NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11575103%255E401,00.html

Okay, just a little scary...

bump

The thread title was misleading, I was expecting a link to Bush endorsing S&M or somethin.

He's a liar. If he wants to make the whole country like that, he should just take it over and make it into a corrupt theocracy (and under Bush, it WOULD be corrupt - not Christian at all), rather than mincing around? Like I would.

The thread title was misleading, I was expecting a link to Bush endorsing S&M or somethin.
Its Bush, I wouldn't be suprised if he suddenly claimed that he never had sex and that his daughters were concieved by the holy spirit, just like he was.

Extreme is as extreme does. I suppose that if I were suddenly and unexpectedly boned by another man from behind in the shower, that would be extreme to me.

Stop complaining about what you're taught or not taught in schools. I've had to correct my daughter about her beliefs in history (taught by the schools) by taking her to the library and showing her the truth.

What do you call compulsory education to the 12th grade level? Mind control.

Extreme is as extreme does. I suppose that if I were suddenly and unexpectedly boned by another man from behind in the shower, that would be extreme to me.

Stop complaining about what you're taught or not taught in schools. I've had to correct my daughter about her beliefs in history (taught by the schools) by taking her to the library and showing her the truth.

What do you call compulsory education to the 12th grade level? Mind control.
Yes, but their bastardization of the facts is what gets me scared. They even got the number of chromosomes wrong (unless we're all Down Syndrome...)

I posted that story on the abstinance thread.

The whole concept is pretty stupid.

I posted that story on the abstinance thread.

The whole concept is pretty stupid.
Yes, and it doesn't work either. You want proof? Virginia (which only allows any form of birth control other than Abstinance to be mentioned in the context of "Family Planning") has some of the highest STD rates in america.

The thread title was misleading, I was expecting a link to Bush endorsing S&M or somethin.
My thoughts exactly.

I wasn't surprised by the story, I've been seeing stuff like this all around the blogs.

However, I did get a chuckle out of the "24 chromosome" part. :p

My thoughts exactly.

I wasn't surprised by the story, I've been seeing stuff like this all around the blogs.

However, I did get a chuckle out of the "24 chromosome" part. :p
Yes, apparently the christian right has determined that odd numbers are now evil. As are birth control pills (totally unrelated, derailing my own thread, but there is a pharmicist in Texas that refuses to fill perscriptions for birth control pills because they "Take a life").

Extreme is as extreme does. I suppose that if I were suddenly and unexpectedly boned by another man from behind in the shower, that would be extreme to me.



1. If I were..you may suppose his death would be extreme


2. Never trust a man that kisses turkeys

Leetonia, there are whole books written on the bastardization of facts by everyone who ever ran a school or wrote a school book.

In fact, the news stories, if you read all of them, are bastardizations in and of themselves. There's a knee jerk reaction that people have when they read a news story (it's called not reading other news stories on the same subject, and cross-correlating).

Let's take one issue as an example. The abstinence people are trying to paint condoms as bad, and evil, and deceiving. So they're saying in the material that condoms aren't safe. The other people are trying to paint condoms as the only way to have safe sex. So they're saying the material is idiotic.

The truth, for this issue, is somewhere in between. Wearing a condom, even if properly used, is not 100% safe. Let's look at what we're being told, shall we?

If a woman's male partner uses a condom to prevent pregnancy, and does so perfectly, and there are never any faulty condoms or faulty condom use, the average woman has a five percent chance of becoming pregnant in one year. That is the official definition of "effectiveness" in preventing pregnancy with a condom.

If a woman used no protection, there is an 85 percent chance over one year's time that she would become pregnant.

While many will tell you that a condom is "safe and effective", they will usually let you know the pregnancy figure, but they WON'T tell you the HIV effectiveness figure. Criteria of performance is everything. Pregnancy, while certainly a big deal, is not the same as certain death.

If I told you that there was a five percent chance that my pistol were loaded, would you put the muzzle in your mouth and pull the trigger?

Not saying the abstinence program is right (it's probably as screwed up as the program that tells you that condoms make sex completely safe).

I see no problem with the underlying premise of these programs, nor with teaching children that just because it "feels good" doesn't always mean "do it". It doesn't take a battery of Ph.d's to figure out that if one abstains from pre-marital sex, a whole host of problems ... including unwanted pregnancies and yes, STD's ... are prevented ... 100% of the time.

