This is the blog of a friend of mine. She had such an attack from the homosexuals and supporters that she at first deleted the comments because of the vulgarity and the vitriol. Then she thought better of it and enabled comments on the article again. She then invited me to come over and help her answer their attacks. Everything remaining on the blog is here.
I spent all night answering their attacks and then their charges and then their questions. I've copied and posted here so that readers can see how I work, so that readers can learn how to answer evil and their charges against Christianity.
I spent all night answering their attacks and then their charges and then their questions. I've copied and posted here so that readers can see how I work, so that readers can learn how to answer evil and their charges against Christianity.
High School Offers Homosexual Porn - Required Reading
Update: 3.13.08 I was receiving quite a few comments that were completely unacceptable on this post. I even changed my settings for comments to where none would be posted without my approval. But I decided to switch it back. I thought everyone should read the comments like the ones I deleted that will be posted here. They claim there is no homosexual agenda being pushed on our children. I say they are flat out liars! They are justifying this book as good literature because it won some award. Hum, I wonder who voted for that. I bet we can all guess correctly on that. Would anyone care to share what the agenda was behind that?
Again the intolerant of the those who would protect our children are screaming "Judge Not". If only they would practice what they preach!
Humbled Infidel
Update: Here is another article about this by CampusReportOnline.net
School-Sponsored Smut
by: Bethany Stotts, March 10, 2008
A new genre has been added to the list of promoted high school literature: racist gay porn. Deerfield High School of Deerfield, Illinois decided to integrate the Pulitzer Award-winning play, Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia On National Themes into its curriculum. The play features pervasive swearing, graphic sexual content, bigoted remarks, and involves sexual experiences profaning both angels and the Mother Theresa. If high schools are sensitive about assigning Mark Twain’s great classic, Huckleberry Finn, due to its pejorative language, then why is Deerfield High promoting Angels in America?
The book was actually required reading at Deerfield High until recently, but the school demoted it to an “optional title” after parents filed a formal complaint. This means that students who are willing to read the book can still receive course credit for it.
The Illinois Family Institute, which has launched a campaign against the book, provides excerpts (warning: extremely explicit content) from the book and estimates that the book contains 221 vulgar words. “The school justifies this egregious choice because of its themes of hope. Evidently, all great literature with themes of hope have already been exhausted so teachers need to start offering pornography. We say—enough,” Executive Director of North Shore Student Advocacy, Lora Sue Hauser, told IFI.
The Tennessee Herald-Citizen has come out in favor of Angels in America, publishing both a favorable review and article about the play’s local performance this February. Andrew William Smith, an English instructor for Tennessee Technological University describes the play and its characters as “epic,” “complex and controversial,” “profound” and “dynamic.” “Confronting issues such as gays, Republicans and gay Republicans, the play hilariously combines fantasy and reality, politics and pop culture, spirituality and sexuality,” he writes.
Similarly, the Herald-Citizen’s February 11 article mainly quotes the actors involved and vaguely alludes to the controversy as between liberals and conservatives. They quote Mark Creter as saying “‘Angels’ is the kind of play that you’ll want to talk about after you leave. It celebrates what it is to be human, both good and bad…Yes, it’s edgy. Yes, it’s adult, but it’s a smart show...It completely fulfills my mission to embrace important works that, because of its controversial nature, are avoided by educational institutions.” Deerfield High is apparently not so hasty to avoid such “controversial” material.
Staff writer Elizabeth Ayres writes that the play, which features gay themes, has “also been the root of controversy between liberal theater-goers and their more conservative counterparts.” This marginalizes opposition to the play as homophobic, rather than grounded on family values. Or are they meant to be considered the same thing?
“It’s disgraceful for [the high school staff], who have been entrusted to help mold the minds of Deerfield’s impressionable youth, to have abused those youth by ostensibly violating the very laws intended to protect them...Deerfield parents should seriously consider every possible legal option to ensure that these people are held accountable,” said Concerned Women for America Policy Director Matt Barber in a recent press release. But those legal options may be slim. According the CWA, Hauser was told by the State Attorney’s office that both state and federal obscenity laws specifically exempt educators from prosecution.
Barber rejected the idea, offered by some, that this is a free speech issue. “My jaw hit the ground when I read what’s in this book. This isn’t a First Amendment issue; this is about school officials betraying the community trust,” he said.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.
High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008
(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)
(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.
Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.
"Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent.
"The fact that this was required is even more astonishing," she told Cybercast News Service.
Hauser cites numerous examples of offensive passages from the text, including the following:
Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?
(They begin to f***.)
(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)
Hauser said her group formally challenged the use of the books in school, and a school district committee reviewed their challenge.
"It was quite a lengthy process," Hauser told Cybercast News Service. "They spent five or six weeks deciding whether this book should be removed. Their final answer was it would be taken off the required reading list and put on an 'optional title' list.
Peter LaBarbera, with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a conservative group, said the two books are simply parts 1 and 2 of a 10-year-old play on the topic of AIDS - one that has been heralded as "one of the great American plays of the 20th century."
In fact, playwright Tony Kushner won the Pulitzer Prize, and "Angels in America" won two Tony Awards. An HBO adaptation for television was nominated for an Emmy.
"It is defended as a literary work that shows forgiveness, kindness and compassion," LaBarbera said. "Of course, the first question that comes to my mind is, how many classical works of literature are there that show these virtues without delving into graphic homosexual sodomy?"
