NationStates Jolt Archive

either.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/south.carolina.ap/index.html

now that's completly inane.

either.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/south.carolina.ap/index.html

What does that have to do with religion? And how, although I probably agree with you, does it show that they are not right?

What does that have to do with religion? And how, although I probably agree with you, does it show that they are not right?

1) The guy wants to keep teachers out of the school because they don't live up to his religion.

2) I was just making a general statement, that the religious right is generally neither religious, nor right.

We're desperate for teachers as things stand now, yet this guy's trying to boot qualified teachers off the campus? Let me guess, he's going to replace them by lowering the standards to become a teacher, right? This angers me.

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc

I don't think people who think like that should even be allowed to have kids. Good thing I don't try to force my religious beliefs on others, now isn't it?

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc

Go for it, I'm sure your current neighbours will thank you.:)

Originally Posted by United White Front
i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc

frankly, i don't see a problem in an unwedded pregnant woman teaching, i don't see a problem in the gay community teaching, they teach the children English, science, history, and mathematics. they aren't trying to force their beliefs on others, they aren't setting a bad example, they aren't causing a problem, so why don't you get your nose out of a book that was written two thousand years ago and INTERPRETED (yes it's interpreted) by someone with their own belief system

This is, of course, why SC has one of the worst education systems in the country...

they tend to spend more time protesting random things than being in school and building their own opinions

I don't get why everyone hates Christians so much.

I don't get why everyone hates Christians so much.

I think very few people hate Christians. What people hate is the extremists who pretend to be Christian to push their political views.

Go for it, I'm sure your current neighbours will thank you.:)

Damn it! You beat me! ;)

I think very few people hate Christians. What people hate is the extremists who pretend to be Christian to push their political views.
I'm am Christian. I'm Catholic and everything. But I'm very far into the right, technically extremist. Everytime I've made a post about liberals and conservatives uniting, a bunch of liberals attack it saying that I'm a liar like Bush(Who isn't a liar, in my opinion). And they are supposed to be for civil rights! That is hypocritical to me.

This is, of course, why SC has one of the worst education systems in the country...

I thought that was California.

Where does SC fall in the rankings?

I think very few people hate Christians. What people hate is the extremists who pretend to be Christian to push their political views.

Isn't that a large part of the followers! :p

Isn't that a large part of the followers! :p
A large part of Conservatives are good, kind people who really are Christians. I am a right-wing extremist, yes, but that doesn't mean i am not Christian.

I'm am Christian. I'm Catholic and everything. But I'm very far into the right, technically extremist. Everytime I've made a post about liberals and conservatives uniting, a bunch of liberals attack it saying that I'm a liar like Bush(Who isn't a liar, in my opinion). And they are supposed to be for civil rights! That is hypocritical to me.

It depends on what you define as uniting. Following the Religious conservative viewpoints is not uniting.

How do you know they are liberals?

The Shrub doesn't lie, he misrepresents the facts.

Civil rights and Religion? Ok how are your "civil rights" impuned by people telling you that you are *whatever*?

A large part of Conservatives are good, kind people who really are Christians. I am a right-wing extremist, yes, but that doesn't mean i am not Christian.

Interesting. Define right-wing extremist.

It depends on what you define as uniting. Following the Religious conservative viewpoints is not uniting.

How do you know they are liberals?

The Shrub doesn't lie, he misrepresents the facts.

Civil rights and Religion? Ok how are your "civil rights" impuned by people telling you that you are *whatever*?
Well I once made this post stating that when Conservatives attack the liberals and vice versa, that we are just taking for granted what the WWII veterans did for us. And it was a good post for a while. People kept saying: Yeah we should unite and stuff like that when suddenly the famous MKULTRA came in. He said things like"its Bush who is dividing us." and "You, HP, are a Fascist pig." when I disagreed with him respectfully.

Interesting. Define right-wing extremist.
Okay.

Right wing extremist: Someone who is so Conservative that they will verbally and even sometimes physically attack someone disrespectfully who disagrees with their opinion.

Now I have attacked verbally before but never have attacked physically.

Well I once made this post stating that when Conservatives attack the liberals and vice versa, that we are just taking for granted what the WWII veterans did for us. And it was a good post for a while. People kept saying: Yeah we should unite and stuff like that when suddenly the famous MKULTRA came in. He said things like"its Bush who is dividing us." and "You, HP, are a Fascist pig." when I disagreed with him respectfully.
Well he is right about bush dividing the country.

And you are right that we should unite. You do remember about Bush's false assertion that he is a "uniter not a divider". Are you sure that MKLTRA did that? It doesn't seem like him...

Well he is right about bush dividing the country.

And you are right that we should unite. You do remember about Bush's false assertion that he is a "uniter not a divider". Are you sure that MKLTRA did that? It doesn't seem like him...
Well it was a long time ago. But he still is the same left-wing extremist he was then. I just wish he could post something credible for once.

Okay.

Right wing extremist: Someone who is so Conservative that they will verbally and even sometimes physically attack someone disrespectfully who disagrees with their opinion.

Now I have attacked verbally before but never have attacked physically.

This is a good thing?

Is this not the very arguments that we throw at the Islamic terrorists?

You may have just justified MKULTRA's facist comment if you sincerly belive it's justifiable to physically asault a person just because you don't like their opinion.

Respect is a word you have to watch as a warning sign.

A great deal of people think they deserve respect when they should be earning it.

I remember he also once said,"If Bush was beheaded in Iraq we would all be united to watch the spectacle." That had scared me in a way, so I reported him. He didn't get in trouble and I now see why. I just was shocked by that reply.

This is a good thing?

Is this not the very arguments that we throw at the Islamic terrorists?

You may have just justified MKULTRA's facist comment if you sincerly belive it's justifiable to physically asault a person just because you don't like their opinion.

Respect is a word you have to watch as a warning sign.