I have to wonder ... is it really the alleged "innacuracies" (alleged by a liberal democrat, go figure) that truly bother you, or the concept of abstinence itself? Perhaps its the idea that anything that invalidates, or even questions, a hedonistic "it's my body and I'll do what I want to" leftist lifestyle that really pinches ... Oh yes, we must be "liberal and open minded", as long, that is, that we make sure that no one is allowed to espouse a view contrary to liberal elietism. :fluffle:

Yes, apparently the christian right has determined that odd numbers are now evil. As are birth control pills (totally unrelated, derailing my own thread, but there is a pharmicist in Texas that refuses to fill perscriptions for birth control pills because they "Take a life").

that taking a life thing, did u see that on The Daily Show? Jus asking cause that's where i saw it.

The idea that this much money is going into a program that is just wrong, i mean, not like the standard distorting the facts typa wrong: serious wrong goes beyond average religious right shenanigans and into just plain weird. i don't mean to alienate the religious right because i thing that they have a right to believe these things and preach to people who they see as needing to be informed, but a lot of these proposals are not good for the entire nation and should be reviewed before accepted.

I see no problem with the underlying premise of these programs, nor with teaching children that just because it "feels good" doesn't always mean "do it". It doesn't take a battery of Ph.d's to figure out that if one abstains from pre-marital sex, a whole host of problems ... including unwanted pregnancies and yes, STD's ... are prevented ... 100% of the time.

I have to wonder ... is it really the alleged "innacuracies" (alleged by a liberal democrat, go figure) that truly bother you, or the concept of abstinence itself? Perhaps its the idea that anything that invalidates, or even questions, a hedonistic "it's my body and I'll do what I want to" leftist lifestyle that really pinches ... Oh yes, we must be "liberal and open minded", as long, that is, that we make sure that no one is allowed to espouse a view contrary to liberal elietism. :fluffle:
Um what?

We want to teach kids what sex is and how to protect themselves if and when they do it, with all the facts.

You want to lie to them, preach, and push your morals across as facts.

That's right, go ahead and teach them that there's a five percent chance that the virus will get through anyway and kill them dead.

Oops, I'm sorry. That's the Republican version. The Democrat would lie to the kid and tell them that it's "safe" to put the barrel of the pistol in their mouth and pull the trigger.

I see no problem with the underlying premise of these programs, nor with teaching children that just because it "feels good" doesn't always mean "do it". It doesn't take a battery of Ph.d's to figure out that if one abstains from pre-marital sex, a whole host of problems ... including unwanted pregnancies and yes, STD's ... are prevented ... 100% of the time.

I have to wonder ... is it really the alleged "innacuracies" (alleged by a liberal democrat, go figure) that truly bother you, or the concept of abstinence itself? Perhaps its the idea that anything that invalidates, or even questions, a hedonistic "it's my body and I'll do what I want to" leftist lifestyle that really pinches ... Oh yes, we must be "liberal and open minded", as long, that is, that we make sure that no one is allowed to espouse a view contrary to liberal elietism. :fluffle:
:tastes a troll:
Anyway, about the post prior to this one. Nowhere in ther did it contest that Abstinance is not effective, you'd have to have a hole in your head to think it wasn't, but to treat it as if its the ONLY effective method is idiotic and basically the same as saying you don't trust people to make informed decisions. Yes condoms are 95% effective against unwanted pregnancy and Abstinance is 100% effective. The program in question is trying to make it seem as if Abstinance is the only way to protect yourself against STDs and pregnancy. It isn't, its merely the most effective. Why not teach the kids all the options and all the facts and let them make their own decision. To say that 'Condoms don't work' is ignorant and misleading, however, "Condoms are only effective 95% of the time" is informed and reasonable.

That's right, go ahead and teach them that there's a five percent chance that the virus will get through anyway and kill them dead.

Oops, I'm sorry. That's the Republican version. The Democrat would lie to the kid and tell them that it's "safe" to put the barrel of the pistol in their mouth and pull the trigger.
:gets the Whack-a-troll (c) Hammer:

that taking a life thing, did u see that on The Daily Show? Jus asking cause that's where i saw it.

The idea that this much money is going into a program that is just wrong, i mean, not like the standard distorting the facts typa wrong: serious wrong goes beyond average religious right shenanigans and into just plain weird. i don't mean to alienate the religious right because i thing that they have a right to believe these things and preach to people who they see as needing to be informed, but a lot of these proposals are not good for the entire nation and should be reviewed before accepted.
Yes, I did. Isn't it sad when a admittedly joke news program's stories hold up better to scrutiny than ones from "respectible" news programs.