Parents like Hauser said the work, which even mocks the Catholic nun Mother Teresa, is porn - not literature - and offers bad messages:
Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.
"There's no other way to describe this," Hauser said. "It is so egregious and so vulgar. I've been doing advocacy in schools a long time - and this is the worst thing I've seen."
She added: "It's an example of what I call 'the competition of edginess.' High schools across the country have this 'thing' going, where they choose literature or they choose programming or curricula that pushes the envelope, and keeps pushing the envelope - and now after years and years of it, this is what we've ended up with - clearly pornographic materials."
While the books may be pornographic, they aren't legally prosecutable as obscenity, as the parents' group soon found out.
"The first route we went down was the criminal, because we saw this as distributing material that is harmful to minors," Hauser said. "But basically you can't prosecute schools and libraries, because all they have to do is say there is some educational purpose for these materials."
Pat Trueman, who ran the U.S. Justice Department's obscenity enforcement unit from 1988 through 1992, confirmed what the group found out is true.
"Federal obscenity law says that material can be prosecuted as obscene if it appeals to a prurient interest - that is, a shameful or morbid interest in sex - and if it is patently offensive, and if it doesn't have any literary, artistic, scientific or philosophical value. That's the situation you run into if it doesn't have pictures and is just the written word," Trueman told Cybercast News Service.
The fact that pornographic books can be protected from prosecution if they have "serious literary value" doesn't surprise parents, but it is disappointing.
"These laws need to be changed," Hauser said.
Hauser noted that this isn't the first time that Deerfield High School and the school district have come at cross-purposes to parents. The district ordered 14-year-old freshmen to take a seminar that amounted to homosexual indoctrination, she said, and had them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, is stunned by the actions.
"It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it," Barber said.
Calls to Deerfield school superintendent George Fornero and other administrators were referred to the district's communications director, who did not respond to interview requests prior to press time.
More links about this story.
http://libertyjustincase.com/2008/03/10/call-me-a-prude/
cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp [cnsnews.com]
kxmd.com/getArticle.asp [kxmd.com]
Make media inquiries or request an interview with Pete Winn.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.
E-mail a comment or news tip to Pete Winn.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Again the intolerant of the those who would protect our children are screaming "Judge Not". If only they would practice what they preach!
Humbled Infidel
Update: Here is another article about this by CampusReportOnline.net
School-Sponsored Smut
by: Bethany Stotts, March 10, 2008
A new genre has been added to the list of promoted high school literature: racist gay porn. Deerfield High School of Deerfield, Illinois decided to integrate the Pulitzer Award-winning play, Angels in America: a Gay Fantasia On National Themes into its curriculum. The play features pervasive swearing, graphic sexual content, bigoted remarks, and involves sexual experiences profaning both angels and the Mother Theresa. If high schools are sensitive about assigning Mark Twain’s great classic, Huckleberry Finn, due to its pejorative language, then why is Deerfield High promoting Angels in America?
The book was actually required reading at Deerfield High until recently, but the school demoted it to an “optional title” after parents filed a formal complaint. This means that students who are willing to read the book can still receive course credit for it.
The Illinois Family Institute, which has launched a campaign against the book, provides excerpts (warning: extremely explicit content) from the book and estimates that the book contains 221 vulgar words. “The school justifies this egregious choice because of its themes of hope. Evidently, all great literature with themes of hope have already been exhausted so teachers need to start offering pornography. We say—enough,” Executive Director of North Shore Student Advocacy, Lora Sue Hauser, told IFI.
The Tennessee Herald-Citizen has come out in favor of Angels in America, publishing both a favorable review and article about the play’s local performance this February. Andrew William Smith, an English instructor for Tennessee Technological University describes the play and its characters as “epic,” “complex and controversial,” “profound” and “dynamic.” “Confronting issues such as gays, Republicans and gay Republicans, the play hilariously combines fantasy and reality, politics and pop culture, spirituality and sexuality,” he writes.
Similarly, the Herald-Citizen’s February 11 article mainly quotes the actors involved and vaguely alludes to the controversy as between liberals and conservatives. They quote Mark Creter as saying “‘Angels’ is the kind of play that you’ll want to talk about after you leave. It celebrates what it is to be human, both good and bad…Yes, it’s edgy. Yes, it’s adult, but it’s a smart show...It completely fulfills my mission to embrace important works that, because of its controversial nature, are avoided by educational institutions.” Deerfield High is apparently not so hasty to avoid such “controversial” material.
Staff writer Elizabeth Ayres writes that the play, which features gay themes, has “also been the root of controversy between liberal theater-goers and their more conservative counterparts.” This marginalizes opposition to the play as homophobic, rather than grounded on family values. Or are they meant to be considered the same thing?
“It’s disgraceful for [the high school staff], who have been entrusted to help mold the minds of Deerfield’s impressionable youth, to have abused those youth by ostensibly violating the very laws intended to protect them...Deerfield parents should seriously consider every possible legal option to ensure that these people are held accountable,” said Concerned Women for America Policy Director Matt Barber in a recent press release. But those legal options may be slim. According the CWA, Hauser was told by the State Attorney’s office that both state and federal obscenity laws specifically exempt educators from prosecution.
Barber rejected the idea, offered by some, that this is a free speech issue. “My jaw hit the ground when I read what’s in this book. This isn’t a First Amendment issue; this is about school officials betraying the community trust,” he said.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.
High School Offers Homosexual Porn, Parents Complain
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 10, 2008
(Editor's Note: This story contains references to graphic material about homosexuality and violence.)