A great deal of people think they deserve respect when they should be earning it.
Um...that was the definiton of a Right-wing extremist. I said that I have attacked verbally before but never physically. And I think right-wing extremists that attack liberals physically are horrible people to do that. Attacking someone physically for their politcal beliefs I will never justify(With the exception of Nazis)

I remember he also once said,"If Bush was beheaded in Iraq we would all be united to watch the spectacle." That had scared me in a way, so I reported him. He didn't get in trouble and I now see why. I just was shocked by that reply.
Wow, when did he say that!?
I wouldn't watch anyone be beheaded its too much of a R rated event.

Well I once made this post stating that when Conservatives attack the liberals and vice versa, that we are just taking for granted what the WWII veterans did for us. And it was a good post for a while. People kept saying: Yeah we should unite and stuff like that when suddenly the famous MKULTRA came in. He said things like"its Bush who is dividing us." and "You, HP, are a Fascist pig." when I disagreed with him respectfully.

Well that is one of the strange bedfellows of freedom. The ability to polarise at times. Debate is good as it clarifies things. Attack is part of debate.

Now Mkultra? I don't how you can globalise liberals by the actions of one "snapping dog" liberal.

Mkultra is what is. Even the rabbid can raise a valid point from time to time. Crazy statements should be investigated all the time as we should keep watch on our leaders.

Wow, when did he say that!?
I wouldn't watch anyone be beheaded its too much of a R rated event.
Like I said, it was a long time ago. He has gotten a little(and I stress the word "little") more kind in his topics and replies these days.

I remember he also once said,"If Bush was beheaded in Iraq we would all be united to watch the spectacle." That had scared me in a way, so I reported him. He didn't get in trouble and I now see why. I just was shocked by that reply.

Well freedom of speech also includes the ability to say stupid hateful things.

As to the "I now see why"

Sorry if you are impling a liberal member agenda for the site. I really doubt it.

Biff just said he would not like seeing the shrub get snipped but Kerry would be fair game. He was not punished.....

I'm am Christian. I'm Catholic and everything. But I'm very far into the right, technically extremist. Everytime I've made a post about liberals and conservatives uniting, a bunch of liberals attack it saying that I'm a liar like Bush(Who isn't a liar, in my opinion). And they are supposed to be for civil rights! That is hypocritical to me.

I am a Christian as well, although much less far to the right. If by extremist you mean "I feel that I have the right to force my religious beliefs on others" then I would have to point out that you are being very un-Christian. We as Christians are supposed to witness to others, not cram our beliefs down their throats so that they hate the very religion we wish them to obtain joy from. A Christian must accept the fact that they are not necessarily right about everything (as none of us are God) and that God gave everyone free will and thus they can make their own decisions. If they are not directly harming someone else, we can witness all we like, but have no business forcing anything upon them.

Um...that was the definiton of a Right-wing extremist. I said that I have attacked verbally before but never physically. And I think right-wing extremists that attack liberals physically are horrible people to do that. Attacking someone physically for their politcal beliefs I will never justify(With the exception of Nazis)

Ahh but you call you self one.

If verbally attacking people on defending your belief system is extreamism then everybody is an extreamist.

You might want to reclassify yourself ;)

what I meant by sometimes physically attack is that some right-wing extremists do that.

I am a Christian as well, although much less far to the right. If by extremist you mean "I feel that I have the right to force my religious beliefs on others" then I would have to point out that you are being very un-Christian. We as Christians are supposed to witness to others, not cram our beliefs down their throats so that they hate the very religion we wish them to obtain joy from. A Christian must accept the fact that they are not necessarily right about everything (as none of us are God) and that God gave everyone free will and thus they can make their own decisions. If they are not directly harming someone else, we can witness all we like, but have no business forcing anything upon them.
I know. I've never forced my religious beliefs on people. Now I've asked them if they just want to go to church and see what its like and then they decide for themselves if they want to be Christian or not.

I know. I've never forced my religious beliefs on people. Now I've asked them if they just want to go to church and see what its like and then they decide for themselves if they want to be Christian or not.

If you advocate legislating your beliefs for no other reason than the fact that they are your beliefs, you are attempting to force your belief system on them.

Another win for morality :)

Excellent. Now on to removing the non-Christians from teaching.

Excellent. Now on to removing the non-Christians from teaching.

Jerry? Is that you? ;)

either.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/south.carolina.ap/index.html
Religion has nothing to do with this, and statistically, the live-in boyfriend is the number one offender against single mothers and their children (whether or not he is the father). Although, this should have no reflection on whom is allowed to teach.

I don't think people who think like that should even be allowed to have kids. Good thing I don't try to force my religious beliefs on others, now isn't it?
You know, Hitler did something like that a long time ago..

Religion has nothing to do with this, and statistically, the live-in boyfriend is the number one offender against single mothers and their children (whether or not he is the father). Although, this should have no reflection on whom is allowed to teach.


What is the polling data?

Does it measure across financial boundries?

etc. etc.

so, people have a right to be morons

You know, Hitler did something like that a long time ago..

And your point?

I knew of a few people that should not be allowed to have children.

One who is a good friend openly admits she should never have a kid.

so, people have a right to be morons

Well a moron just is(being one I can claim expertise).

Their right is not having others "correct" it! ;)

Well he is right about bush dividing the country.

And you are right that we should unite. You do remember about Bush's false assertion that he is a "uniter not a divider". Are you sure that MKLTRA did that? It doesn't seem like him...
No politician ever is a uniter. they all bring their own beliefs to the table and neither side is willing to compromise too much. Just enough to make everyone angry.

Open gays and bis should not be PE teachers. Why? The same reason male PE teachers are not allowed in the female students' locker rooms, and vice versa. That's all.

Open gays and bis should not be PE teachers. Why? The same reason male PE teachers are not allowed in the female students' locker rooms, and vice versa. That's all.