That's right, go ahead and teach them that there's a five percent chance that the virus will get through anyway and kill them dead.

Oops, I'm sorry. That's the Republican version. The Democrat would lie to the kid and tell them that it's "safe" to put the barrel of the pistol in their mouth and pull the trigger.
Actually the Republican version would just be "don't have sex, don't have sex, don't use condoms, you'll die and get pregnant too".

Sure, it's important that students know that condoms aren't 100% effective, and only abstinence is 100%, but its still important for them to know that protected sex is safer than unprotected sex.

You forget, Leetonia, that I believe that the agendas of both Democrats and Republicans are forcing them to create crap for our schools.

Both parties are so full of crap, the stench is unbearable. Find a private school for your kids, because the lies, especially in history class, are unfathomable.

Um what?

We want to teach kids what sex is and how to protect themselves if and when they do it, with all the facts.

You want to lie to them, preach, and push your morals across as facts.

Ah yes, as opposed to lying to them by telling them that sex is merely a "personal choice" without consequences nor any moral, social or economic implications concerning anyone else on the planet ... along with that paradigm of truth, that its "just a fetus". The barrel of condoms is by the door kids ... knock yourselves out.

Both parties are so full of crap, the stench is unbearable.
That is true. ;)

Seems like we're always voting for the lesser of two evils. :p

Find a private school for your kids, because the lies, especially in history class, are unfathomable.
I had a fair share of lies crammed down my throat at my private school. Then again, it was a Catholic school, so I shouldn't have expected otherwise.

You forget, Leetonia, that I believe that the agendas of both Democrats and Republicans are forcing them to create crap for our schools.

Both parties are so full of crap, the stench is unbearable. Find a private school for your kids, because the lies, especially in history class, are unfathomable.
Any examples? Btw, sometimes, the "lies" are a result of the school in question not having gotten new text books since Nixon, which bears the question, are private schools better because they're private, or because they get more money? Assuming that private schools are better in the first place. Several indicators, such as SAT scores would indicate that they are not.

I don't know about your sex education programs, but I can tell you that the one I had at my high school didn't say that condoms were 100% effective - it just said that if you ARE going to have sex, then to use birth control to make it so that there's as little a chance as possible for something to go wrong. Yes, there is the 5% chance with condoms, but it's better than having people out there engage in unprotected sex.

The thing is, you can't prevent people from having sex, and they will have sex. Abstinence-only education has been in the schools forever (I know my middle-school used it) and it doesn't really stop people from having sex, it just stops them from knowing that if they are going to have sex they should use protection.

As for the "republican" version vs. the "democratic" version I'd say that your observations on them, My Gun Not Yours, are correct for the democratic version, but wrong for the republican version. the way I see it is more like this: "Having sex before marriage is immoral, don't do it, God will smite you with a holy disease if you do. Condoms won't protect you against this at all, neither will any other form of birth control, and birth control doesn't stop pregnancy." That's about what they taught in my middle school.

In this, like in most other politically controversial topics, we've lost the middle-of-the-line, which is often the best answer to the topic, among the radicals on both sides who manage to take over the news because they're more "interesting". When was the last time you heard a senator say that they'd like to try to find a middle-of-the-road answer to a politically controversial topic? When was the last time you heard a majority of the senate agree with them?

If my lie is ever ruined beyond repair.. im gonna go after him (probably just sit and complain more though) >_<

Ah yes, as opposed to lying to them by telling them that sex is merely a "personal choice" without consequences nor any moral, social or economic implications concerning anyone else on the planet ... along with that paradigm of truth, that its "just a fetus". The barrel of condoms is by the door kids ... knock yourselves out.
:uses the Whack-a-Troll(c) hammer, repeatedly:
(puts up a sign 'Do not feed the Trolls')

Ah yes, as opposed to lying to them by telling them that sex is merely a "personal choice" without consequences nor any moral, social or economic implications concerning anyone else on the planet
What???

Sex, if anything, is most definately a personal choice.

... along with that paradigm of truth, that its "just a fetus".
It is a fetus. That's what the word means.

