm to self esteem, to "repair" a "disorder" that does not exist?

Schools do have an obligation to provide self esteem building methods and outlets for students, especially where is it recognized that attacks on self esteem via misinformation or intentional bigotry are a threat to students' self esteem.

woah woah woah.

Schools should NOT be in the business of "building self-seteem" That touchey-feely new age crap doesn't do one thing towards preparing children for the real world and is one of the predominent reasons for such poor student achievement.

Some schools don't even use grades anymore because "it should all be about the effort" Giving johnny a C and mary an A makes johnny feel bad and promotes competition. <- thats the thought of the education system today. Several of my wife's friends & sisters are teachers/education majors/education grad students and I'm always interested to hear what they have to say about education. And thats the stuff they say. Grades promote competition and competition hurts self-esteem.

Our schools are ruining our kids and its because of crap like that. losing and getting you feelings hurst used to be a good thing. It used to be called "building character" and it used to make you want to try harder to get better and achieve. now its bad and detremental to development.

But it all starts at home. If parents never would have given up the responsibility of raising their kids to the school system, our education system wouldn't be polluted with this nonsense and we could be focusing on teaching science and math and how to read and write. We should be creating the world's next engineers and scientists, instead we're creating the worlds next wefare generation with no regard for responsibility.

How is your faith in these opinions any different than the faith involved in accepting a religion that supports the opposite view? You are taking blind faith in the views of a group of people. I don't understand this trend that somehow studying something extensively and providing opinions from experts somehow makes it 'law'. They can call it whatever they want, and you can quote as if it's true as the law of gravity, but it doesn't change what the facts are. There are no real scientific developments or anything based on facts in the 'mental health' community that proves anything about sexual orientation. Therefore the debate should remain open just as with creationism or big bang theory or whatever.

If you really want be to 'scientific' why not use a real science, like biology, that is based on tangible facts rather than a foundation of nothing more than opinions of so called experts. Just teach kids the FACTS. Boys have male 'parts' and girls have female 'parts' and both are needed to come together to produce life. It's pretty hard to argue with the facts of a real science when you break it down.

However, if a campus has gay rights groups there's no reason why someone shouldn't have the ability to voluntarily seek out a group that tries to change their orientation. How can you argue with that? Basic freedom of speech/religion if you ask me.

Teaching sexual orientation in middle and high schools though is just wrong. However, in this insane world we live in if you're going to have a pro homosexuality view, then we have to allow for the opposite view.

Good luck. Good. Luck.

This is a battle fought on all fronts.

Parents are so severely handicapped that they have no choice but to secede all parenting rights to various third parties. If you had a kid, how much time would you have to be there during the days when he or she needs your attention? Not much, I'd bet- especially if you wanted your kid to get all those expensive advantages in life. What's all that stuff being advertised on TV that your kids need or will beg for? Diapers. Hot-wheels cars. Barbie dolls. Clothes. Cell-phones. Computers. PS3's. The videogames that go along with them. Bread & butter. Sunny-D. Braces. Proactiv. Soft-contact lenses. Post-secondary tuition fees. Cars.

All those things cost money.

That means you have to work. A lot. To the point where you can't be there to provide the psychological support for your kids. But then even that becomes some sort of service provided by another business. Daycare. Nannies. Private Schools. Public Schools. Extra-curricular activities. Day-time cartoons. Night-time cartoons. It grows on itself so much that even the advertisements for all those toys begin to tell your kids how to behave.

This is what your kids are raised on.

You want to talk about conservative? I'm a frickin' conservative. I don't think people should have that much control over how your kids are raised. So when someone calls themself a conservative and supports promoting abstinence and only abstinence, one of the grounds of that being that the parents just aren't competent to raise their kids, I get infuriated. Call yourself a conservative if you like. I don't want to offend you but rather shock you into thinking about the bigger picture for a bit- so don't take it personally when I say that I think what you say is ignorant.

Now, why would you not be up in arms about this? It's easy to ignore it, sure. It's like holding someones head down in the water while they drown and saying it's their own fault they can't swim. It doesn't matter, because they are being forced into drowning. This is not about empowering the parents at all.

So is the government-industrial complex going to teach your kids how to act or are you? Is it even a choice at this point?

What a bleak outlook. I don't really know how to respond. I can't imagine feeling the way you do, but it must be a draining experience.

Life is what you make it, for some. For others, apparently, life is what they tell you it is.

This is not one of the thousands of issues I am concerned about in regards to raising my children.