(CNSNews.com) - Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion.
Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed.
"Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent.
"The fact that this was required is even more astonishing," she told Cybercast News Service.
Hauser cites numerous examples of offensive passages from the text, including the following:
Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?
(They begin to f***.)
(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)
Hauser said her group formally challenged the use of the books in school, and a school district committee reviewed their challenge.
"It was quite a lengthy process," Hauser told Cybercast News Service. "They spent five or six weeks deciding whether this book should be removed. Their final answer was it would be taken off the required reading list and put on an 'optional title' list.
Peter LaBarbera, with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a conservative group, said the two books are simply parts 1 and 2 of a 10-year-old play on the topic of AIDS - one that has been heralded as "one of the great American plays of the 20th century."
In fact, playwright Tony Kushner won the Pulitzer Prize, and "Angels in America" won two Tony Awards. An HBO adaptation for television was nominated for an Emmy.
"It is defended as a literary work that shows forgiveness, kindness and compassion," LaBarbera said. "Of course, the first question that comes to my mind is, how many classical works of literature are there that show these virtues without delving into graphic homosexual sodomy?"
Parents like Hauser said the work, which even mocks the Catholic nun Mother Teresa, is porn - not literature - and offers bad messages:
Man: I think it broke. The rubber. You want me to keep going? (Little pause) Pull out? Should I --
Louis: Keep going. Infect me. I don't care. I don't care.
"There's no other way to describe this," Hauser said. "It is so egregious and so vulgar. I've been doing advocacy in schools a long time - and this is the worst thing I've seen."
She added: "It's an example of what I call 'the competition of edginess.' High schools across the country have this 'thing' going, where they choose literature or they choose programming or curricula that pushes the envelope, and keeps pushing the envelope - and now after years and years of it, this is what we've ended up with - clearly pornographic materials."
While the books may be pornographic, they aren't legally prosecutable as obscenity, as the parents' group soon found out.
"The first route we went down was the criminal, because we saw this as distributing material that is harmful to minors," Hauser said. "But basically you can't prosecute schools and libraries, because all they have to do is say there is some educational purpose for these materials."
Pat Trueman, who ran the U.S. Justice Department's obscenity enforcement unit from 1988 through 1992, confirmed what the group found out is true.
"Federal obscenity law says that material can be prosecuted as obscene if it appeals to a prurient interest - that is, a shameful or morbid interest in sex - and if it is patently offensive, and if it doesn't have any literary, artistic, scientific or philosophical value. That's the situation you run into if it doesn't have pictures and is just the written word," Trueman told Cybercast News Service.
The fact that pornographic books can be protected from prosecution if they have "serious literary value" doesn't surprise parents, but it is disappointing.
"These laws need to be changed," Hauser said.
Hauser noted that this isn't the first time that Deerfield High School and the school district have come at cross-purposes to parents. The district ordered 14-year-old freshmen to take a seminar that amounted to homosexual indoctrination, she said, and had them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, is stunned by the actions.
"It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it," Barber said.
Calls to Deerfield school superintendent George Fornero and other administrators were referred to the district's communications director, who did not respond to interview requests prior to press time.
More links about this story.
http://libertyjustincase.com/2008/03/10/call-me-a-prude/
cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp [cnsnews.com]
kxmd.com/getArticle.asp [kxmd.com]
Make media inquiries or request an interview with Pete Winn.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.
E-mail a comment or news tip to Pete Winn.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Comments
Porn doesn't belong in any high school.
I agree Eudora! Who do these people think they are to put this crud on our children?
I say everyone should pull their children out of the public education system. That would get their attention. This will continue unless we stop it.
I say everyone should pull their children out of the public education system. That would get their attention. This will continue unless we stop it.
Why are we surprised? The left wing liberals have been pushing the homosexual agenda for years, and conservatives have been passive about countering this sort of smut. It was only a matter of time before it came back to bite us. It is a result of sloth and lack of diligence on the part of mainstream Americans. (To choose not to act is action.) It is time to WAKE UP AMERICA!! Before we GIVE our country away without a fight! Pornography is the cancer of our society, and homosexual indoctrination is the most malignant kind. We have to purge our country of this sickness, and the cure isn't easy. I believe most Americans would vehemently disagree with this "literature" being "required" reading in the schools, but the libs have been running the schools for more than 20 years. That means this generation doesn't know anything else. And we are a morally "fat" society. Americans are overweight because it is too difficult or inconvenient to eat right and exercise. We are morally fat for the same reasons. It is too difficult or inconvenient to stand for what is right.
[this is good]
Well said Lexann - that is the exact problem. People find themselves to busy to be bothered by "politics." I call that an excuse. It's a shame what people are allowing our children of the U.S. to be indoctrinated with this vile sinful, deadly lifestyle.Can our country really claim to love the children of this country, when they won't do anything to protect them? I say no! Claiming and doing are opposites in this matter.
[this is good]
These Liberals are surely parents themselves.I can't help but wonder what goes on in their own homes. When I heard this on the news my stomach felt as if it were tying in knots.If we were found to be teaching our own kids such as this surely our children would be taken out of the home, as Well they should Be!Now the "Liberals" are also trying to force out Home Schooling, and Very soon Private schools. I am blessed to live in a small town in Louisiana, with most of my grands and greats going to small rural schools, where everybody knows everybody, and for the Present,at least,this would not be tolerated. Also we have in this state an organization with branches covering every Parish, which meets together to Pray for our state and local government and officials.
