NationStates Jolt Archive

"It has been working for us..."
What do you mean "us"? Like I said, your attitude is "I got mine, Jack, screw YOU." It has not been working for "us", only for you. It never worked for me, or anyone like me.

You're done here.

That was arrogant, conceited and presumptuous. You acted like a fighting game character.

SPLENDID! I'm SO PROUD OF YOU!!! :D

Liberalis and Conservatives both seek liberty and equality. However, when economic liberty is in conflict with economic equality liberals side with equality and conservatives side with liberty.

Hmm. I feel that most people I've met who oppose gay marriage don't do it because they "hate fags", but rather because they have a conservative outlook on social-evolution that says "Why change what's not broken?"
I disagree. I think it is pretty obvious in their words and actions that opponents of gay marriage are motivated primarily by hatred/fear of gays. Their claims of "tradition" are invented to justify their opposition. It is not the source of the opposition. I don't qualify that as the kind of innocent, if ignorant, motivation that you ascribe to it.

Also, +1 to what Dempublicents said. A tradition of institutionalized bigotry is not a good thing, and therefore any argument in favor of preserving it should be rejected.

Hmm. I feel that most people I've met who oppose gay marriage don't do it because they "hate fags", but rather because they have a conservative outlook on social-evolution that says "Why change what's not broken?"

No actually that's not it all.

If what you said was true people wouldn't have spread lies that kids would be set to forced lessons on gay marriage during the prop 8 bs.

Religious people as a whole don't like homosexuals. They may say I don't have issues with them in particular but it's a falsehood.

If they were not bothered by them; they would not scream about gay marriage, gay adoption, scream they are pedophiles, declare homosexuality is a choice, wouldn't talk about feeling weird when they are around, talk about how they would destroy the army if allowed to join, refer to California as that fag state or the land of fruits and nuts, etc., etc.

Marriage is broken. Over 1/2 end in divorce. Gays getting married will not change that fact. Gay marriage will not strengthen marriage nor will it weaken marriage. Gays will stay married or get divorced just like the hetros.

Social evolution (speaking for US) has always excluded groups. If you are in control, why include others? Especially, if it lessons your chance at things. Even the "liberal fag state" of California has had exclusionary practices. At times it was once illegal for Mexicans, Chinese, and Japanese to own land.

In time Gay marriage will happen and society will continue.

All that said was the Palin's position isn't clear and that the party made a factual call. Abstinence is obviously the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. If you have sex, even using protection, you are by nature taking a risk.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having sex before marriage and indeed it's natural, but there is nothing wrong with teaching that abstinence is the only 100% safe way, and then go along to teach about the use of safe sex.

First, nice job of ignoring the bulk of my post.

Second, check the Republican playbook. What they have been pushing for years and continue to push is abstinence-only programs as an alternative to comprehensive sex education. The Democratic Party supports comprehensive sex education that includes teaching abstinence as the best policy, but also teaches about contraception.

So you are now officially a liberal. :wink:

First, nice job of ignoring the bulk of my post.Don't be mean, Cat...he just didn't understand it.

Um. I don't know if you are doing so deliberately, but you are mistating the record.

1. The LA Times article (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/nation/na-sexed6) you cite says:

(1) "Palin's running mate, John McCain, and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease."

AND (2) "Palin's position is less clear."

This is far from persuasive evidence that Bible Spice does not support abstinence-only sex education and/or does support teaching kids about contraception. If Palin truly supported comprehensive sex education and/or contraception she had many oppotunities to make this clear during the 2008 campaign. She declined to do so.

She didn't support comprehensive sex education, that is quite clear. The article clearly states "weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence." and "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," I'd describe that as a pretty clear platform.

Hmmm a campaign claim taken as gospel? Hardly.

I would look at her budgets for sex education and if she gave any orders about what should be taught.

You look at them and tell me what you find then.

I'd be willing to bet my life savings (all $42 of it) that Bristol definitely knew about contraception. She was an American kid with access to television, after all.

I'd be willing to wager the same that her parents actively and consistently gave her the message that only sluts use birth control, that carrying a condom means you're PLANNING to be a slut, and that the only real way to be "safe" is to not do it until you've got that nice diamond ring.

You can wager what you want, but I only make bets on what I know and not what I suppose. You suppose that she said that; I know that she said differently in public.

You look at them and tell me what you find then.


Don't need to. I call her a liar and will recant if proven wrong.....

Don't need to. I call her a liar and will recant if proven wrong.....

Well, Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_data/states/alaska.html) seems to rate Alaska highly among US states for contraception provision. In the two years that she has been governor at the very least Sarah Palin hasn't reversed that.