Well...if the Fundys cant take over government....they can always resort to terrorism:

"Weapon of Mass Destruction" Targets Sex Shop In Waldo

5/29/2006 11pm report

By Grayson Kamm
First Coast News

WALDO, FL -- Detectives say it's an act of local terrorism. An adult bookstore is cleaning up after a chemical attack by a homemade device that investigators are calling a "weapon of mass destruction."

In Waldo, people have held prayer vigils and protests aimed at an adult bookstore along US 301, trying to keep the "Cafe Risque" from opening its doors on time.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/s...?storyid=58393

Although the article cited was very careful not to blame the "attack" on Christian fundamentalists...I personally believe that it is safe to "assume" that is the case. Now...if that is indeed the case, and as I've already stated, I believe that it is, then where is the outrage, and the condemnation, from the mainstream Christian majority? Where's the love? Where's the understanding? Where is the "Love Thy Neighbor"? Oh well, it's just an adult bookstore. Who really cares...right?

Do we, as a "Christian" society, not decry the Muslim faith for similar infractions? Do we not a raise a suspicious eyebrow at all Muslims that do not step up and openly condemn the most radical of thier bretheren?

Oh...even better...what if this act was not perpetrated by Christian Fundamentalists, at all? What if it were perpetrated by "Islamo-Facists"? that would put a different spin on it, now wouldn't it? Then, it's not a "moral act' of ridding the community of an "evil"...it's an open attack on an institutionalized American way of life.

Spin. Don't ya just love it?


OK...I'm done threadjacking. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

How annoying. You didn't even address my points.

Ok then, no point wasting my energy. Have a nice day! :icare:

Sometimes, it gets difficult keeping track of all the whackos out there. It's hard to be outraged at all times, at everyone who deserves it. Simply because you haven't heard a public outcry when you think one is merited, doesn't mean the "Christian Majority" doesn't care.

Pardon? I addressed your entire post with a few sentences, out of respect for our completely different views on the matter. But by all means, we can't have you wasting energy.

Here is the detailed disagreement you require:

This is such a gross exaggeration I can't believe a response is expected. If you know parents - or if you are a parent - that gives over all parenting rights to "various third parties" then the problem is with the parent and not the third parties.

Again, are you serious? When you have a kid, time is spent with the kid, as opposed to just about everything else. If not, then again the problem is with the parent. But you suppose "not much."

Materialistic parents will breed materialistic children. If you don't know how to tell your kid "No" then you need some more practice before having children. Kids wanting everything they see on tv is nothing new. My parents never let it ruin their lives, did yours? As for the diapers and braces and whatnot: don't have kids if you can't afford diapers. It sounds like you're just complaining about how expensive kids are. You're right; they are, but it helps if you don't buy them everything they see on tv.

Something we agree on.

Again, we agree.

Now we're back on track, disagreeing whole-heartedly. How you make this connection is beyond me. I'm sure there are people like this, and I feel bad for their kids, but they're certainly not the majority of parents, and I'm certainly not one of them. If you don't have the time to offer the support for your kids that they need, then you're not being a good parent. There is no one else to blame.

School is a part of life. We all went through it. Extra curricular activities are supposed to be fun. If they're not, find some that are. Cartoons have a part in most kids' life, I know they did in mine. I see nothing sinister here. And when toy commercials start telling your kids how to behave, I'd say it's time to spend some time with them instead of sitting them down in front of the television all day. You know, offer some psychological support.

I beg to differ. You're confusing my kids with someone who doesn't know how to raise them.

Well, I'm not a conservative. Don't really know what you're trying to say here. You seem to be implying that "conservatives" have some nerve, and are telling parents that they don't know how to raise their own kids...while at the same time saying that...parent's don't have the time or the energy to raise their own kids...

you're logic alludes me.

About what? I still don't see what the problem is. Someone is telling kids to not have sex before marriage. You are saying that is unrealistic and what they should be saying is: "If you have sex, wear protection." I don't see a problem with either viewpoint. They are both good bits of advice. But that is where actually being a parent comes into play. Either be one, or hand the duties off to "third parties" and hope for the best. And then wonder why you have no control over your child as they grow.

If you are comparing drowning to unprotected sex, I'm going to have to disagree with you some more. Teaching abstinece does not force kids to have unprotected sex. Being a parent that doesn't discuss important topics
such as sex, drugs and all that jazz with their children is what leads to
unprotected sex.

Isn't that what I said in the first place? For some, life is what you make it. For others, life is what they tell you it is. :icare:

Woah woah woah. What school is this?

I was a little put off when you said that my outlook is bleak and then assumed that my everyday life has a draining effect on me. Now I don't know you very well, but neither do you know me, so to make that one thing clear- my life is very enjoyable. You're almost making me wish you were in my shoes. But I digress.