Do you suppose that the people from smaller towns might somehow stick together to overcome these outlandish things which take root in the big cities??? ....just a thought but it couldn't hurt to try!!! :)
Thank you for posting this, and shining a spotlight on the absolute hypocrisy of it all.
Your welcome. I was reading tonight about Anita Bryant. I had no idea why the orange juice lady was all of a sudden not seen much anymore. But tonight I now know it was because she spoke out about the gay agenda many years ago. She spoke of how far it wanted to go, and she was right.
She is a great role model! Even thought she knew she'd loose all she did, she still stood on principles. She didn't falter. This is a women who should be in our history books. The article is here.
She is a great role model! Even thought she knew she'd loose all she did, she still stood on principles. She didn't falter. This is a women who should be in our history books. The article is here.
Yes, I think your right. I also live in a small town. Everyone knows each other and everyone watches out for each others kids. There is big time praying here and also between all of the churches here in my community, they really attract
the kids. Church, youth groups and bible study make a big difference in a small town. I would think it would do the same in the communities in the larger cities. But larger cities are more busy.
I organized a youth group for a preacher of a church here in my community. (not my own church). He and their church asked me if I'd run it and they'd get me some helpers. I did and one thing I did differently was, even though they were young children, we did major bible studies. I was up front with them about all involved in the Bible studies.
After about a year some of the parents thought it might be too much for them since they were young. So I cut back on the Bible Studies. To all of our amazement, the kids wanted to know what happened to the 'real bible lessons'.
So I started them back up again.
We also drew in unchurched kids, and plus I wanted the parents to have a heads up on what we were teaching their children so I would also prepare an adult paper with all of the information plus more in the hopes the lessons would continue at home and what we learned would be lived in the home. Some parents liked it, some did not. Some said they were to busy, or other reasons. But they had the resources at their finger tips with scripture references handy if their children had any questions. I loved it, I hope it's made a difference in the childrens lives.
I do get big hugs from some of these kids when I see them. It's been awhile since I did the Youth group. Awhile back, one of the girls told me she was getting baptized and asked me if I'd come to her church so I could see her get baptized. She is precious!
Also we have had our share of outlandish behavior problems here with some kids, but by the whole town watching out for each others kids, we usually get it taken care of. Not usually in an authoritarian way, but by trying loving all the kids even the hard to love ones. I am in no way a person who allows bad behavior though. If a kids being naughty I call them on it. We do the entire 'why it's wrong, who it hurts and how God see the behavior. But it has to be in love or it instantly puts up walls and defeats the purpose. I also insist apologies to be made by their acknowledgment of their behavior, how it hurt the person or people and why they won't do it again. Sometimes it can take hours, but they are worth it.
Some parents do think I'm too strick, but I don't see a shortage of kids wanting to come to my house and hang out with us. Not in a bedroom, but with all of us together. I've also not had any complaints from kids, or rolling of the eyes either.
There is one big difference with me too! They can also hold me accountable and I respond to them in the same way I expect it from them. Yes, I sin, they see it and they lovingly are allowed to rebuke me when needed. And follow through with the apology. But they don't go overboard, they actually don't like disciplining anymore than I do. So it works out well.
the kids. Church, youth groups and bible study make a big difference in a small town. I would think it would do the same in the communities in the larger cities. But larger cities are more busy.
I organized a youth group for a preacher of a church here in my community. (not my own church). He and their church asked me if I'd run it and they'd get me some helpers. I did and one thing I did differently was, even though they were young children, we did major bible studies. I was up front with them about all involved in the Bible studies.
After about a year some of the parents thought it might be too much for them since they were young. So I cut back on the Bible Studies. To all of our amazement, the kids wanted to know what happened to the 'real bible lessons'.
So I started them back up again.
We also drew in unchurched kids, and plus I wanted the parents to have a heads up on what we were teaching their children so I would also prepare an adult paper with all of the information plus more in the hopes the lessons would continue at home and what we learned would be lived in the home. Some parents liked it, some did not. Some said they were to busy, or other reasons. But they had the resources at their finger tips with scripture references handy if their children had any questions. I loved it, I hope it's made a difference in the childrens lives.
I do get big hugs from some of these kids when I see them. It's been awhile since I did the Youth group. Awhile back, one of the girls told me she was getting baptized and asked me if I'd come to her church so I could see her get baptized. She is precious!
Also we have had our share of outlandish behavior problems here with some kids, but by the whole town watching out for each others kids, we usually get it taken care of. Not usually in an authoritarian way, but by trying loving all the kids even the hard to love ones. I am in no way a person who allows bad behavior though. If a kids being naughty I call them on it. We do the entire 'why it's wrong, who it hurts and how God see the behavior. But it has to be in love or it instantly puts up walls and defeats the purpose. I also insist apologies to be made by their acknowledgment of their behavior, how it hurt the person or people and why they won't do it again. Sometimes it can take hours, but they are worth it.
Some parents do think I'm too strick, but I don't see a shortage of kids wanting to come to my house and hang out with us. Not in a bedroom, but with all of us together. I've also not had any complaints from kids, or rolling of the eyes either.
There is one big difference with me too! They can also hold me accountable and I respond to them in the same way I expect it from them. Yes, I sin, they see it and they lovingly are allowed to rebuke me when needed. And follow through with the apology. But they don't go overboard, they actually don't like disciplining anymore than I do. So it works out well.