Maybe, but its hard to deny the Social Conservative party in America is undoubtedly the Republicans...
Be careful of capitalisations.



That said, I do think it would be more difficult to be socially conservative (from a political standpoint, not a personal one) after being educated. You're exposed to too many different people and viewpoints to hold to such things.
I'd fully agree.



Liberal = Progressive

Conservative = Keeping the status quo.
Liberal = Big government and therefore a restriction of individual liberty. I.e. a liberal use of governmental power.

Conservative = Smaller government and therefore greater protection of individual freedom. I.e. a conservative use of governmental power
The above two posts are why I despair at the confused US use of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. It's useless to say that 'liberal' equates to progressiveness, or that 'conservative' equates to greater protection of individual freedom, for neither is necessarily the case.

A liberal, to use the European, and far more sensible, use of the term, is someone who believes in individual liberty, more often than not guaranteed by individual rights and equality of persons. Thus, a liberal government's job is to protect these individual rights, especially those rights to life and property.

A conservative is someone who believes in upholding the status quo, in refraining from large-scale change. Thus, a conservative government's job is to do just that; uphold the status quo.

The blatant ridiculousness of viewing these two views as inherently opposed to one another is that they can, and often are, combined. One can quite happily be a conservative liberal, for example. There is nothing inherently progressive about liberalism, for liberalism often clamours for the status quo that upholds individual rights and equality. There is nothing inherently protective of individual rights in conservatism, for the status quo may be that of a disregard for individual rights.

The point being that the US is a perfect example of a conservative liberal state; a nation which is slow to change, and which upholds the liberal tenets of life, liberty and property.

Moreover, both of you seem to be liberals, with GF expounding a more socially conservative version of liberalism than KoL.




Youre done here.
You're unnecessarily rude here.

You're unnecessarily rude here.

Unnecessary rudeness is warrented in the case of extreme ignorance, especially when you pretend like your not.


Havent you figure out yet that e-lectures on my interwebz manners do all of jack shit?:p

Unnecessary rudeness is warrented in the case of extreme ignorance...
On the contrary, being ignorant is a state to be pitied and rectified, not to be lampooned.

It is a rather immature trait to go after those who know no better.

Havent you figure out yet that e-lectures on my interwebz manners do all of jack shit?
Deaf ears do not stop my wagging finger.

*wags finger*

*wags finger*

*wags the dog*

....
Religious people as a whole don't like homosexuals. They may say I don't have issues with them in particular but it's a falsehood.

If they were not bothered by them; they would not scream about gay marriage, gay adoption, scream they are pedophiles, declare homosexuality is a choice, wouldn't talk about feeling weird when they are around, talk about how they would destroy the army if allowed to join, refer to California as that fag state or the land of fruits and nuts, etc., etc.....

Please be careful not to confuse religious people as a whole with several small and vocal organised sects. Many religious people are not bothered by homosexuality, and many are supportive of equality for people of all gender and sexual orientations (involving consenting adults obviously). The reason we don't get in the news very often is because we don't scream and rant and bitch about teh ebil geys.

Often, we even are involved in the struggle. A bisexual friend of mine was surprised to find out that I was a theist after knowing me quite well for many years. Because she assumed that all of us activist folk were atheists.

Please be careful not to confuse religious people as a whole with several small and vocal organised sects. Many religious people are not bothered by homosexuality, and many are supportive of equality for people of all gender and sexual orientations (involving consenting adults obviously). The reason we don't get in the news very often is because we don't scream and rant and bitch about teh ebil geys.

Often, we even are involved in the struggle. A bisexual friend of mine was surprised to find out that I was a theist after knowing me quite well for many years. Because she assumed that all of us activist folk were atheists.

We had a church that made similar claims and they supported Prop 8. It's larger then a few small vocal groups.

Even you the groups you have mentioned, do they allow the gays to marry?

We had a church that made similar claims and they supported Prop 8. It's larger then a few small vocal groups.

Even you the groups you have mentioned, do they allow the gays to marry?

Religious institutions don't allow or disallow marriages. Governments do. If you're asking if representatives of liberal churches will perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples, then yes, many do.

Religious institutions don't allow or disallow marriages. Governments do. If you're asking if representatives of liberal churches will perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples, then yes, many do.

But do those institutions support prop 8...Does the Preacher support Prop 8? thats the real question...

Please be careful not to confuse religious people as a whole with several small and vocal organised sects. Many religious people are not bothered by homosexuality, and many are supportive of equality for people of all gender and sexual orientations (involving consenting adults obviously). The reason we don't get in the news very often is because we don't scream and rant and bitch about teh ebil geys.