The barrel of condoms is by the door kids ... knock yourselves out.
Again, you resort to the "access to condoms will drive them into a sexual frenzy" line. :rolleyes:

In this, like in most other politically controversial topics, we've lost the middle-of-the-line, which is often the best answer to the topic, among the radicals on both sides who manage to take over the news because they're more "interesting". When was the last time you heard a senator say that they'd like to try to find a middle-of-the-road answer to a politically controversial topic? When was the last time you heard a majority of the senate agree with them?
Ever heard of a guy named John McCain?
(speaking of Johns, you know that stupid "Flush the John" campaign that some young Republican groups had? I started one called "Trim the Bush" it involved handing out BiC razors to every girl that walked by.)

I personally don't get aroused by condoms. I don't see a condom in the convenience store and suddenly think, "I gotta have sex. I gotta have sex. NOW!"

Giving condoms to teens won't make them have sex. But if they do have sex, it sure will come in handy.

No, these are new history books from last year. Nice ones, too. According to these books (strictly by omission, I'm sure), no dead white male ever invented anything of any use in the 19th century.

I felt like I was reading the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which is a real scream if you can find one).

The private school I'm sending my daughter to next year has over 90 percent of its graduates accepted at Ivy League schools. And its textbooks aren't full of crap. And, a line by line comparison of its budget shows that it spends roughly half per student that the local county (Fairfax County, Virginia) spends. I'm not terribly religious, but my daughter would like to sing a Christmas song at school, but about 90 percent of them are expressly forbidden. On the other hand, Muslims here are given their own room to pray several times a day - something that is not granted to any other religious group.

It was explained to me that favoring the Muslims and suppressing all other forms of expression is "multiculturalism". The idea where your culture is stepped on, spit on, crushed, ignored, and rolled under the carpet while someone else's culture is upheld as the paragon of virtue and morality. Except that in this case, you're the native and they are the immigrant.

And as for private schools, at least you'll know in advance what kind of lies to expect.

You're smoking your own socks if you believe that your own political party isn't lying to you and your kids about something (probably everything). Democrat or Republican, you can't honestly believe that you and your party are always right and always honest and always above board.

Ever heard of a guy named John McCain?
(speaking of Johns, you know that stupid "Flush the John" campaign that some young Republican groups had? I started one called "Trim the Bush" it involved handing out BiC razors to every girl that walked by.)
Holy shit that's priceless! :D

*starts to crack another "Bush, Dick, Colon" joke...* :p

paraphased
The truth, for this issue, is somewhere in between. Wearing a condom, even if properly used, is not 100% safe. Let's look at what we're being told, shall we?

If a woman's male partner uses a condom to prevent pregnancy, and does so perfectly, and there are never any faulty condoms or faulty condom use, the average woman has a five percent chance of becoming pregnant in one year. That is the official definition of "effectiveness" in preventing pregnancy with a condom.

If a woman used no protection, there is an 85 percent chance over one year's time that she would become pregnant.



Er this might have been taken as obvious but even without contraception you are not guaranteed to get pregnant so in reality 85% becomes more like 2% or less. Unless your timing is really bad.

lol, I'm sorry, but any manual that told me:

"twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual,"

Would get stappled to my wall next to a biology book... 48 chromosomes whats that? Hyper-Super Down's Sydrome? Oh lord -.-

You know... when I hear things like that it makes me want to fill a condom with water and hang it from the ceiling... "Ok your holiness, if it drips I'll believe you."

-

The sucess rate with a condom is around 98% coupled with the combined pill (sucess-rate 99.x%) I'd say you were pretty damn safe from avoiding a pregnancy...

The condom is the only effective protection from STDs :)

No, these are new history books from last year. Nice ones, too. According to these books (strictly by omission, I'm sure), no dead white male ever invented anything of any use in the 19th century.

I felt like I was reading the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which is a real scream if you can find one).

The private school I'm sending my daughter to next year has over 90 percent of its graduates accepted at Ivy League schools. And its textbooks aren't full of crap. And, a line by line comparison of its budget shows that it spends roughly half per student that the local county (Fairfax County, Virginia) spends. I'm not terribly religious, but my daughter would like to sing a Christmas song at school, but about 90 percent of them are expressly forbidden. On the other hand, Muslims here are given their own room to pray several times a day - something that is not granted to any other religious group.

It was explained to me that favoring the Muslims and suppressing all other forms of expression is "multiculturalism". The idea where your culture is stepped on, spit on, crushed, ignored, and rolled under the carpet while someone else's culture is upheld as the paragon of virtue and morality. Except that in this case, you're the native and they are the immigrant.