Hillary was half right when she wrote the book, "It takes a village"
I think I need to expound on this principal in a new post on my blog. It does take a village to raise kids, but the village has to agree on the principals the village will instill in them. Your approach with the Bible studies kept everybody informed and left them the option of pulling them out or insisting they attend.
In the case of "Required Reading" in a public school where "Attendance is Required" under threat of state authority is not the right approach to education and information. The contrast is stark and Hillary's half truth is a whole lie.
I think I need to expound on this principal in a new post on my blog. It does take a village to raise kids, but the village has to agree on the principals the village will instill in them. Your approach with the Bible studies kept everybody informed and left them the option of pulling them out or insisting they attend.
In the case of "Required Reading" in a public school where "Attendance is Required" under threat of state authority is not the right approach to education and information. The contrast is stark and Hillary's half truth is a whole lie.
[this is good]
Your right. The principles have to match up. Don't get me wrong there are those in my village that does not agree with Biblical teachings, but they are not in my face about it.As far as school - that is the topic here and I did get off topic. I look forward to reading your post, please let me know when you get it posted.
This book is more than exposing readers to other lifestyles, it is porn - which I thought shouldn't be provided to under 18 year old kids.
Eudora I'm curious as to how this book would have any academical value. What kind of job would this train up someone for?
I never thought I'd seen the day when everyone in America would consider literature porn.
Ban To Kill a Mockingbird for the racial undertones. And while you're at it, move back to the deep south and reinstate slavery.
Since regression is obviously the best way to achieve progress.
Ban To Kill a Mockingbird for the racial undertones. And while you're at it, move back to the deep south and reinstate slavery.
Since regression is obviously the best way to achieve progress.
Definitions taken from The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language - Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition
Porn: n. short for pornography -
porn, porno, porny adj.
pornographer: n. a person who writes etc. pornography
pornographic: adj. of , relating to, or characterized by pornography
pornography: n. obscene literature, photographs, paintings etc., intended to
cause sexual excitement // the treating of obscene subjects in art, literature
etc. [fr. Gk pornographos, writings of harlots]
If your interested here are some health issues that result from man on man sexual (homosexual) intercourse.
Many HIV-Positive Males Unaware their infected
New Staph Infection Spreads Among Gay Males
Medical Issues
S.F. gay community an epicenter for a new strain of virulent staph
As you will see homosexual intercourse is very dangerous. So would I teach my kids this is an alternative lifestyle? No, I'd teach them this is a choice of death.
Porn: n. short for pornography -
porn, porno, porny adj.
pornographer: n. a person who writes etc. pornography
pornographic: adj. of , relating to, or characterized by pornography
pornography: n. obscene literature, photographs, paintings etc., intended to
cause sexual excitement // the treating of obscene subjects in art, literature
etc. [fr. Gk pornographos, writings of harlots]
Man: What do you want?
Louis: I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed.
Man: I want to.
Louis: Yeah?
Man: I want to hurt you.
Louis: F*** me.
Man: Yeah.
Louis: Hard?
Man: Yeah. You been a bad boy?
(They begin to f***.)
(Louis slips his hand down the front of Joe's pants. They embrace more tightly. Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell ... they kiss again.)Yes this is porn. Any questions?
"To kill a Mockingbird -racial undertones"I've not read the book, but if anyone that is not gay, would you share with me if this is a book of racial undertones.
"and while your at it, move back to the deep south and reinstate slavery"I live in the south and we don't want slavery. Neither does anyone in the south want to be under slavery. That is one reason why we don't want illegal aliens here in our country. They are living under a form of slavery. But I bet you support open borders and illegal aliens coming in. So that would be you reinstating slavery.
"regression is obviously the best way to achieve progress."Progress of healthy lifestyles and loving relationships as opposed to unnatural and unhealthy lifestyles.
If your interested here are some health issues that result from man on man sexual (homosexual) intercourse.
Many HIV-Positive Males Unaware their infected
New Staph Infection Spreads Among Gay Males
Medical Issues
S.F. gay community an epicenter for a new strain of virulent staph
As you will see homosexual intercourse is very dangerous. So would I teach my kids this is an alternative lifestyle? No, I'd teach them this is a choice of death.
Man you have to be dumb to refer to the Pulizer as "some prize."
Are you really calling these people gay?
Current Members of The Pulitzer Prize Board
(Updated 12/06/07)
Click on image to enlarge
front row: N. Lemann, S. Gissler, J. Byrd, P. Steiger, A.M. Lipinski, M. Pride, A. Bennett
back row: K. Carroll, D. Graham, G. Moore, T. Friedman, D. Kennedy, P. Tash, J. Harris, A. Gyllenhaal, D. Allen, R. Oppel, J. Amoss.
Lee C. Bollinger, President, Columbia University
Danielle Allen, UPS Foundation Professor, School of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study
Jim Amoss, Editor, Times-Picayune, New Orleans, La.