Often, we even are involved in the struggle. A bisexual friend of mine was surprised to find out that I was a theist after knowing me quite well for many years. Because she assumed that all of us activist folk were atheists.

I hate to say it, but its a lot more then a small sect.

Please be careful not to confuse religious people as a whole with several small and vocal organised sects.

So - the religions that oppose or at least refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies are a minority ?
I beg to differ. I would even go as far as to say that the religions who support the concept tend to be the ones one could describe as "small sects".

So - the religions that oppose or at least refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies are a minority ?
I beg to differ. I would even go as far as to say that the religions who support the concept tend to be the ones one could describe as "small sects".

^This

We had a church that made similar claims and they supported Prop 8. It's larger then a few small vocal groups.

Even you the groups you have mentioned, do they allow the gays to marry?

Quite a few religious groups do. One friend of mine is a rabbi. She has personally married a gay couple - who are also friends of hers. Another friend is a deacon at her church, which itself has a gay pastor. She was outside the Massachusetts state house with a "STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW" sign shouting down bigots when the legislature was deciding not to overrule the court a couple of years back.

Please be careful not to confuse religious people as a whole with several small and vocal organised sects. Many religious people are not bothered by homosexuality, and many are supportive of equality for people of all gender and sexual orientations (involving consenting adults obviously). The reason we don't get in the news very often is because we don't scream and rant and bitch about teh ebil geys.


What he said.

'Religious people' are about as likely to have a collective hive mind as 'black people', and many liberal left of centre 'religious people' are as appalled by Sarah Palin as our liberal left of centre atheist brothers and sisters.

Because everyone knows that the collective hive mind of our atheist brothers and sisters makes them all ebil liberals, right?

Now excuse me while I go and work out which of my collective hive minds I'm supposed to be listening to this evening.

'Religious people' are about as likely to have a collective hive mind as 'black people', and many liberal left of centre 'religious people' are as appalled by Sarah Palin as our liberal left of centre atheist brothers and sisters.

Then I suggest you get better spokespeople. I suggest you start by firing the Pope. A nice list of Rabbis, Imams, Swamis and so on who are not , as you claim, properly representing the tolerant and accepting majorities viewpoints can be made.

But do those institutions support prop 8...Does the Preacher support Prop 8? thats the real question...

I don't think that the United Church of Canada, or many other sects around the globe, has any opinion on Prop 8, or that it would matter at all if it did.

I hate to say it, but its a lot more then a small sect.

You're right. It is more than one small sect. Which is why I used the plural.

So - the religions that oppose or at least refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies are a minority ?
I beg to differ. I would even go as far as to say that the religions who support the concept tend to be the ones one could describe as "small sects".

Depends on how we crunch the numbers. Do we get to say that all Catholics are homophobic because the RC Church has official homophobic doctrine, or can we say that Catholics who live in areas that allow SSM are supportive of the concept? What about the Anglican Church. In the UK and Canada, there is threat of a schism over this issue. Do we count the Anglicans in both camps, or do we extrapolate based on parish polualtions?

Please note that the statement I responded to discussed religious people, not the institutions. While many organised religious institutions have codified their homophobia, such as the RC Church, many of their followers do not support that very homophobia.

Then I suggest you get better spokespeople. I suggest you start by firing the Pope. A nice list of Rabbis, Imams, Swamis and so on who are not , as you claim, properly representing the tolerant and accepting majorities viewpoints can be made.

We tend not to worry about that, because we assume that people are intelligent enough to realise that the representatives of some religions are not representative of all religious people.

What he said.

'Religious people' are about as likely to have a collective hive mind as 'black people', and many liberal left of centre 'religious people' are as appalled by Sarah Palin as our liberal left of centre atheist brothers and sisters.

Because everyone knows that the collective hive mind of our atheist brothers and sisters makes them all ebil liberals, right?

Now excuse me while I go and work out which of my collective hive minds I'm supposed to be listening to this evening.

I wouldnt say 'Religious People' are a hive mind, but the party that claims to support their views (although we all know they really dont, but they claim it to be so anyway) Is most definitely a "Hive Mind" of sorts, and they treat their supposed constituency as such...

Unfortunately that means that many get lumped in with their lot, especially considering the sheer vast numbers of the mass Hive Mind known as Fundamentalism...

Depends on how we crunch the numbers. Do we get to say that all Catholics are homophobic because the RC Church has official homophobic doctrine, or can we say that Catholics who live in areas that allow SSM are supportive of the concept?