And as for private schools, at least you'll know in advance what kind of lies to expect.

You're smoking your own socks if you believe that your own political party isn't lying to you and your kids about something (probably everything). Democrat or Republican, you can't honestly believe that you and your party are always right and always honest and always above board.
Okay, agree with most of your post. There's just one problem
The reason other religions don't get a special prayer room is that no other religion requires frequent prayer as a component of its faith. Now, if you could form a religion that required that every practicioner carried a 'live' bong at all times, then the public schools would have to allow it. Private schools, however, are allowed to dismiss other religions on a whim, because they do not receive government funds (one reason I'm actually for school vouchers "Hey, guess what, you get public funds now, you have to obey the same rules as the rest of us :D")

whoever it was that called the disagreement with abstinence only education "extreme hedonist left-wing liberalism" is ignorant and uneducated.
abstinence programs do NOT work; it's been proven time and time again. we're not here to bake cakes and invent I-Pods; we're mammals and biologically, we want to mate. that's it.
the thought that politicians and "educators" have the right to decide the limits of what we learn is ridiculous. give people all the options, let them choose.
you must be running a dictatorship, nazi...

Okay, agree with most of your post. There's just one problem
The reason other religions don't get a special prayer room is that no other religion requires frequent prayer as a component of its faith. Now, if you could form a religion that required that every practicioner carried a 'live' bong at all times, then the public schools would have to allow it. Private schools, however, are allowed to dismiss other religions on a whim, because they do not receive government funds (one reason I'm actually for school vouchers "Hey, guess what, you get public funds now, you have to obey the same rules as the rest of us :D")

i can just see the school board discussing funding for this... ~Sigh~ "Well their religion says they have to pray at certain times every day, in a prescribed environment, but all the others, they can just hold it, right?"

lol, I'm sorry, but any manual that told me:

"twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual,"

Would get stappled to my wall next to a biology book... 48 chromosomes whats that? Hyper-Super Down's Sydrome? Oh lord -.-

You know... when I hear things like that it makes me want to fill a condom with water and hang it from the ceiling... "Ok your holiness, if it drips I'll believe you."

-

The sucess rate with a condom is around 98% coupled with the combined pill (sucess-rate 99.x%) I'd say you were pretty damn safe from avoiding a pregnancy...

The condom is the only effective protection from STDs :)
Excluding abstinance, lets not forget that, don't want to give the trolls any ammo.

My daughter has been stopped from praying before school on school grounds (privately, to herself). She has been stopped from praying with her friends at lunch.

Christians aren't allowed to use school property for prayer or clubs. But Muslims are.

She's more religious than I am, and I'm not one to discourage it. But the state sure wants her to be a Muslim. And I live in the US.

Quote:

Yes, but their bastardization of the facts is what gets me scared. They even got the number of chromosomes wrong (unless we're all Down Syndrome...)

They might. It would explain alot :D

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

What???

Sex, if anything, is most definately a personal choice.

It's a personal choice as long as you are ready to personally bear the consequences ... The problem is, too many of the young engage in sex without the least notion or means of how to deal with pregnancy. As a result, millions upon millions are spent on social welfare programs, not to mention medical costs. The problem with the leftist point of view is the entire focus is on "rights", with little more than lip service paid to responsibility. Can you "prevent" kids from having sex? No, of course not. But you CAN discourage it until they are ready. Does this mean enforcing ignorance about STD's or condoms or other means of protection? Again, no.
But you can attempt to instill the idea that "experimentation" is NOT desireable until the individual is of an age to bear the consequences, not foist them on the rest of society merely to fulfil their own pleasure.

It is a fetus. That's what the word means.

I'm aware of what the word means .... but it doesen't address the idea that the unborn are still humans, and therefore, is mislabeling in the politcal context it's been used in so often. You may be willing to relegate a baby to a dustbin solely because a female wishes the pleasure of intercourse without bearing the consequences, but many of are not.

Again, you resort to the "access to condoms will drive them into a sexual frenzy" line. :rolleyes:

It's called sarcasm ... see comment above. :rolleyes: (Back at cha, lol)

i can just see the school board discussing funding for this... ~Sigh~ "Well their religion says they have to pray at certain times every day, in a prescribed environment, but all the others, they can just hold it, right?"
Actually, not certain times every day, just a certain number of times. I knew a guy who would basically get all five prayers out of the way before school.

lol, I'm sorry, but any manual that told me:

"twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual,"

Would get stappled to my wall next to a biology book... 48 chromosomes whats that? Hyper-Super Down's Sydrome? Oh lord -.-

You know... when I hear things like that it makes me want to fill a condom with water and hang it from the ceiling... "Ok your holiness, if it drips I'll believe you."