Amanda Bennett, Executive Editor/Enterprise, Bloomberg News
Joann Byrd (co-chair), Former Editor of the Editorial Page, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President, Associated Press
Thomas L. Friedman., Columnist, The New York Times
Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
Donald E. Graham, Chairman, The Washington Post
Anders Gyllenhaal, Executive Editor, The Miami Herald
Jay T. Harris, Wallis Annenberg Chair, Director, Center for the Study of Journalism and Democracy, Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California
David M. Kennedy, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford University
Nicholas Lemann, Dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University
Ann Marie Lipinski, Senior Vice President and Editor, Chicago Tribune
Gregory L. Moore, Editor, The Denver Post
Richard Oppel, Editor, Austin American-Statesman
Mike Pride (co-chair), Editor, Concord (N.H.) Monitor
Paul Tash, Editor, CEO, and Chairman, St. Petersburg Times
Sig Gissler, Administrator, Graduate School of Journalism
(Updated 12/06/07)
Click on image to enlarge
front row: N. Lemann, S. Gissler, J. Byrd, P. Steiger, A.M. Lipinski, M. Pride, A. Bennett
back row: K. Carroll, D. Graham, G. Moore, T. Friedman, D. Kennedy, P. Tash, J. Harris, A. Gyllenhaal, D. Allen, R. Oppel, J. Amoss.
Lee C. Bollinger, President, Columbia University
Danielle Allen, UPS Foundation Professor, School of Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study
Jim Amoss, Editor, Times-Picayune, New Orleans, La.
Amanda Bennett, Executive Editor/Enterprise, Bloomberg News
Joann Byrd (co-chair), Former Editor of the Editorial Page, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President, Associated Press
Thomas L. Friedman., Columnist, The New York Times
Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
Donald E. Graham, Chairman, The Washington Post
Anders Gyllenhaal, Executive Editor, The Miami Herald
Jay T. Harris, Wallis Annenberg Chair, Director, Center for the Study of Journalism and Democracy, Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California
David M. Kennedy, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford University
Nicholas Lemann, Dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University
Ann Marie Lipinski, Senior Vice President and Editor, Chicago Tribune
Gregory L. Moore, Editor, The Denver Post
Richard Oppel, Editor, Austin American-Statesman
Mike Pride (co-chair), Editor, Concord (N.H.) Monitor
Paul Tash, Editor, CEO, and Chairman, St. Petersburg Times
Sig Gissler, Administrator, Graduate School of Journalism
It's really sad that the writer of this blog has children.
I hope they grow up to be better people than she is.
What's really ironic is that this blog has the word "freedom" in the upper right hand corner, given that it's clearly a blog in support of Christian fascism.
This makes me almost ashamed to be an American.
I hope they grow up to be better people than she is.
What's really ironic is that this blog has the word "freedom" in the upper right hand corner, given that it's clearly a blog in support of Christian fascism.
This makes me almost ashamed to be an American.
I saw this play on Broadway, as well as its sequel. It was extremely difficult to watch, and disturbed me on many levels.
And I loved it. I loved that I was pushed to my mental and emotional limits. It forced me to think about what I view as right and wrong, good and evil. It made me realize just was the AIDS crisis was about, and how devastating it was to so many of the people I loved, and lost because of it.
I understand that the language unsettles you. If I had been assigned this in high school, my mother would have probably hit the roof. At first. But she would have read it herself, and talked to my teacher, and heard his point of view as to what academic value it had. And if she had been convinced, she would have changed her mind. If she hadn't changed her mind, she would have made sure we talked about the book, together, at length, while I was studying it.
It's a private matter between the teacher, his students, and their parents. It's really none of your business. If this was happening in YOUR school, to YOUR kid, then deal with it. But to incite others to snap judgments is ignorant.
Oh, but am I really naive enough to think I'll change YOUR mind? I can see by your blogroll that you've already inciting ignorance on a variety of subjects.
Get off your ass, go see the world, meet all these predatory gays and scary Muslims and creepy Mexicans you feel are around every corner. Look them in the eye, hear their stories, share their lives and their joys and disappointments and families and laughter, and then come back and tell me you still think you know all the answers.
Or, just all go and fill your kids' minds with your own prejudices and ignorance. It makes me wish there WERE a Rapture - we need a do-over.
And I loved it. I loved that I was pushed to my mental and emotional limits. It forced me to think about what I view as right and wrong, good and evil. It made me realize just was the AIDS crisis was about, and how devastating it was to so many of the people I loved, and lost because of it.
I understand that the language unsettles you. If I had been assigned this in high school, my mother would have probably hit the roof. At first. But she would have read it herself, and talked to my teacher, and heard his point of view as to what academic value it had. And if she had been convinced, she would have changed her mind. If she hadn't changed her mind, she would have made sure we talked about the book, together, at length, while I was studying it.
It's a private matter between the teacher, his students, and their parents. It's really none of your business. If this was happening in YOUR school, to YOUR kid, then deal with it. But to incite others to snap judgments is ignorant.
Oh, but am I really naive enough to think I'll change YOUR mind? I can see by your blogroll that you've already inciting ignorance on a variety of subjects.
Get off your ass, go see the world, meet all these predatory gays and scary Muslims and creepy Mexicans you feel are around every corner. Look them in the eye, hear their stories, share their lives and their joys and disappointments and families and laughter, and then come back and tell me you still think you know all the answers.
Or, just all go and fill your kids' minds with your own prejudices and ignorance. It makes me wish there WERE a Rapture - we need a do-over.
Maybe this woman's kids are gay. If so that's probably a good thing, given that it means that her genes won't reproduce.
What is troubling about this crap, I don't care if the Pulitzer claim it is anything else, is that it is troubling for Miss C and still she thinks its appropriate for children. What's worse is that it is controversial. This means that many parents are concerned about the moral implications. Parents have the right and the responsibility to instill morals in their children. The state does not have the right and it should not have the responsibility to choose the morals we want instilled. That's what's wrong. Not that this is or is not literature. It may be classic, I don't approve, but it may be a provoker of thought. It is a provoker precisely because of the lack of morals it portrays. That does not belong in a community education system required for our kids to attend.