In that case, homosexual students should not be allowed to go to PE classes. For the very same reason.

Open gays and bis should not be PE teachers. Why? The same reason male PE teachers are not allowed in the female students' locker rooms, and vice versa. That's all.


Clarification:

Is this because Gays are pedophiles?

Is there an age range here?

The problem with examples like this is that many people think "I knew it, those christians are a bunch of weirdo extremists" instead of doing some real research on what we really belief.

Alot of the issues I see on nationstates make christians look bad. Thats the bad side of this game, nomatter what you option you pick, you will always clearly see wheter the creator of the game agrees with you or not.

In that case, homosexual students should not be allowed to go to PE classes. For the very same reason.

In fact, we should have separate heterosexual and homosexual bathrooms.

And water fountains.

And schools.

And they should sit in the back of the bus.

And they should sit in the back of the bus.

Don't be ridiculous. Your kind isn't worthy of public transportation.

In fact, we should have separate heterosexual and homosexual bathrooms.

And water fountains.

And schools.

And they should sit in the back of the bus.
Pfft. Throw them in reeducation camps. Teach em the bible with a gun at their heads, they will get the point quickly and stop sinning.

Either that or die of typhus.

In that case, homosexual students should not be allowed to go to PE classes. For the very same reason.

Nope. They are not agents of the state but rather they are minor members of the people, entitled to the same education as anybody else.

to honorable mrs. CSW and Chenia:
kindly shut up before i give you AIDS.

to honorable mrs. CSW and Chenia:
kindly shut up before i give you AIDS.
I'm a Mrs now?

Oh dear :(

Transsexual I am. Now I have to go to one of the camps to and hopefully not die of "typhus"

Don't be ridiculous. Your kind isn't worthy of public transportation.

My kind? So people in long-term heterosexual relationships shouldn't ride the bus?

((I know you were kidding, but I wanted to make the point that people shouldn't jump to conclusions they can't substantiate just based on an opinion =))

Open gays and bis should not be PE teachers. Why? The same reason male PE teachers are not allowed in the female students' locker rooms, and vice versa. That's all.

By the way, are we instituting a don't-ask-don't tell policy in the schools now? You did say "open gays and bis," so I suppose you would be perfectly ok for a closeted homo- or bisexual being a PE teacher?

I'm a Mrs now?

Oh dear :(

Transsexual I am. Now I have to go to one of the camps to and hopefully not die of "typhus"


I told you that you were my beeatch! :p

Clarification:

Is this because Gays are pedophiles?

Is there an age range here?

No it isn't, because they are not (most pedophiles, even same-gender ones, are hetero in their adult sexuality. It is simply a matter of propriety. You don't (or at least shouldn't) give access to an active one-gender locker/shower area to an adult of the other gender, regardless of that person's sexual orientation, and for the same basic reason you don't give an openly non-hetero adult access to any such area - s/he is of the opposite gender in one case, and is known to be attracted to the gender of the students in the other.

If they're in the closet, fine. We've all heard rumours of lesbian PE teachers. They're entitled to their privacy, but when they are open about it it makes for the appearance, at least, of impropriety.

And the only age range here is the divide between teachers and students.

By the way, are we instituting a don't-ask-don't tell policy in the schools now? You did say "open gays and bis," so I suppose you would be perfectly ok for a closeted homo- or bisexual being a PE teacher?

Yes.

Yes.

Ok, so any homosexual PE teacher has to hide who they are just to get a job. Great idea.

they tend to spend more time protesting random things than being in school and building their own opinions

Well I'm sure they would if they were allowed in school (public school anyway). It seems to me that christianity has become a scapegoat to push poplitical views. And the things they are protesting are certainly not random, they are doctrines of general christianity, and most of them are Dogmas of the Catholic Church. Christianity involves speaking out against those that are not following these basic principles. "Christian"= "follower of Christ" "Christ"= Greek "Kristos" meaning "annointed one" To be a Christian is to obyde by the laws and guidlines that Christ has set for us. And to call yourself a Christian, and then persecute those who try to obyde the rules and guidlines essential to Christianity, is to be a hypocrite, a person whom Christ spoke out against so often.

Ok, so any homosexual PE teacher has to hide who they are just to get a job. Great idea.

Or they can get a different job.

I can't get a job as a waiter at Hooters... :(

Or they can get a different job.

Ok, so if I were a homosexual who went to school 6 years to be a PE teacher, I should just up and leave my job because some people are scared of my sexuality?

You know what... I've got a great idea. Let's thin out the teacher pool. Let's make sure they're all white, married, christian men and women so nobody will be offended. Wait, wasn't that teacher who slept with a 12 year-old in her class a white, married Christian? Hmmm... I think she was. He was in her class (sorry I can't remember her name) in 3rd grade (age 7) then again in 6th. She slept with him when he was 13. She bore him two children (one from prison). She had four children with her husband prior sleeping with her student.

Here's the thing... I teach English in a high school. Many of my students ARE 18. Am I remotely attracted to any of the boys (being a heterosexual)? Not a chance. They're my kids... I can't even fathom making advances towards my kids! The very thought of an adult even hitting on my students gives me the heebie jeebies. Hetero or gay, there's a separate category for your students and the people in your dating pool.

I'm also a Druid. I refuse to answer questions regarding my beliefs in front of the students, in class, or on school grounds. Partly because school is no place for doctrine. Partly because I don't want angry parents banging down my door. (The last time a student found out I wasn't Christian, her parents called to tell me I would go to hell and tried to get me fired. I'm just glad my school administrators agreed that the parents of this young woman were nutballs.) I have hundreds of Christian kids with Christian parents that are comletely cool people. I have also had two or three with radical Christian parents who don't think I'm fit to teach their students. The article shocked me. I certainly hope there won't be a witch hunt for all teachers now. It's insane.