-

The sucess rate with a condom is around 98% coupled with the combined pill (sucess-rate 99.x%) I'd say you were pretty damn safe from avoiding a pregnancy...

The condom is the only effective protection from STDs :)

Your so right, forget everything else STD's can only be reduced by stopping contact.
Honestly we know we are not going to stop so Condoms are the only alternative, even if they are a moment runing aggrovation.

lol, yes :) I think its implicit that if you don't have sex (or use dirty syringes) you're not likely (but its not beyond the realms of possibility) to contract an STD.

How overt is your daughter being with prayer? I can see how communial prayer might be a breach of regulations... but she should be able to pray on her own... personally I'd read the schools regulations and then go in guns blazing (erm... perhaps in the case of american schools that was a poor choice of words...) erm... and have a strong word with who ever is the authority figure in the school.

My daughter has been stopped from praying before school on school grounds (privately, to herself). She has been stopped from praying with her friends at lunch.

Christians aren't allowed to use school property for prayer or clubs. But Muslims are.

She's more religious than I am, and I'm not one to discourage it. But the state sure wants her to be a Muslim. And I live in the US.

It's not a matter of wanting your daughter not to pray; they have an obligation to seperate church and state; and since there are militant atheists (i swear, why does every single group need fanatics?) out there ready to bring civil 'justice' down on any school that lets their children get the faintest whiff of spiritualism, they dissuade its practice at school if it's avoidable.
Muslims pose a unique problem to this. The prayer schedule dictated in the Qu'aran conflicts with the schedules of the schools, who have both a responsibility to seperate church and state, and a responsbility to allow free exercise of religion. Since those of other religions 'have a choice' whether or not to pray in school, they are encouraged to pray on their own time.

My daughter has been stopped from praying before school on school grounds (privately, to herself). She has been stopped from praying with her friends at lunch.

Christians aren't allowed to use school property for prayer or clubs. But Muslims are.

She's more religious than I am, and I'm not one to discourage it. But the state sure wants her to be a Muslim. And I live in the US.
It seems to me that your school suffers from "fraidoflawsuititis" There are recorded incidents of parents sueing a school for holding prayer. However, the offical law is that school faculty can't lead the prayer. So, your daughter not being allowed to pray is more a problem with the particular school than the public school system in itself. And I DOUBT that the school has ever told your daughter to covert to Islam. Also, unless your school has some HIGH-tech equipment I doubt they can tell if your daughter is praying privately to herself.

whoever it was that called the disagreement with abstinence only education "extreme hedonist left-wing liberalism" is ignorant and uneducated.
abstinence programs do NOT work; it's been proven time and time again. we're not here to bake cakes and invent I-Pods; we're mammals and biologically, we want to mate. that's it.
the thought that politicians and "educators" have the right to decide the limits of what we learn is ridiculous. give people all the options, let them choose.
you must be running a dictatorship, nazi...

Hmmmm ... must've really touched a nerve. I might point out the hypocrisy of labeling others as ignorant while resorting to name calling in ("ignorant", "uneducated", "nazi") ... place of substantive argument? Attack the ideas, but let's not stoop to bashing each other. ;)

She's praying silently to herself before the school opens. Not a group thing. At lunch, she sits and prays quietly before eating.

Each time she does this, she has been told that her behavior is offensive to others. It's obvious that she's praying, but it's either silent or nearly so.

No wild gesticulations or rolling on the floor, kneeling, bowing, or rocking, either. Eyes closed though.

Muslims are encouraged to take off any time they want and go to the special room and pray. Everyone else - it's expressly forbidden. If someone can tell you're praying (closed eyes, clasped hands) you're being offensive.

It occurred to me that maybe they have the special room so that no one else will be offended by the sight of prayer. But if that were true, there would just be a prayer room for everyone.

Encouraged is a nice way of putting it.

Morning prayers were stopped when I was at school, as it was too christian.

I don't mind not doing them, but I should still have the choice
(see some of the comments on the thread " How screwed america is" for comments on political correctness in more forms.)

No... because 'bashing' might be in breech of this abstaince lark :rolleyes:

What does it preach on masterbation?