Well, my personal opinion is that anybody who calls himself a member of religion X, while rejecting the official doctrine of religion X is a worthless hypocrite. Yes, even if I myself agree with the rejection of the doctrine.
So since they choose to remain a member of religion X I refuse to regard them as anything but supportive of the official ideas of religion X. If that upsets them - schism.

Please note that the statement I responded to discussed religious people, not the institutions. While many organised religious institutions have codified their homophobia, such as the RC Church, many of their followers do not support that very homophobia.

And yet remain in said church.

We tend not to worry about that, because we assume that people are intelligent enough to realise that the representatives of some religions are not representative of all religious people.

One assumes they represent a majority or a consensus view. If not, you (as in "the religious people in question", not you personally) are an idiot. It would make the role of a spokesperson meaningless.

Well, my personal opinion is that anybody who calls himself a member of religion X, while rejecting the official doctrine of religion X is a worthless hypocrite. Yes, even if I myself agree with the rejection of the doctrine.
So since they choose to remain a member of religion X I refuse to regard them as anything but supportive of the official ideas of religion X. If that upsets them - schism.

And yet remain in said church.

Wow. Very black and white. To continue with SSM, do you think that atheist activists working for legal recognition of SSM should think of gay-friendly Catholic activists working for legal recognition of SSM as 'worthless hypocrites' or as 'allies in a struggle'?

As for the issue of schism, do you think the Catholics who refused to schism over the issue of slavery and eventually changed RC doctrine were correct, or should they have also done as you suggest and broken off?

One assumes they represent a majority or a consensus view. If not, you (as in "the religious people in question", not you personally) are an idiot. It would make the role of a spokesperson meaningless.

So, everyone who doesn't assume that religious authority figures automatically represent a concensus or majority is an idiot. Then I guess I'm an idiot. Okay.

Anyways, which authority figure represents my views?

First, nice job of ignoring the bulk of my post.
I didn't ignore it. First, abstinence IS the only 100% safe way to avoid pregnancy and STD's, so he's right and second, check post 258. . .


Second, check the Republican playbook. What they have been pushing for years and continue to push is abstinence-only programs as an alternative to comprehensive sex education. The Democratic Party supports comprehensive sex education that includes teaching abstinence as the best policy, but also teaches about contraception.
Some Republicans do. Easy with the brush . . . Others don't. Some Republicans are rather religious, others aren't. Florida, for example, has had a Republican Gov for a while now and I'm rather certain that schools down here in South Florida teach comprehensive Sex-Ed. If there were a hive-mind Republican plot to eliminate that, shouldn't Sex-Ed have been stomped out by now?
So you are now officially a liberal. :wink:
Rather, I'm realistic and not very religious.
*wags the dog*
Contributing to this thread would be too much to ask from you, I presume. No, go on then, keep tooling around instead of adding anything of importance whatsoever.
No actually that's not it all.

Religious people as a whole don't like homosexuals.
Well, I'm glad you are allowed to access the hive-mind of the opposition in order to state a stereotype to struggle to make a point, but if someone else were to do it, with say the Islamic religion, OH THE HORRORS!

:rolleyes:

How low of you.

That was arrogant, conceited and presumptuous. You acted like a fighting game character.

SPLENDID! I'm SO PROUD OF YOU!!! :D
Again...adding absolutely nothing just being annoying.

Either go play around in a jungle somewhere and don't bother anyone or contribute to the thread, like you should. It would be welcomed if you would. . .

Well, my personal opinion is that anybody who calls himself a member of religion X, while rejecting the official doctrine of religion X is a worthless hypocrite. Yes, even if I myself agree with the rejection of the doctrine.
So since they choose to remain a member of religion X I refuse to regard them as anything but supportive of the official ideas of religion X. If that upsets them - schism.



And yet remain in said church.

Im inclined to say that as well, But some people choose to remain hypocritical for some reason or another :confused:

Again...adding absolutely nothing just being annoying.

Either go play around in a jungle somewhere and don't bother anyone or contribute to the thread, like you should. It would be welcomed if you would. . .

Interesting. I cannot help but notice that you seem to be the only one at all annoyed by the joke.

I also cannot help but notice that you still seem to be under the impression that my country is covered in jungle, even though I have taught you several times on the matter; my city is bigger than Houston, the fourth American city in population.

I further cannot help but notice that you seem intent on taking me to task whenever I make any sort of remark, while you don't do so with any other poster. I am the op of this thread, and you make this irrelevant, idiotic post to rattle my chain about a joke post I made. The irony? You take me to task due to a perceived irrelevance of my post.