Ok, so if I were a homosexual who went to school 6 years to be a PE teacher, I should just up and leave my job because some people are scared of my sexuality?

Get a college level job or one in the private sector, like at a fitness center. There are opportunities for you outside of the puiblic school system. And nobody made you study that anyway, and nobody guaranteed you a job.

Suppose you are a male and studied 6 years to be a PE teacher, and the job you want is at an all-girls private high school. Is it descrimination if they have a policy of only hiring female PE teachers?

I also can't get a job in the dressing area at Victoria's Secret. :( Lordy how I have tried!

Suppose you are a male and studied 6 years to be a PE teacher, and the job you want is at an all-girls private high school. Is it descrimination if they have a policy of only hiring female PE teachers?

Honestly? Yes, I think it is. I had male PE teachers the whole time I went through school (public school no less). They simply didn't come into the female dressing room. And even if they had, who really cares? Why must we teach people to be ashamed of their bodies and that anyone who sees them unclothed won't be able to keep it in their pants?

I also can't get a job in the dressing area at Victoria's Secret. :( Lordy how I have tried!

I have seen guys working at Victoria's Secret before. I don't know about the dressing area in particular, but I have seen guys working in sales there. Not allowing them in the dressing room is really more of a "It would make the customers uncomfortable and they wouldn't come" mentality and is driven by the social construct of "Guys can't keep it in their pants" that we have built up.

Why must we teach people to be ashamed of their bodies and that anyone who sees them unclothed won't be able to keep it in their pants?

Dumbest statement, EVER. People are naturally ashamed of their bodies. And there are a lot of people who can't keep it in their pants.

The article you posted has nothing to do with religion, you're just blaming it on religion because you don't like it for some stupid reason. If you've got a beef with somebody's opinion, deal with it like a man and don't vote for them. Don't use religion as your scapegoat.

Dumbest statement, EVER. People are naturally ashamed of their bodies. And there are a lot of people who can't keep it in their pants.

People are not naturally ashamed of their bodies. How many kids have you seen that wouldn't run around naked if allowed to do so?

The article you posted has nothing to do with religion, you're just blaming it on religion because you don't like it for some stupid reason. If you've got a beef with somebody's opinion, deal with it like a man and don't vote for them. Don't use religion as your scapegoat.

I am not blaming it on religion at all, I am blaming it on the blatant misuse of religion that is the "religious right."

I have nothing against gay teachers. I don't feel they set a bad example just by being gay, it depends on the person. Gays do not have the monopoly on bad examples, not by a long shot.

Unwed pregnant teachers on the other hand, I think do promote a bad example. The family, be it hetero or homosexual or what have you, has been shown to be a positive influence in the raising children. Anything that has a positive effect on children is a good thing.

Teachers do more than teach their respective subjects to the children at school. They are role models. They should represent the best aspect that our country, society has to offer. They should reflect values that the society holds as worthy.

I am a Christian as well, although much less far to the right. If by extremist you mean "I feel that I have the right to force my religious beliefs on others" then I would have to point out that you are being very un-Christian. We as Christians are supposed to witness to others, not cram our beliefs down their throats so that they hate the very religion we wish them to obtain joy from. A Christian must accept the fact that they are not necessarily right about everything (as none of us are God) and that God gave everyone free will and thus they can make their own decisions. If they are not directly harming someone else, we can witness all we like, but have no business forcing anything upon them.
We (Christians) cannot witness to others unless we contradict false beliefs. While we may not always be right, we must confront those who are wrong, although in a loving manner.
I recognize that people have other beliefs opposed to mine, but that does not mean I have to say their beliefs are fine. We cannot both be right, and it is in everyone's best interests for us to spread the truth.

Unwed pregnant teachers on the other hand, I think do promote a bad example. The family, be it hetero or homosexual or what have you, has been shown to be a positive influence in the raising children. Anything that has a positive effect on children is a good thing.

As homosexuals have shown, you don't have to be married to be a family.

We (Christians) cannot witness to others unless we contradict false beliefs. While we may not always be right, we must confront those who are wrong, although in a loving manner.
I recognize that people have other beliefs opposed to mine, but that does not mean I have to say their beliefs are fine. We cannot both be right, and it is in everyone's best interests for us to spread the truth.

I didn't ask you to say their beliefs are fine. I asked you not to force your beliefs upon others who don't agree with them. In doing so, all you do is turn people away from your religion.

Dumbest statement, EVER. People are naturally ashamed of their bodies. And there are a lot of people who can't keep it in their pants.

The article you posted has nothing to do with religion, you're just blaming it on religion because you don't like it for some stupid reason. If you've got a beef with somebody's opinion, deal with it like a man and don't vote for them. Don't use religion as your scapegoat.


Sorry but I disagree with the naturally ashamed part.

My 3 year old girl loves to take her cloths off. She has no concept of body image.

Other moms in my wifes mothers group report the same thing with their kids.

So where do they get the bad body image? One can argue TV and the boneybutt models. Some would suggest Barbie. Others can very well argue Religion.

Do you know you can't enter St. Peters if you have a skirt above the knees? Why is that?

I can't get a job as a waiter at Hooters... :(

Assumption made.

Just because you have "preditory" desires to work at hooters does not mean a homosexual has "preditory" desires to work with kids.

You want the hooters and Victorias job because you want to look at naked or shapely women.

Does not mean all homosexuals want the same. In fact that is pedophillia which they are not.

Assumption made.

Just because you have "preditory" desires to work at hooters does not mean a homosexual has "preditory" desires to work with kids.

You want the hooters and Victorias job because you want to look at naked or shapely women.

Does not mean all homosexuals want the same. In fact that is pedophillia which they are not.

What makes you think that you know anything about my motives?

Teachers do more than teach their respective subjects to the children at school. They are role models. They should represent the best aspect that our country, society has to offer. They should reflect values that the society holds as worthy.