-

Well... if I was religous I'd go pray in the prayer room, thats what its there for isn't it? But then again I'm very confrontational like that :)

She's praying silently to herself before the school opens. Not a group thing. At lunch, she sits and prays quietly before eating.

Each time she does this, she has been told that her behavior is offensive to others. It's obvious that she's praying, but it's either silent or nearly so.

No wild gesticulations or rolling on the floor, kneeling, bowing, or rocking, either. Eyes closed though.

Muslims are encouraged to take off any time they want and go to the special room and pray. Everyone else - it's expressly forbidden. If someone can tell you're praying (closed eyes, clasped hands) you're being offensive.

It occurred to me that maybe they have the special room so that no one else will be offended by the sight of prayer. But if that were true, there would just be a prayer room for everyone.
Like I said, "fraidoflawsuititis". Those exact "symptoms" of praying are also symptoms of a condition I like to call "napping"

She's praying silently to herself before the school opens. Not a group thing. At lunch, she sits and prays quietly before eating.

Each time she does this, she has been told that her behavior is offensive to others. It's obvious that she's praying, but it's either silent or nearly so.

No wild gesticulations or rolling on the floor, kneeling, bowing, or rocking, either. Eyes closed though.

Muslims are encouraged to take off any time they want and go to the special room and pray. Everyone else - it's expressly forbidden. If someone can tell you're praying (closed eyes, clasped hands) you're being offensive.

It occurred to me that maybe they have the special room so that no one else will be offended by the sight of prayer. But if that were true, there would just be a prayer room for everyone.

Well at that point i am inclined to agree, this sounds like a terminal case of Afraidoflawsuititis. i'd begin by speaking with the Principal/Dean, and if you don't get answers that sound reasonable, ask who his/her supervisor in the district is, rinse and repeat. Hopefully there's someone between the prinicpal and Bush who has some sense.

Just don't bring a chruch group into it... it will only make you seem nuts...

It's not a matter of wanting your daughter not to pray; they have an obligation to seperate church and state; and since there are militant atheists (i swear, why does every single group need fanatics?) out there ready to bring civil 'justice' down on any school that lets their children get the faintest whiff of spiritualism, they dissuade its practice at school if it's avoidable.
Muslims pose a unique problem to this. The prayer schedule dictated in the Qu'aran conflicts with the schedules of the schools, who have both a responsibility to seperate church and state, and a responsbility to allow free exercise of religion. Since those of other religions 'have a choice' whether or not to pray in school, they are encouraged to pray on their own time.
There's one group that doesn't have fanatics. Agnostics!!!!
:waves his little flag:
Oh, and buddists.

There's one group that doesn't have fanatics. Agnostics!!!!
:waves his little flag:
Oh, and buddists.

Well, there HAVE been Buddhist fanatics, but they tended to use guilt-trip tactics rather than strongarm ones. Like setting themselves on fire, rather than others.

Well, there HAVE been Buddhist fanatics, but they tended to use guilt-trip tactics rather than strongarm ones. Like setting themselves on fire, rather than others.
I don't count that as fanatics, cause if it was, then "oh crap, Ghandi's a fanatic"
and how do we know they just weren't masochistic Pyromaniacs?

I don't count that as fanatics, cause if it was, then "oh crap, Ghandi's a fanatic"
and how do we know they just weren't masochistic Pyromaniacs?

LoL, because masochism and pyromania are both symptomatic of sexual abuse or emotional neglect, neither of which go rampant in most monasteries.

LoL, because masochism and pyromania are both symptomatic of sexual abuse or emotional neglect, neither of which go rampant in most monasteries.
Symptom!=disease
For instance, I have a runny nose, doesn't mean I have the flu.
Also, most monks aren't born in Monasteries.

You can be either without being abused.

You can be either without being abused.

Sexual abuse and emotional neglect are the DSM4 listed causes contributing to both Pyromania and Masochism. Pyromania tends to stem from sexual abuse or exposure at a young age, and Masochism tends to stem from being in an opressive or overly controlled relationship

Sexual abuse and emotional neglect are the DSM4 listed causes contributing to both Pyromania and Masochism. Pyromania tends to stem from sexual abuse or exposure at a young age, and Masochism tends to stem from being in an opressive or overly controlled relationship
Wow, how come more christian monks aren't Masochists O.o?
Or devout Jews for that matter...
Actually, religious people in general, cept buddists, and maybe Wicca (admittedly ignorant about most Wiccan customs and beliefs, all I know is they have an entire shelf in the bookstore I work at, which is directly connected to the "christian living" section)

But you needn't have been abused to become either of those things...