I don't know what the hell is your problem with me. I don't know if you intend to bait me to get me banned because I disagree with your treatment of Latin Americans as chess pieces in a dickwaving with Russia, and, quite frankly, I don't care. The fact is I can't make a post without you showing up to bug me. Stop stalking me.

Find someone else to annoy, TAI, or I WILL take your case to the mods!

Contributing to this thread would be too much to ask from you, I presume. No, go on then, keep tooling around instead of adding anything of importance whatsoever.

You dedicated an entire post to bugging me. And YOU have the balls to talk about MY contribution to this thread?

Thundadome!

Well, my personal opinion is that anybody who calls himself a member of religion X, while rejecting the official doctrine of religion X is a worthless hypocrite. Yes, even if I myself agree with the rejection of the doctrine.
So since they choose to remain a member of religion X I refuse to regard them as anything but supportive of the official ideas of religion X. If that upsets them - schism.



And yet remain in said church.
So, in your mind, followers of a religion are not allowed to try to reform its doctrine? If it's bad, then they have to be bad too or quit it? They are not allowed to work to try to change something bad into something good?

Tell me, are you so invested in having villains and enemies that you would refuse to support efforts to reform one of them?

So, in your mind, followers of a religion are not allowed to try to reform its doctrine? If it's bad, then they have to be bad too or quit it? They are not allowed to work to try to change something bad into something good?

Hmm, no. Either you just make your own church, instead of trying to tell the Pope that he is an idiot who does not understand Gods will, or call yourself "Catholicminded". Or "Catholiclike". Or "having beliefs that strongly resemble Catholicism, except...". But not Catholic. It is not up to you to redefine that.

Religion is special like that.

Well, my personal opinion is that anybody who calls himself a member of religion X, while rejecting the official doctrine of religion X is a worthless hypocrite. Yes, even if I myself agree with the rejection of the doctrine.

(a) What if religion X doesn't have a single "official doctrine"?

(b) What if said person is trying to change the official doctrine? Are all US citizens who disagree with US policy filthy hypocrites for not trying to break away from the union?

Hmm, no. Either you just make your own church, instead of trying to tell the Pope that he is an idiot who does not understand Gods will, or call yourself "Catholicminded". Or "Catholiclike". Or "having beliefs that strongly resemble Catholicism, except...". But not Catholic. It is not up to you to redefine that.

Religion is special like that.

So since when do you get to define all religion and how it works?

What makes you so special that you have that ability?

Hmm, no. Either you just make your own church, instead of trying to tell the Pope that he is an idiot who does not understand Gods will, or call yourself "Catholicminded". Or "Catholiclike". Or "having beliefs that strongly resemble Catholicism, except...". But not Catholic. It is not up to you to redefine that.

Religion is special like that.

Your first paragraph is about how you think it ought to work. You are entitled to your opinion.

The last sentence is a claim about how it does work. History shows us that your last sentence is not actually true.

She didn't support comprehensive sex education, that is quite clear. The article clearly states "weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence." and "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," I'd describe that as a pretty clear platform.

Um. I was pointing out that the very article you relied on stated that Palin's position was, at best, unclear -- while that of her running-mate and party are clear. But, even you concede, Palin opposes comprehensive sex education. What do you think the difference between comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only programs are?

Moreover, I provided additional evidence about Palin's position that you ignored.

I didn't ignore it. First, abstinence IS the only 100% safe way to avoid pregnancy and STD's, so he's right and second, check post 258. . .

Meh.

1. As I said, liberals and/or Democrats generally have no problem teaching that abstinence is the best course and should be prioritized in sex education. The question is whether abstinence is the only thing taught or whether more comprehensive sex education is provided. Bible Spice appears to fall closer to the first camp than the second.

2. I responded to post 258 above, which also ignored 2 of my 3 points.


Some Republicans do. Easy with the brush . . . Others don't. Some Republicans are rather religious, others aren't.

How dare I make a general statement about the relative positions of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party based on the Bush Administration, John McCain, and the Republican Party Platform -- all of which support abstinence-only education? :rolleyes:

Florida, for example, has had a Republican Gov for a while now and I'm rather certain that schools down here in South Florida teach comprehensive Sex-Ed. If there were a hive-mind Republican plot to eliminate that, shouldn't Sex-Ed have been stomped out by now?

Check your facts. Florida itself says it is emphasizing (if not mandating) abstinence-only programs. See, e.g., link (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/abstinence/index.html), link (http://www.greattowait.com/program.html). See also link (http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/news/reject-funds-for-039abstinence-only039), link (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/stateevaluations/florida.htm), link (http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/governor-crist-agrees-to-review-florida%E2%80%99s-abstinenceonly-funding).