What does belong in our educational system is what we all agree needs to be taught. This is especially true when American children are graduating among the worst achievement levels in the world. We want the education system to concentrate on doing a better job, not on doing our job.
What does belong in our educational system is what we all agree needs to be taught. This is especially true when American children are graduating among the worst achievement levels in the world. We want the education system to concentrate on doing a better job, not on doing our job.
JudgeBob, the main reason why America has the lowest achievement levels in the world is because of people like this blogger. Most of Europe and the Far East, which have higher achievement levels allow their children to be exposed to great literature like this. Those countries also teach evolution and not Intelligent Design.
As soon as Christians stop trying to impose their values on school boards, America's achievement standards will improve.
As soon as Christians stop trying to impose their values on school boards, America's achievement standards will improve.
JudgeBob,
You're 100% right; it's not safe for children. Of course not. However, it IS safe for 17 and 18 year olds who are on a college track taking AP English classes.
You say, "It is a provoker precisely because of the lack of morals it portrays. That does not belong in a community education system required for our kids to attend." First of all, no one is required to take AP English. Secondly, surely you must be joking. How are we to know what we're for, or against, or what's wrong or righteous in this world if we are not met with all the possible alternatives? Do you really not trust people in their late teens from good homes to be able to form their own opinions? Do you not think that maybe it's the parents' job to instill a strong sense of right and wrong in their children, so when faced with things that are in this world, they can tell right from wrong, moral from immoral? And moreover, do you honestly think that a group of parents would be able to agree on a curriculum for their children? Have you ever been to a PTA meeting?!
We need to raise educated thinkers, not sheltered sheep. No civilization ever got by by blindly believing in one point of view.
You're 100% right; it's not safe for children. Of course not. However, it IS safe for 17 and 18 year olds who are on a college track taking AP English classes.
You say, "It is a provoker precisely because of the lack of morals it portrays. That does not belong in a community education system required for our kids to attend." First of all, no one is required to take AP English. Secondly, surely you must be joking. How are we to know what we're for, or against, or what's wrong or righteous in this world if we are not met with all the possible alternatives? Do you really not trust people in their late teens from good homes to be able to form their own opinions? Do you not think that maybe it's the parents' job to instill a strong sense of right and wrong in their children, so when faced with things that are in this world, they can tell right from wrong, moral from immoral? And moreover, do you honestly think that a group of parents would be able to agree on a curriculum for their children? Have you ever been to a PTA meeting?!
We need to raise educated thinkers, not sheltered sheep. No civilization ever got by by blindly believing in one point of view.
Judge I'm not responding to these people. I'm allowing their comments to stay because their own words are exposing their intolerance of Christian values in their hope of disgracing them. I'm also for exposing their demand and justifications to shove this disgusting crap down people's throats disguised as education.
I refuse to argue with these people, they're not here for any reason except to force their immoral standards and porn on us. They have no desire to deliberate and look for what is best for our children.
They don't like their sins to be challenged or to be labeled sinful!
I refuse to argue with these people, they're not here for any reason except to force their immoral standards and porn on us. They have no desire to deliberate and look for what is best for our children.
They don't like their sins to be challenged or to be labeled sinful!
Humbled Infidel, have you even read the play?
Ugh. Please. As a gay man, I have no intention of forcing any standard on you, your family or your community.
If you really want to know what the gay agenda is, perhaps you should sign up for our newsletter, which is delivered in a handbag full of rainbows by a flying unicorn. Then you can judge us all you wish, as well as copy down the recipe for grilled salmon burgers, which is featured this month.
If you really want to know what the gay agenda is, perhaps you should sign up for our newsletter, which is delivered in a handbag full of rainbows by a flying unicorn. Then you can judge us all you wish, as well as copy down the recipe for grilled salmon burgers, which is featured this month.
Also, why did you delete the rest of this post? I find that fascinating.
supermatt41 I didn't delete any of your post. You'll have to repost it. There has been a problem with that occasionally on Vox. It's not just on my blog but several others that I know of have had the same problem.
Also I couldn't delete only part of any comment. It would be all or nothing.
I've decided to not remove any comments from this post. They speak for themselves. Hey by the way, thanks for being civil. That's very much appreciated and noticed.
Also I couldn't delete only part of any comment. It would be all or nothing.
I've decided to not remove any comments from this post. They speak for themselves. Hey by the way, thanks for being civil. That's very much appreciated and noticed.
I disagree that it is safe for 17 and 18 year old children. They are still children, otherwise they'd be voters, drinkers, and spouses. They're not ready for critical thinking unless their parents are actively instilling morals in them early. That's why home schoolers are getting the results they are. (tops-actively recruited by those colleges because they are prepared) whereas publicly educated are required to take preparatory classes before they are ready. and they were required to read this smut, but the outrage of their parents made the school change it to optional. That's not even good enough in my mind. Again, they should focus on teaching what we all agree should be taught and stop trying to do the parents' job of mandating their version of morals.
I am not joking, kids are not naturally good people. We have to fight our natures, and kids have to be taught how to fight our natures and what ideals to work toward. That's why the smut is not good. Most kids never get training in good judgment. And the schools are enforcing non-judgmentalism to the point there is no room for any judgment. Read through my blogs and you'll get a lot deeper understanding of what I mean. My blog focuses not on outrages, but on using good judgment.