Hmmmm so that could be said about the third reich teaching good Aryan values to the kids at that time.

Teachers jobs are to educate and be an authority figure. Not a morality figure. That is the job of the parents, Priest, Rabbi, *incert religious title*

What makes you think that you know anything about my motives?

Then do explain the desires to work at hooters and Victorias.

Other then you want to wear a bra and panties! :p

I didn't ask you to say their beliefs are fine. I asked you not to force your beliefs upon others who don't agree with them. In doing so, all you do is turn people away from your religion.
I shall attempt to convince them that they are wrong, although not in the "Bible-bashing" manner.
As long as you do not confuse forcing people to accept your beliefs with attempting to rationally persuade them that they are wrong, I believe we are in agreement on this point.
Intolerance of stupidity is a good thing.

Honestly? Yes, I think it is. I had male PE teachers the whole time I went through school (public school no less). They simply didn't come into the female dressing room. And even if they had, who really cares? Why must we teach people to be ashamed of their bodies and that anyone who sees them unclothed won't be able to keep it in their pants?

The female students would have cared, you can bet on that.

I have seen guys working at Victoria's Secret before. I don't know about the dressing area in particular, but I have seen guys working in sales there. Not allowing them in the dressing room is really more of a "It would make the customers uncomfortable and they wouldn't come" mentality and is driven by the social construct of "Guys can't keep it in their pants" that we have built up.

So you get it now?

I don't get why everyone hates Christians so much.

It is not that they hate Christians, but that they hate our Lord.

It is not that they hate Christians, but that they hate our Lord.
Too true.

It is not that they hate Christians, but that they hate our Lord.
no i pretty much hate christians and your perverted image of "your lord"

It is not that they hate Christians, but that they hate our Lord.

Are you really that clueless? At least half of people who reject Christianity will tell you that they think that its moral philosophy is good and that Jesus was probably an alright guy, even a very wise one. What many non-Christians do hate is the way that many Christians 1) attempt to enforce religious laws through civil government; 2) interject attempts to convert them in everyday conversations, when they're total strangers, at their front doors, etc.; and 3) tell everyone that is not a Christian that unless they convert they will be tortured horribly forever by a God who loves them.

The female students would have cared, you can bet on that.

Why not kill two birds with one stone and simply have the gay male PE instructors teach the girls and vice-versa?

Why not kill two birds with one stone and simply have the gay male PE instructors teach the girls and vice-versa?

Sounds goo... no wait, they would still be of opposite gender, wouldn't they?

BTW I don't care who teaches the class, just who can be in the locker room.

I expect no better from the South.

You know, Alan Keyes is running in Illinois on basically the same hateful "Christian" bullshit. But he ain't winning! DeMint is heavily favored to beat Tenenbaum, he could say something about how he'd like to drag a homo from his pickup-truck and his numbers would only increase. Thus the difference between Illinois and South Carolina.

Sounds goo... no wait, they would still be of opposite gender, wouldn't they?

BTW I don't care who teaches the class, just who can be in the locker room.
Yes, but they wouldn't have any incentive to go look. Besides, we all know that girls like gay guys for some reason (look up boys kissing if you don't believe me on a site like livejournal...)

Are you really that clueless? At least half of people who reject Christianity will tell you that they think that its moral philosophy is good and that Jesus was probably an alright guy, even a very wise one. What many non-Christians do hate is the way that many Christians 1) attempt to enforce religious laws through civil government; 2) interject attempts to convert them in everyday conversations, when they're total strangers, at their front doors, etc.; and 3) tell everyone that is not a Christian that unless they convert they will be tortured horribly forever by a God who loves them.
Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or God. Make your choice.
1) I do not believe that the government should permit certain behaviors that are abjectly wrong, and thus support efforts to guard against them.
2) Hypothetical situation: If you believed that everyone who didn't know something would suffer eternal torment if you didn't tell them, wouldn't you attempt to tell everyone about that piece of information, even if you had to leave them to accept it for themselves?
3) God is good, therefore both JUST and loving. He made it possible for us to come to Him, but that does not mean that if we knowingly reject Him, He is obligated to pat you on the head and say,"Don't worry, there is no such thing as justice."

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or God. Make your choice.
1) I do not believe that the government should permit certain behaviors that are abjectly wrong, and thus support efforts to guard against them.

Thank God we had James Madison! Seperation of Church and State is a great thing.


2) Hypothetical situation: If you believed that everyone who didn't know something would suffer eternal torment if you didn't tell them, wouldn't you attempt to tell everyone about that piece of information, even if you had to leave them to accept it for themselves?

Hypothetical answer: The Big man gave us free will. But lets not go there.

So what your are saying is that you can have a group of people that have been isolated from society. Never heard of Christ. They are going to hell because they never had access to such information?


3) God is good, therefore both JUST and loving. He made it possible for us to come to Him, but that does not mean that if we knowingly reject Him, He is obligated to pat you on the head and say,"Don't worry, there is no such thing as justice."

Faith is something that should be given. Are you faithful because you don't want to go to hell?

How does one burn a spirit anyway?

Don't ever say you wouldn't expect anything better from the south. What do you want, absolute federal control and the elimination of state's rights? Thank the north you dumb shit. I'm an damned anarchist ideally, and one sonofabitch of a confederalist in reality (not an anti black one, simply one with more state's rights.) but think clearly, the north does just as much bullshit for the people as the south, they just do it with the idea of "improving people for there own good" yeah, gun control. We take away the rights of the individual for the good of society. No. And so what if some southerners are extremely vocal about religion? You'll find a damn lot who just want to go about their lives. Besides, christianity is oftentimes a "poor man's religion" and the south has been destroyed and still hasn't recovered fully economically. So don't give me your bullshit about the south. It's the same thing as saying everyone in new york city (where i live) is a jew or a homosexual. Shutup.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or God. Make your choice.