Rather, I'm realistic and not very religious.

Unlike much of the leadership, if not much of the membership, of the Republican Party. :eek:

Hmm, no. Either you just make your own church, instead of trying to tell the Pope that he is an idiot who does not understand Gods will, or call yourself "Catholicminded". Or "Catholiclike". Or "having beliefs that strongly resemble Catholicism, except...". But not Catholic. It is not up to you to redefine that.

Religion is special like that.
How sad for you that you don't get to actually dictate those rules to everyone else in the world. Religious people have not only the right but at least some power to work to change and reform their church's doctrines if they want to, and the rest of us have both the right and the power to give them whatever credit for such efforts we like, even to the point of accepting that church doctrine is (a) changed, (b) changing, or (c) open to change.

And, for myself, I see your claims about what religious people can and/or should do with their own churches as a small load of self-serving BS that serves no purpose but to allow you to continue badmouthing your target of choice. In other words, a support for your own prejudice.

I don't know, I do somewhat agree that Sarah Palin and her family were used and abused by the John McCain campaign, just such a poor decision to nominate her as VP, incredible really.
Yeah, well, it's working out peachy for her. Just check ot her schedule some time.

Yeah, well, it's working out peachy for her. Just check ot her schedule some time.

Along with Bobby Jindall and Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Republican Party are grooming them together as the White Council to take back Middle Earth from Sauron and his Uruk-Hai horde in 2012.

Along with Bobby Jindall and Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Republican Party are grooming them together as the White Council to take back Middle Earth from Sauron and his Uruk-Hai horde in 2012.You know what's creepy? That scenario already had some great press buildup, at least an undercurrent of it.
Kinda what this state's approach was on us pulling out of the union, according to her hubby's hang-buddies.

How dare I make a general statement about the relative positions of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party based on the Bush Administration, John McCain, and the Republican Party Platform -- all of which support abstinence-only education? :rolleyes:

When I was a member of the Australian Liberal Party, this would be similar to me saying I support all policies that was touted by the former Howard Government, the current leader and the liberal party platform. When in reality I and others don't. So I would think TAI is quite right in saying that some Republicans don't support abstinence only education.

(b) What if said person is trying to change the official doctrine? Are all US citizens who disagree with US policy filthy hypocrites for not trying to break away from the union?
Erm, critical difference:

Religions (typically) claim that they are founded on the Word Of God. God is assumed to be a power greater than humans. In my opinion, if you actually believe in God and if you actually believe that your religion has information about what God really wants, then the only justification for you refusing to follow your religion's rules to the letter is if you believe that God has directly contacted you and given you better information.

Meanwhile, the USA is founded on the principle that the people, NOT GOD, make the laws. Instead of having a monarch selected by God himself, or some other such system, the USA is based on the notion that a government's power comes from the consent of the governed.

...
Religions (typically) claim that they are founded on the Word Of God. God is assumed to be a power greater than humans. In my opinion, if you actually believe in God and if you actually believe that your religion has information about what God really wants, then the only justification for you refusing to follow your religion's rules to the letter is if you believe that God has directly contacted you and given you better information.....

Actually, only the Abrahamic religions are founded on the Word of God. That phrase is exclusive to the Torah and its sequels. While other religions have texts that may be considered sacred, they are not considered infallibly divine. And even then, it is only the more conservative denominations in the Abrahamic religions that believe that the Torah and/or sequels are infallible. Many liberal denominations believe that these texts are simply human (and therefore imperfect) recordings of divine events. This creates textual ambiguity, which allows for another path for questioning current practice or doctrine. Therefore, we can see that new personal revelations are not the only method of instigating change in a religious community's beliefs.

But there are also other justifications for questioning the rules of your religion. Galileo's scientific observations were a good justification for questioning the RC Church's geocentric doctrine, and that was not founded on any sense of God directly contacting him.

Find someone else to annoy, TAI, or I WILL take your case to the mods!

Heikoku, stop. All you're doing is working yourself into a big frothing Phelpian style rant. Your posts of late have alternated between gloating and hate mongering all too similar to the likes of Deep Kimchi with the only difference being on which side of the political spectrum you're on.

Stop it. You are turning into the exact sort of person you keep insisting deserve death or worse. Any excuse you try to offer up to justify your actions would be no different than those you hate.

Actually, only the Abrahamic religions are founded on the Word of God. That phrase is exclusive to the Torah and its sequels.
/eyeroll

Yes, that SPECIFIC phrase is one from the Abrahamic tradition. The concept is not. The concept is one found in countless religions, including many that predate the Old Testament.