What I meant to say is that they are disempowered. Not to the point where it becomes impossible to raise their child, but to a degree which makes it much more difficult.

Well that's assuming the time spent with the kid is actually time spent parenting the kid. Some parents really don't have a clue, they think being around their kid is enough to raise them.

Now yeah, that is the fault of the parent; but that doesn't make it some excuse to let people legislate whatever crap they want for all the wrong reasons. It should mean that we would be putting things into place to actually help parents raise their kids right.


If you think I'm simply complaining about how expensive it is to raise a child, you're missing my point. That is, because it's expensive, that means you have to be out working. If you don't make an income that is adequate enough, that means you have to work more, or get the proper training. If you're too dense to actually pass the training courses, that means you are basically stuck with spending more time at work and less time at home. That means that something has to take your place when you're out at work.

So, this might not be a problem for people who make a decent enough income to provide for their children with less hours worked and more hours available to spend with their child- but for people who don't have that kind of luxury it becomes a problem.


No conflicts here!

Right, you're not one of them, so you don't have a problem with it. So what if they're not the majority? Is that the greatness of democracy? If 51% of the population decides to piss on the other 49%, then that's okay? Would it be okay if the split was 75% versus 25%? 95% versus 5%?

"If you don't have the time to offer the support for your kids that they need, then you're not being a good parent."

Really? In every case that ever occured? This is some sort of universal truth? So for some reason, if someone is handicapped, we can't offer them our sympathies and help them in any way or show compassion, because it's their fault. This ends up as contempt for the weak.

Yeah, if they even know that this is what they're supposed to do, or if they have a chance of influencing them to the point where what they say is more important than what the idiot-tube suggests. For the ones that don't have that kind of opportunity, there needs to be some measure to either give them the mobility to move up the chain, or there should be some measure to protect them. In many cases neither of those things are provided.

If you speak the truth then I'm glad that I'm in the wrong about that.

No, what I'm saying is that conservatism should not translate to shortsightedness and an unconscious unwillingness to see the facts for what they are when policies like sex education that emphasizes only abstinence and undermines contraception are being promoted.

As does yours elude me.


No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if there is going to be institutionalized sex education, it should tell those kids that abstinence is the safest bet, but it should also tell them that if they do decide to have sex, it's absolutely critical to use contraceptives. Then again I don't have to worry, because that's exactly what happens here in Canada. I just think Americans deserve better.


If you think that's what I'm saying then you need to read what I wrote again.

I'm saying tell a parent that it's their fault they can't raise their kids right because of factors that are virtually out of their control- I'm saying that is like forcing someones head in the water and blaming them for being unable to swim. That's the kind of obliviousness it takes to argue for sex education that says nothing about contraception and only tells the kids what abstinence is.


From what I gathered you basically said that it's okay to not give two shits about the guy under the weather! :p

All that said, I'm out of this whole thing, I've got work to do.

WTF?! I have not heard of this! Why didn't the press report this more? This is important. In one way, it shows some bias. Terrorists come in all sorts of types.

If parents have such a little affect on their children then why are children so vastly different? Why do I see children whose behavior mirrors their parents? I have met a kid that was 5 years old, had a 22 and would use it on anything or anyone, drowned kittens for fun, had a mouth worse than anyone I’ve ever met, and woke a 300 pound guy up with a baseball bat to the head. Guess how this boy’s parents behaved? I have also met children that will do everything they can to please others, guess how their parents behaved. Parents have the ability to either make or destroy their kid’s life. The parents should teach sex education in my opinion because it is so controversial. If we can all agree on some parts of sex education then let the schools teach that part and leave the remaining parts up to the parents. In this case I say let the schools teach that abstinence is the best form of birth control and let the parents go beyond that if they want.

this has got to be one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. it's completely irresponsible. no matter what, kids are gonna learn about their sex organs in biology... or would you say that since some parents find that controvesial that anatomy lessons shouldn't include those?

if we leave sex ed. up to the parents, we'll end up with some kids who are properly educated and some that arent'. it would be like allowing kids to drive without being taught how. the ones who don't know how to do it safely become a danger to the rest of us. they'll be responsible for booming STP and teen pregnancy rates (because if they don't know about the risks of unprotected sex, why would then use a condom?) and that doesn't just effect your kids, it effects mine.

elementary schools. south florida, central florida.

i guess parents shouldn't have any responsibility at all to teach their kids anything about life since it would have an effect on yours as well?

And there's definitely a reason that Fark has a tag specifically for FLORIDA.

was there any doubt?