I mean pyromania... everyone is to some extent fascinated by fire =/

-

My knowledge of wicca is similarly limited... just every wicca practitioner I ever met lived an... 'alternative' lifestyle ^_~

But you needn't have been abused to become either of those things...

I mean pyromania... everyone is to some extent fascinated by fire =/

-

My knowledge of wicca is similarly limited... just every wicca practitioner I ever met lived an... 'alternative' lifestyle ^_~
Well, guess all the candles must be for SOMETHING...

Not saying the abstinence program is right (it's probably as screwed up as the program that tells you that condoms make sex completely safe).

There is no such program, so it looks like the abstinence-only people are the only idiots in the debate.

That's right, go ahead and teach them that there's a five percent chance that the virus will get through anyway and kill them dead.

Oops, I'm sorry. That's the Republican version. The Democrat would lie to the kid and tell them that it's "safe" to put the barrel of the pistol in their mouth and pull the trigger.

Wrong, "abstinence-only" is just that - they state that condoms won't help at all or neglect to mention them.

Wow, how come more christian monks aren't Masochists O.o?
Or devout Jews for that matter...
Actually, religious people in general, cept buddists, and maybe Wicca (admittedly ignorant about most Wiccan customs and beliefs, all I know is they have an entire shelf in the bookstore I work at, which is directly connected to the "christian living" section)

Many were, a lesser number are now. Ever heard of penitent auto-flaggelation?

Many were, a lesser number are now. Ever heard of penitent auto-flaggelation?
Oh, the monty python dudes, forgot about them.

In my daughter's sex ed materials from her school, nowhere is it mentioned that condoms are not 100% safe.

They are "safe and effective". No criteria are given in the literature about "how safe" or "how effective".

So they might as well say 100%. After asking my daughter what her belief was after reading the literature, she said "it means completely safe".

I think that the sex ed material from liberals is just as misleading as the material from conservatives. It's because they both have their political ax to grind, rather than teach children.

But you needn't have been abused to become either of those things...

I mean pyromania... everyone is to some extent fascinated by fire =/


Pyromania doesn't describe a fascination with fire, it describes an unhealthy, chronic desire to destroy things using fire.

In my daughter's sex ed materials from her school, nowhere is it mentioned that condoms are not 100% safe.

They are "safe and effective". No criteria are given in the literature about "how safe" or "how effective".

So they might as well say 100%. After asking my daughter what her belief was after reading the literature, she said "it means completely safe".

I think that the sex ed material from liberals is just as misleading as the material from conservatives. It's because they both have their political ax to grind, rather than teach children.
Okay, you are A) Trolling or B) Your daughters school SUCKS!!!!
If it wasn't for the fact that they're actually taking 'liberal' standpoints I'd ask if you're from Alabama or Mississipi

True. The right to kill babies should not be infringed.
KILL THOSE BABIES!
:) :sniper:

In science in secondary school in the UK you are actually given lists of how effective each method of contraception is... this becomes more detailed as you get to GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) and again at A-level (Adanced)...

I assume at degree level it will get more advanced... but being a law/pol students the labs are forbidden ;)

My daughter has been stopped from praying before school on school grounds (privately, to herself). She has been stopped from praying with her friends at lunch.

Christians aren't allowed to use school property for prayer or clubs. But Muslims are.

She's more religious than I am, and I'm not one to discourage it. But the state sure wants her to be a Muslim. And I live in the US.

You should contact the ACLU. This is a clear case for the 1st Amendment.

In my daughter's sex ed materials from her school, nowhere is it mentioned that condoms are not 100% safe.

They are "safe and effective". No criteria are given in the literature about "how safe" or "how effective".

So they might as well say 100%. After asking my daughter what her belief was after reading the literature, she said "it means completely safe".

I think that the sex ed material from liberals is just as misleading as the material from conservatives. It's because they both have their political ax to grind, rather than teach children.

This is a case of bad wording, however, not misinformation. If the teacher was decent, the kids would know to question exactly what "safe and effective" means, or at least the teacher would tell them under what standard they are "safe and effective."

True. The right to kill babies should not be infringed.
KILL THOSE BABIES!
:) :sniper:
God I hope thats a joke....

No, it's Northern Virginia.