While other religions have texts that may be considered sacred, they are not considered infallibly divine.

Some have such texts, some don't. Which, if you'll re-read my post, I singled out and identified as what I was talking about.


And even then, it is only the more conservative denominations in the Abrahamic religions that believe that the Torah and/or sequels are infallible. Many liberal denominations believe that these texts are simply human (and therefore imperfect) recordings of divine events. This creates textual ambiguity, which allows for another path for questioning current practice or doctrine.

No, it simply creates a way for people to pick and choose what they think God really said. Which is fundamentally exactly what I was talking about: people claiming that THEY have better information about what God really wants.

Yes, salad-bar religion exists. No, I don't respect it much.


Therefore, we can see that new personal revelations are not the only method of instigating change in a religious community's beliefs.

Never said they were. Lying works beautifully, for one thing.


But there are also other justifications for questioning the rules of your religion. Galileo's scientific observations were a good justification for questioning the RC Church's geocentric doctrine, and that was not founded on any sense of God directly contacting him.
Dude, there are plenty of justifications for questioning the rules of your religion, not the least of which is "my religion, like all religions, is bunk." That wasn't my point in the least.

Yes, that SPECIFIC phrase is one from the Abrahamic tradition. The concept is not. The concept is one found in countless religions, including many that predate the Old Testament.

If you are discussing the concept that the Word and its revelation (the sacred text) are divine and therefore infallible, I think that is pretty specific to the Abrahamic religions. I may be wrong.

Some have such texts, some don't. Which, if you'll re-read my post, I singled out and identified as what I was talking about.

You were discussing "religions (typically)". I took this to mean that you were discussing the majority of them.

No, it simply creates a way for people to pick and choose what they think God really said. Which is fundamentally exactly what I was talking about: people claiming that THEY have better information about what God really wants.

Yes, salad-bar religion exists. No, I don't respect it much.

I'm not sure what the criticism is here. That people have some sort of criteria for deciding which religious ideas gain precedence? People laso have different criterias about which scientific ideas gain precedence too. We call them scientific methodologies. I would not, however, call this salad-bar science and imply it should be treated with disrespect.

Never said they were. Lying works beautifully, for one thing.

Dude, there are plenty of justifications for questioning the rules of your religion, not the least of which is "my religion, like all religions, is bunk." That wasn't my point in the least.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said that "the only justification for you refusing to follow your religion's rules to the letter is if you believe that God has directly contacted you". My mistake.

Yes, salad-bar religion exists. No, I don't respect it much.
Surely all religion is 'salad-bar religion'?

Unless one has the irrefutable, literal, only-understandable in one way, word of god(s), how can it not be?

When I was a member of the Australian Liberal Party, this would be similar to me saying I support all policies that was touted by the former Howard Government, the current leader and the liberal party platform. When in reality I and others don't. So I would think TAI is quite right in saying that some Republicans don't support abstinence only education.

You and TAI are being niggling pendants.

I never said "ALL Republicans and/or conservatives believe X."

What I said was:

Second, check the Republican playbook. What they have been pushing for years and continue to push is abstinence-only programs as an alternative to comprehensive sex education. The Democratic Party supports comprehensive sex education that includes teaching abstinence as the best policy, but also teaches about contraception.

That is a fair and accurate contrast of the respective positions of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It is also a fair characterization of the leadership and most of membership of each party.

Blouman Empire is right. The point is that whether or not you choose to believe that Factions in the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)) exist, they do.

1.1 Fiscal conservatives
1.2 Libertarian conservatives
1.3 Moderates
1.4 National Security-oriented
1.5 Neoconservatives
1.6 Paleoconservatives
1.7 Religious Right/Theoconservatives
1.8 Social conservatives
1.9 States' rights supporters, Federalists

You and TAI are being niggling pendants.

I never said "ALL Republicans and/or conservatives believe X."

What I said was:



That is a fair and accurate contrast of the respective positions of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It is also a fair characterization of the leadership and most of membership of each party.


When I was a member of the Australian Liberal Party, this would be similar to me saying I support all policies that was touted by the former Howard Government, the current leader and the liberal party platform. When in reality I and others don't. So I would think TAI is quite right in saying that some Republicans don't support abstinence only education.

Um. I was pointing out that the very article you relied on stated that Palin's position was, at best, unclear -- while that of her running-mate and party are clear. But, even you concede, Palin opposes comprehensive sex education. What do you think the difference between comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only programs are?

Moreover, I provided additional evidence about Palin's position that you ignored.



Meh.