Inconclusive argument. He could have been both a lunatic and God, or he could have been a lunatic who nevertheless accidentally stumbled across the way to Providence, or he might have been a divinely inspired individual who wasn't actually God, etc. It doesn't follow that just because he was wise that he automatically must have been God.


1) I do not believe that the government should permit certain behaviors that are abjectly wrong, and thus support efforts to guard against them.

Of course, but the question is what justification the government ought to give for why certain things are illegal. The optimal solution is because certain things accord with the moral law (and no, that doesn't automatically refer you straight back to Leviticus. More like Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals), or more simply, because they prevent harm or usage by one person of another. The simple fact that "the Bible says so" is an absurdity and a desecration of God.


2) Hypothetical situation: If you believed that everyone who didn't know something would suffer eternal torment if you didn't tell them, wouldn't you attempt to tell everyone about that piece of information, even if you had to leave them to accept it for themselves?

And yet, again, there are more than one way of doing this. One way is to live as uprightly as possible and lead by example. The other is the traditional Christian way of doing this: deny everyone the free choice by trying to legislate evil out of existence and mandate faith. You tell me which is more successful and Godly.


3) God is good, therefore both JUST and loving. He made it possible for us to come to Him, but that does not mean that if we knowingly reject Him, He is obligated to pat you on the head and say,"Don't worry, there is no such thing as justice."

Erm, this is a bit of a bait and switch, don't you think. The standard by which God grants salvation has traditionally been faith in Protestantism, not works, but faith is usually inferred from the quality of works (the whole "no good tree bears bad fruit" bit). But Protestantism as you are describing leaves out the latter half of the equation. You implicitly seem to suggest that a just and loving God would cast a just and loving person into the fiery depths of hell for all eternity simply because they lacked the critical component of faith. The problem is that if they are doing good works, then by Christ's own calculus they already have faith, whether they would call it that or not.

"Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or a god"

This takes for granted that Jesus excisted, and said what he said, and did what he did. This is highly speculative, and it not being questioned is highly lucrative.

It's also quite a wonder that Jesus says different things in different versions of his book. This suggests that quite a few liberties were taken during translation, either that or Jesus comes every time a new sect of christianity starts. This seems quite feasible to me, if you beleive the rest of the bible.

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc


Is "sc" part of Iran?

You sound like a barbarian, maybe you'd be happier in a developing country.

*strengthens.

Perhaps a gay or lesbian would have taught you spelling, alas, your former teacher did not.

*strengthens.

Perhaps a gay or lesbian would have taught you spelling, alas, your former teacher did not.

Check spelling on Post #95 ...yours, right?

Check spelling on Post #95 ...yours, right?
::chuckles:: What was that saying someone once said......
Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

People shouldn't use incorrect spelling or grammar as arguments for or against a person's position. It really adds nothing to a debate.

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc
"I don’t want a gay, lesbian, or some unwed pregnant woman teaching my kids, this strengthens my resolve to move back to South Carolina."

There, edited!

If you're going to bash someone, please use proper grammar. If you're a result of the South Carolina education system, I'm wondering why these said people want to teach people in this state. They're going to have horrible headaches.

People shouldn't use incorrect spelling or grammar as arguments for or against a person's position. It really adds nothing to a debate.

Normally I would agree, but the irony of someone screwing up his grammar so badly in a complaint about qualified teachers in his home state begs for such a reaction.

A very good point, but then again, I could care less who taught me. Therefore, since I have no moral standards that deny people from teaching me, I realize that I could learn from anyone, and I try to. It'd be different if I acted morally superior and refused teaching and then was a moron.

And please, spelling believe incorrectly is more often a typo then actual ignorance, whereas strainthings...well...you get the point.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or God. Make your choice.

Some believe he was a prophet or some other kind of holy man, simply not unique. Others believe that he was the Messiah of the Seed of David, born of the flesh of Joseph, unique among men but not identicle in any way to God other than being His perfect vessel, and some believe that he didn't exist. Why should anyone be limited to your selections of what beliefs are possible? I bet that you yourself don't even believe in more than one of those, so why should that list limit us to your concept of possible beliefs.

1) I do not believe that the government should permit certain behaviors that are abjectly wrong, and thus support efforts to guard against them.

Who defines "abjectly wrong"? In a pluralistic society shouldn't the standard be to allow people to decide for themselves on things that don't harm anyone who isn't a consenting adult?

2) Hypothetical situation: If you believed that everyone who didn't know something would suffer eternal torment if you didn't tell them, wouldn't you attempt to tell everyone about that piece of information, even if you had to leave them to accept it for themselves?

Hypothetically, yes. But other than by having chosen to believe someone or some book that told me that, why would I believe it?

3) God is good, therefore both JUST and loving. He made it possible for us to come to Him, but that does not mean that if we knowingly reject Him, He is obligated to pat you on the head and say,"Don't worry, there is no such thing as justice."

How is it justice to torture someone FOREVER for doing what the sinful nature that God created them with has impelled them to do?

If the teacher can help you learn then let him/her teach. Who cares about sexual preferance. If they are gay/lesbian good for them. As for being role models I hope not. Some of my teachers are alright but I sure as hell dont need them showing me how I should act/think/be. I'll be my own person if its all the same to you.

Why would it matter if the teachers are homosexuall or single-and-pregnant? When I was in primary-, secondary- and high-school I knew next to nothing about the personal lives of my teachers.

A few of the female ones wanted to be adressed as Mrs. whatever, but most of them prefered Ms.

In highschool there were two teachers whom I found out had children, the rest just didn't talk about that sort of thing to us kids. English teachers are supposed to teach us English, not morals. Chemistry teachers are supposed to teach us chemistry, not morals. Economics teachers are supposed to teach us economics, not morals. Philosophy, Religion and TOK teachers are supposed to teach us morals, but only in hypothetical terms.