But...that's the problem, isn't it? What is a "proper" education to you...might not be so "proper" to me. Beyond the basic mechanics of sex education, I feel that it is best taught in the home. I make that statement with the full realization that there are those parents who, for whatever reason, cannot, or will not, broach the subject with thier offspring.

it's not a matter of parents not having that responsibility. it's that most parents forgo that responsibility and allow the schools to do it. for those that do teach abstinance only to their children, they're doing their kids a major disservice. it's like telling their kids to be accountants and not teaching them math. they're unprepared for the realities of life. kids have sex. whether you (the parent) like it or not. so if parents are not going to adequately prepare their kids for the real world, then someone else has to.


a proper education is one that allows the kids to function in the real world, preferable with minimal risk to themselves and others. it's where you teach kids the basics needed to succeed in life and avoid stupid obsticles. std's are easy to avoid if you use protection. getting a good job is easy if you get well educated in the field you desire. so if you want to be a writer, learn about writing. if you want to have sex, learn about sex. but don't go into things completely ignorant about how to do it and the consequences.

what are the basic mechanics of sex ed? i would think that that would be teaching about the sex organs, how they work, birth control and std's. i can't even think of what else shoudl be taught about it. (for example, i'm not saying schools should teach how to have sex, positions, etc, just how stuff works and the risks, and that if you're going to do it, wear protection).

parents are free to teach their kids abstinence. but would you teach someone not to drive drunk without having taught them how to drive? a parent can teach what they feel is appropriate behavior, but if htey're not going to teach info that the kid NEEDS to know, for their own safety, then that parent is being neglect.

um, no. nobody else 'has' to do it. It's a parents responsibility to prepare their children and noone elses. If that parent fails, then they, and the child, will have to live with the failure of that inadequacy. Having someone else do it is a MAJOR reason why we have such a screwed up society today. People go through their lives knowing/thinking that someone else will do it and they will not have to live up to their part of life.

In an effort to turn the discussion back to a response to the news reports that prompted me to reactivate it:

There is a problem of bigotry fueled harrassment against homosexuals in schools, against those suspected to be homosexuals, and against those who object to this harrassment, by "siding with" and defending those on the receiving end.

There are statistics that indicated that teen suicide is the third highest cause of death in their aged group, and that teens who do not exclusively embrace heterosexual attraction, are at least three times more likely to commit suicide than other teens.

The question here is....in view of determinations by medical practitioners and all other groups of credentialed, mental health care providers, is it helpful or responsible for public school administrators to permit speakers to come into schools to deliver a message that implies or states that sexual attraction or activity that does not fit the "hetero" mold, is a disorder, an illness, abnormal, or something that can be "cured" with reparative therapy? Since medical practitioners specifically hold a policy that such therapy threatens self esteem, and should not be practiced, aren't schools risking funds that are earmarked for education, by increasing their exposure to potentially costly legal suits for allowing this "ex-gay" message in schools.

Is there another explanation for exposing students to the "ex-gay" message and reparative therapy, besides the influence of religious fundametalist extremism?

Are the following examples of "model" ways to attempt to lessen the impact of the actual problem; teen suicide levels and harrassment and violence in schools, or "new age" liberal responses to non-issues?
I think that the 2003 Massachusetts statistics are particularly sobering when you consider that they are experienced 11 years after that state's governor set up a commission, <b>"in response to an epidemic of suicide among gay and lesbian youth."</b> How do you think the "progressive", Massachusetts statistics will "stack up", in comparision to the stats in "bible belt" states?

To those of you that assert kids will have sex i'm going to disagree with you on this point. I have many friends in their mid twenties who are virgins by choice. These are very attractive people who have been heavily into the dating scene for years. Most of my lady friends wear "true love waits" rings. Telling a kid don't have sex but if you do wear a condom is not the same message as don't have sex. A kid is more likely to have sex if you tell them if they do wear a comdom, it is like saying to the kid, here is my rule but i know you are going to break it.

It is a parents duty to raise their kids and teach them values. If a parent decides that it is best for their kid to only be taught abstience than that is their choice. Parents should not be leaving sex education up to others. What is wrong with teaching abstience in the schools and leaving the use a condom up to the parents? I say teach kids about STD's, unwanted pregnacy, ect and then tell them the only sure way to prevent this is abstience. Then if parents want to say you can also use a condom to prevent that it is up to them.

Could those who want to debate "abstinence" please set up a new thread or go to one that already is oriented to that topic.....please???