1. As I said, liberals and/or Democrats generally have no problem teaching that abstinence is the best course and should be prioritized in sex education. The question is whether abstinence is the only thing taught or whether more comprehensive sex education is provided. Bible Spice appears to fall closer to the first camp than the second.

2. I responded to post 258 above, which also ignored 2 of my 3 points.



How dare I make a general statement about the relative positions of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party based on the Bush Administration, John McCain, and the Republican Party Platform -- all of which support abstinence-only education? :rolleyes:



Check your facts. Florida itself says it is emphasizing (if not mandating) abstinence-only programs. See, e.g., link (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/abstinence/index.html), link (http://www.greattowait.com/program.html). See also link (http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/news/reject-funds-for-039abstinence-only039), link (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/stateevaluations/florida.htm), link (http://www.floridaplannedparenthood.org/governor-crist-agrees-to-review-florida%E2%80%99s-abstinenceonly-funding).



Unlike much of the leadership, if not much of the membership, of the Republican Party. :eek:

http://news.health.ufl.edu/news/story.aspx?ID=4970

So basically, realistically I was right in stating that South Florida schools tend to teach comprehensive sex-ed while technically you were right in that Florida, politically, favors abstinence sex-ed.

The deal is it's divided culturally, between the civilized South Florida and backwards North Florida ;)


Heikoku, stop. All you're doing is working yourself into a big frothing Phelpian style rant. Your posts of late have alternated between gloating and hate mongering all too similar to the likes of Deep Kimchi with the only difference being on which side of the political spectrum you're on.

Stop it. You are turning into the exact sort of person you keep insisting deserve death or worse. Any excuse you try to offer up to justify your actions would be no different than those you hate.
*nods*

Um. I was pointing out that the very article you relied on stated that Palin's position was, at best, unclear -- while that of her running-mate and party are clear. But, even you concede, Palin opposes comprehensive sex education. What do you think the difference between comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only programs are?

Moreover, I provided additional evidence about Palin's position that you ignored.

What on earth is unclear about her position? She has stated that she is not opposed to teaching about contraception and her spokesperson has confirmed it. I don't know what the difference between a comprehensive sex education and abstinence only program is - I suspect that an 'explicit' program includes topics such as homosexuality - but I do know that you have failed to point out any one time that she has said that she opposes the use of or teaching about condoms.

What on earth is unclear about her position? She has stated that she is not opposed to teaching about contraception and her spokesperson has confirmed it. I don't know what the difference between a comprehensive sex education and abstinence only program is - I suspect that an 'explicit' program includes topics such as homosexuality - but I do know that you have failed to point out any one time that she has said that she opposes the use of or teaching about condoms.

*sigh*

What you "don't know" is at the core of this discussion. Teaching about contraception alongside abstinence is comprehensive sex education, which Palin said she opposes and instead favors abstinence-only programs:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support. (emphasis added).

The very article you cite regarding Palin's position SAYS IT IS "UNCLEAR."

The article relies on two sets of statements that Palin made in 2006. One was a written answer expressly supporting abstinence-only education and opposing contraception. One was a verbal "clarification" later saying "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues." THAT IS LESS THAN CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Add to that Palin's membership in the anti-contraceptive pro-life group, Feminists for Life (that has been misreported in some venues as pro-contraception). Add to that the clear the Republican Party and John McCain's clear opposition to comprehensive sex education.

Moreover, the policies of Alaska on sex education are shocking. Palin has been Governor since 2006. Alaska has no mandatory comprehensive sex education. The state has no standards or even a suggested curriculum for sex education. Alaska takes a "hands off" approach, which allows individual school districts to determine if and how sex education is presented. See, e.g., link (http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=3&ind=567&cat=11), link (http://www.adn.com/education/story/542235.html). This is despite more than one attempt by students and citizens to create a statewide sex education policy. The result is schools that teach abstinence-only or don't teach sex education at all:

Wasilla High School, one of the schools that Bristol Palin attended, is one of the country's many schools that promotes an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum. A message left with the school was not returned. But on Tuesday, the Boston Herald reported that Principal Dwight Probasco said the school's sex ed program pushes abstinence, and that the school is barred from distributing contraception.

link (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5711359&page=2)

Finally, both Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin had ample opportunity to "correct the record" regarding what Bristol was taught and why in their Feb. 16, 2009 interview with Greta Van Susteren. No definitive statements were made, but both implied Bristol had been taught abstinence and not contraception. Linky (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html)

Regardless, the bottom line, as Bristol herself claims to have learned, is that abstinence-only policies supported by the Republican Party are unrealistic and counter-productive.