The only one who is supposed to teach you morals is you. And possibly the spiritual being you worship. Everyone else is supposed to but out.

Why would it matter if the teachers are homosexuall or single-and-pregnant? When I was in primary-, secondary- and high-school I knew next to nothing about the personal lives of my teachers.

A few of the female ones wanted to be adressed as Mrs. whatever, but most of them prefered Ms.

In highschool there were two teachers whom I found out had children, the rest just didn't talk about that sort of thing to us kids. English teachers are supposed to teach us English, not morals. Chemistry teachers are supposed to teach us chemistry, not morals. Economics teachers are supposed to teach us economics, not morals. Philosophy, Religion and TOK teachers are supposed to teach us morals, but only in hypothetical terms.

The only one who is supposed to teach you morals is you. And possibly the spiritual being you worship. Everyone else is supposed to but out.

Even your parents?

Why would it matter if the teachers are homosexuall or single-and-pregnant? When I was in primary-, secondary- and high-school I knew next to nothing about the personal lives of my teachers.

A few of the female ones wanted to be adressed as Mrs. whatever, but most of them prefered Ms.

In highschool there were two teachers whom I found out had children, the rest just didn't talk about that sort of thing to us kids. English teachers are supposed to teach us English, not morals. Chemistry teachers are supposed to teach us chemistry, not morals. Economics teachers are supposed to teach us economics, not morals. Philosophy, Religion and TOK teachers are supposed to teach us morals, but only in hypothetical terms.

The only one who is supposed to teach you morals is you. And possibly the spiritual being you worship. Everyone else is supposed to but out.
I would say that you would be the worst "teacher" of morals. Parents, friends, authority figures, spiritual leaders (if you have any) all teach morals, primarily by example.
Leaving it up to yourself, and you would become an "I do whatever I feel like, as long as I feel good about it". See something that someone else has that you want? Take it, because having it will make you feel better. Someone is anoying you? Hurt him till he stops, because you would feel better when he does stop.
Not my idea of the right way to go.

It depends on what you define as uniting. Following the Religious conservative viewpoints is not uniting.

How do you know they are liberals?

The Shrub doesn't lie, he misrepresents the facts.

Civil rights and Religion? Ok how are your "civil rights" impuned by people telling you that you are *whatever*?

Yes I think they they are more impuned when YOU deny someone a job because it is against YOUR religious belifs to let your KIDS grow up with a sexual life of their OWN.

I don't see how you Americans can allow such comments from christians, doesn't your constitution say that everyone is equal? And if everyone is equal, how can you put moral demands on teacher?

Let us compare two teachers at my high school. My social science teacher is grwon up at farm in a rural part of Sweden and a member of a baptisme church, sha has hospend and a son. My chemistry teacher is 15 years older, grown up in a suburb, and she has still not had a boyfriend. She has never said ANYTHING about it, simply because it has nothing to with our education. My social science teacher also teaches me about history and religion. She is graduated but knows absolutely nothing about her subjects. Instead of proper education we get propaganda for her church (like the time when she used recruiting handouts written to teens as textbooks). My chemistry teacher is probably the best at the school. She has a good relation to EVERY student. She let us evaluate her teaching trice a term and let us leave classes earlier if we think that she has been to subjective. Now which of these two people do you want to teach your child (when I say that my christian teacher knows nothing about the subject I am serious, I am just not angry at her and writing this to get my agression out, she doesn't do anything but reading loud from the text books)?

The female students would have cared, you can bet on that.

I am a female student, and while I was ashamed of my body at the time and would have minded, I recognize now that this is only because of the way society teaches us to view ourselves.

So you get it now?

I got it from the start - but it doesn't make it right that society projects these things on our kids. Society used to teach that blacks were inferior to whites too, but that didn't make it right.

Sounds goo... no wait, they would still be of opposite gender, wouldn't they?

BTW I don't care who teaches the class, just who can be in the locker room.

Well, most PE teachers of opposite genders don't even go into the locker room, so I guess your first comment was silly. You don't mind homosexuals actually being PE teachers, you just don't want them in the locker room with you while you're dressing.

its mainly an american thing to teach kids to be ashamed of their bodies, america and any place where militant islam governs.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or God. Make your choice.

God

1) I do not believe that the government should permit certain behaviors that are abjectly wrong, and thus support efforts to guard against them.

If you live in the US, your government is not a theocracy. If the behavior harms no one directly and *in this life*, you haven't got a leg to stand on trying to legislate against it. Not everyone adheres to your particular brand of your particular religion.

2) Hypothetical situation: If you believed that everyone who didn't know something would suffer eternal torment if you didn't tell them, wouldn't you attempt to tell everyone about that piece of information, even if you had to leave them to accept it for themselves?

Tell them about it? Yes. Attempt to force them (physically or through legislation) to adhere to it whether they accepted it or not? No.

Well, most PE teachers of opposite genders don't even go into the locker room, so I guess your first comment was silly. You don't mind homosexuals actually being PE teachers, you just don't want them in the locker room with you while you're dressing.

In my HS the boys' PE instructor was male and his office was in the boys' locker room. Likewise for the females. However teachers of either gender might teach either class (mostly a man teaching the girls, because there was a 2:1 ratio of m:f teachers). However, the girls' locker room was off limits to male staff, and v/v. So what I said was not silly at all. It was an extension: if the guy is openly gay, he should stay out of the boys' locker room too. And v/v. It has nothing to do with pedophelia, beyond fear of it. It also has nothing to do with what I would feel or would have felt. It has to do with the comfort levels of a significant proportion of the citizen-children who are required to participate in this, and their rights to not be required to undress in front of someone who is either of the opposite gender &/or is someone who is known to be attracted to adults of those students' own gender.

In the past few years, muslim women at american airports have complained of having to remove their head scarves in public. Many Americans think that their (constitutionally protected) religious taboos against showing their hair to men who are not their husbands nor betrothed are silly, backwards, misogynistic, superstitious, whatever... Similar things can easily be said about religious homophobes, right?