This thread is about the signs of detrimental influence on society of the rising political power and the financing of legal challenges to public policy by the religious extremists in the U.S.....continuing on that note, here is a rebuttal to challanges faced by the Montgomery, MD county school district, when it tried to take the easy and responsible way out.....it adopted a health education policy that was firmly rooted in established scientific determinations...and the religious extremists repsonded with their unscientific message....and litigation:
Can anyone argue that public schools should not respond to STD epidemic conditions, harrassment and violence in schools that is directed at non-hetero sexual students, high rates of teen suicides, in the face of official studies that document these conditions in the U.S., by educating students with curriculum that is founded on scientific findings and determinations?

If not....is it responsible for schools, although they must deal with the grief of suicide, the effects of STD's, and of violence and harrassment that disrupts the learning environment, to avoid these issues...to leave them to parents to discuss with their children?

If schools choose a path of trying to determine what science to embrace, and what science to challenge, how would they determine what science to challenge, and on what grounds? Should entire sections of the country, if the community "standard" is religiously influenced belief in "young earth", "intelligent design", and gender preference is a choice, theory, do states allow these ideas to be taught in public schools on the taxpayers' dime?

Do the rest of us just sit back and watch as these regions turn out "professionals" with degress in specialties like, "young earth geology"? Oil and mining expolaration companies don't hire these grads....so maybe they can get jobs teaching young earth "science" in the public high schools that they attended?

Don't those of us unaffected by religious extremism at least have an obligation to expose it, rail against it, try to keep taxpayer funds from supporting it, and from keeping it's militancy from influencing public school curriculum, and policy, and endangering the mental and physical health of our young people?

Host this whole thread is based on the premise that the government wanting to teach abstienence is a sign that the religious extreamists are taking over America but I have yet to see a correlation let alone a causation between the governement wanting to teach abstience and the religious right.

I think there is a tendancies these days to take anything the government does that the religious right would agree with and blame the governments action on the religious rights influence.

What comes next do we blame tighter DUI laws on the religious right?

Yeah. When they espouse contraceptive programs that have been proven to be frequently ineffective, both in pregnancy prevention, and in preventing the spread of disease.

There's no controversy in the medical community over that, either.

I see your point about abstinence being the original example that I used to establish my perception of the "problem" of religious extermist influence on the public sector.

I apologize for my "rant", Rekna, it is I who should have started a new thread, since I wanted to discuss the validity of allowing the "ex-gay" message and therapy "choices" in schools.

I think that you used a poor comparison...with DUI laws.
DUI is a social problem that is a mainstream and a secular issue.

As far as I can perceive, the "ex-gay" concept, reparative therapy, creationism, intelligent design, and "young earth" theory, and exlusively teaching "abstinence education", in lieu of instruction of birth control options and safe use, STD prevention, safe and responisble sex practice, and the option of abortion, are only introduced into public shcool curriculum because of the influence and pressure of religious extermists.

Marv, please back your comments with references so that the rest of us can examine the validity your information. It is unfair when you just toss out comments and it doesn't do much for the weight of your argument or of how you are regarded as a source of reliable information, IMO.

What is ineffective, what is your proof, and what medcial experts and studies say so? What is a superior alternative to
"pregnancy prevention, and in preventing the spread of disease", besides total absitnence?

I can and will. It is a PARENTS responsibility to provide that teaching of values, safety, and most of all RESPECT of other people. If there is an STD epidemic going around, the school should ONLY notify the parents. If there is harrasment of violence directed towards students for ANY reason, the authorities (police) should be called so that the parents will HAVE to get involved.

If not....is it responsible for schools, although they must deal with the grief of suicide, the effects of STD's, and of violence and harrassment that disrupts the learning environment, to avoid these issues...to leave them to parents to discuss with their children?

If Backwater, Tennessee chooses to do nothing but immerse and teach that communities children 'young earth science', then they will churn out 'young earth academics' who will have NOTHING to contribute to the world. With that in mind, Backwater, Tennessee will wither and die OR they will realize that they've jacked up their community and change for the better.

Before college academics SHOULD be teaching their kids how to do the basics and more of JUST the skills needed to make it on their own. AFTER that is what college is for.

A program that stresses abstinence before marriage. You can always teach them about contraception for when they get married but aren't prepared to have children, yet. That way, if they (but for the grace of God) choose to be naughty boys and girls, they will still have the knowledge to protect themselves...

Speak for yourself, I found abstinence to be all too easy in high school! The problem with kids today is that they're too popular! Try to get your kids to not get along so well with the opposite sex and you'll protect them from their own instincts...

We're making our children do anal people? What's wrong with that, people?

...alright, enough with the jokes...