But all it would take to solve the problem is a curtained area and a female inspector. Not a male inspector. Whose rights are more important? The rights of a male agent of the state to do the job, or the rights of a subject of the state to have her religious beliefs, no matter how irrational we may regard them to be, to be respected as much as possible short of Compelling State Interest?

Just call me a NeoCon! ;)

In my HS the boys' PE instructor was male and his office was in the boys' locker room. Likewise for the females. However teachers of either gender might teach either class (mostly a man teaching the girls, because there was a 2:1 ratio of m:f teachers). However, the girls' locker room was off limits to male staff, and v/v. So what I said was not silly at all. It was an extension: if the guy is openly gay, he should stay out of the boys' locker room too. And v/v. It has nothing to do with pedophelia, beyond fear of it. It also has nothing to do with what I would feel or would have felt. It has to do with the comfort levels of a significant proportion of the citizen-children who are required to participate in this, and their rights to not be required to undress in front of someone who is either of the opposite gender &/or is someone who is known to be attracted to adults of those students' own gender.

In the past few years, muslim women at american airports have complained of having to remove their head scarves in public. Many Americans think that their (constitutionally protected) religious taboos against showing their hair to men who are not their husbands nor betrothed are silly, backwards, misogynistic, superstitious, whatever... Similar things can easily be said about religious homophobes, right?

But all it would take to solve the problem is a curtained area and a female inspector. Not a male inspector. Whose rights are more important? The rights of a male agent of the state to do the job, or the rights of a subject of the state to have her religious beliefs, no matter how irrational we may regard them to be, to be respected as much as possible short of Compelling State Interest?

Just call me a NeoCon! ;)

I can't argue with anything in that post, my only argument was against the idea that homosexuals cannot be PE teachers, not that certain arrangements wouldn't have to be made.

As for calling you a NeoCon, I think not. =)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

I think this will put an end to all of this.

I can't argue with anything in that post, my only argument was against the idea that homosexuals cannot be PE teachers, not that certain arrangements wouldn't have to be made.

As for calling you a NeoCon, I think not. =)

In all the schools I've been in those certain arrangements would involve major architectural changes. Guess which wins? I'm sorry I was initially so overgeneralistic in saying no open gay should be a PE teacher, now that I have subsequently said that they should just stay out of the locker rooms. However I cannot imagine how a teacher can maintain order over his or her classroom when he or she is not able to access the entirety of the classroom/classtime area.

OK look at it this way: we are all aware, even if not first-hand, in America that very often PE teachers double as other teachers. Drivers' Ed, Sex Ed/Health, and History are common double foci, but there are others. If the gay art teacher can do a segment on acrobatics (please pardon my stereotyping), let him suit up in the teacher's bathroom and come in during those periods to teach it, but those who are in charge of the classroom area, the chief PE instructors, should be on hand to keep the good christian kids from beating the life out of the gay students while they're showering.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

I think this will put an end to all of this.

Please get help.

I'm am Christian. I'm Catholic and everything. But I'm very far into the right, technically extremist. Everytime I've made a post about liberals and conservatives uniting, a bunch of liberals attack it saying that I'm a liar like Bush(Who isn't a liar, in my opinion). And they are supposed to be for civil rights! That is hypocritical to me.

Sad to say, a lot of your so-called "liberals" are the least liberal people around when it comes to anyone disagreeing with ntheir agenda. Of course both ends of the spectrum are guilty of this but coming from those who claim to be for openness, rights, and freedom, it stinks of hypocrisy.
My own experience--the more I know of the real world, the less doctrinaire I am about it, and the less likely to cast stones.

I would say that you would be the worst "teacher" of morals. Parents, friends, authority figures, spiritual leaders (if you have any) all teach morals, primarily by example.

i would say that you are a far more dangerous individual, personally, since the concept of morality that you outline (below) is frighteningly sociopathic.


Leaving it up to yourself, and you would become an "I do whatever I feel like, as long as I feel good about it".

wow, you would? i wouldn't. my sense of morality is about more than what other people tell me to do. i have a moral compass that is independent and self-sufficient, and i have moral disagreements with my parents, family, friends, and mentors...they all give me ideas of morality, but i make the decisions for myself.

if your natural impulse is to do anything you like, regardless of consequences, then that's a serious impulse problem that you probably should see somebody about. if the only thing holding you in check is rote-memorized moral laws or the commands of authority figures then that's pretty terrifying.


See something that someone else has that you want? Take it, because having it will make you feel better. Someone is anoying you? Hurt him till he stops, because you would feel better when he does stop.
Not my idea of the right way to go.
again, if your moral consciousness is so underdeveloped that you need to be TOLD not to hurt people or taken things that aren't yours then you are a pretty morally bereft person. you have my sympathy...i can't even imagine what it would be like to be that callous and uncontrolled.

i dont want a gay or a lesbo or some unwedd prego teaching my kids and this strainthings my resolve to move back to sc
Uh huh, and I guess that's why you write so well and spell so correctly, too. Ah yes, "Morality Uber Alles", God help us. Unfortunately, my keyboard doesn't support special characters, or I'd have added the umlaut over the "u" in "uber", but I doubt YOU'D have even noticed...

I would say that you would be the worst "teacher" of morals. Parents, friends, authority figures, spiritual leaders (if you have any) all teach morals, primarily by example.
Leaving it up to yourself, and you would become an "I do whatever I feel like, as long as I feel good about it". See something that someone else has that you want? Take it, because having it will make you feel better. Someone is anoying you? Hurt him till he stops, because you would feel better when he does stop.
Not my idea of the right way to go.

Just because I said I didn't need a role model to copy morals off doesn't mean I dont have any. Just because im not a sheep that doesn't make me a wolf.