I am not joking, kids are not naturally good people. We have to fight our natures, and kids have to be taught how to fight our natures and what ideals to work toward. That's why the smut is not good. Most kids never get training in good judgment. And the schools are enforcing non-judgmentalism to the point there is no room for any judgment. Read through my blogs and you'll get a lot deeper understanding of what I mean. My blog focuses not on outrages, but on using good judgment.
JudgeBob, I'm not sure why you think teaching Angels in America is teaching the "morals" of the characters in the play.
More likely than not the point is to teach good writing by example.
Most literature has examples of characters who make good choices and other characters who make bad choices. No one is expected to associate themselves with every character in a story.
Are there flawed human beings who make bad choices in Angels in America? Sure there are. But, the play also shows other characters who make good choices.
A reasonably qualified teacher would discuss with the students how they feel about the way the characters interact and the consequences of their choices, both good and bad.
Then, the teacher would spend the majority of the time talking about how the text was written and how the structure of the writing elevates it above other written works of the same era.
On this post people are making a big deal about the scene where one of the gay characters behaves very, very irresponsibly - but the play itself makes it clear that he's not a role model and he does face consequences for his choices.
I would guess that in almost any text of this size written after 1950 or so you could take a couple paragraphs out of context and make it seem horrible. Heck, there are moments in Catcher In The Rye that out of context would seem pornographic.
What really matters, and what any reasonable teacher will stress, is the way Kushner phrases things and how he manipulates language so that almost ever scene could have multiple meanings.
I agree with you that this play would not be appropriate if taught in a high school philosophy class, because then you would be talking about the moral elements of the characters.
But in English class you are talking about the use of language and this play uses language in a way that is not only interesting, but if taught properly will prepare students for college level writing work.
I'm a straight guy and I'll admit there are elements in the play that are disturbing - but it's a play about a disturbing part of American history. In the same way that a play about Nazi Germany would be disturbing - because that part of world history is in and of itself disturbing. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.
More likely than not the point is to teach good writing by example.
Most literature has examples of characters who make good choices and other characters who make bad choices. No one is expected to associate themselves with every character in a story.
Are there flawed human beings who make bad choices in Angels in America? Sure there are. But, the play also shows other characters who make good choices.
A reasonably qualified teacher would discuss with the students how they feel about the way the characters interact and the consequences of their choices, both good and bad.
Then, the teacher would spend the majority of the time talking about how the text was written and how the structure of the writing elevates it above other written works of the same era.
On this post people are making a big deal about the scene where one of the gay characters behaves very, very irresponsibly - but the play itself makes it clear that he's not a role model and he does face consequences for his choices.
I would guess that in almost any text of this size written after 1950 or so you could take a couple paragraphs out of context and make it seem horrible. Heck, there are moments in Catcher In The Rye that out of context would seem pornographic.
What really matters, and what any reasonable teacher will stress, is the way Kushner phrases things and how he manipulates language so that almost ever scene could have multiple meanings.
I agree with you that this play would not be appropriate if taught in a high school philosophy class, because then you would be talking about the moral elements of the characters.
But in English class you are talking about the use of language and this play uses language in a way that is not only interesting, but if taught properly will prepare students for college level writing work.
I'm a straight guy and I'll admit there are elements in the play that are disturbing - but it's a play about a disturbing part of American history. In the same way that a play about Nazi Germany would be disturbing - because that part of world history is in and of itself disturbing. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.
At 18, people are eligible to vote, marry, and in some states and certainly in most developed countries, where they trust their children, drink.
"Most kids never get training in good judgment." Aha. This is where we come to the crux of our argument. I was raised to have an excellent understanding of right and wrong. Sometimes I did not exercise it, but I did so always knowingly, and with full knowledge of the consequences of my actions. That, I find, is good judgment - even though I messed with it sometimes.
Kids push boundaries. It's what they do. It's what helps them to be better adults. But, I digress.
If parents exercised and taught good judgment at home, then works of art like Angels in America could be extremely useful things in schools. But parents don't teach their children objectively; they teach them their own prejudices, and their own narrow view of the world from a previous generation. Parents need to teach their children to see the world the way it is, and appreciate their place in it, and to know right from wrong. And you want to get all Christian on this tip? Then teach the true word of the Jesus - forgiveness WITHOUT JUDGMENT, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek. LOVE ALL MANKIND. All mankind, by the way, includes Mexicans, Muslims and gay men.
"Most kids never get training in good judgment." Aha. This is where we come to the crux of our argument. I was raised to have an excellent understanding of right and wrong. Sometimes I did not exercise it, but I did so always knowingly, and with full knowledge of the consequences of my actions. That, I find, is good judgment - even though I messed with it sometimes.
Kids push boundaries. It's what they do. It's what helps them to be better adults. But, I digress.
If parents exercised and taught good judgment at home, then works of art like Angels in America could be extremely useful things in schools. But parents don't teach their children objectively; they teach them their own prejudices, and their own narrow view of the world from a previous generation. Parents need to teach their children to see the world the way it is, and appreciate their place in it, and to know right from wrong. And you want to get all Christian on this tip? Then teach the true word of the Jesus - forgiveness WITHOUT JUDGMENT, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek. LOVE ALL MANKIND. All mankind, by the way, includes Mexicans, Muslims and gay men.
Miss C this was for freshmen in highschool. What age is that?
Taking scripture and twisting it to fit your twisted view is not helpful. But I'll leave that to JudgeBob, for he can explain it much better than I can.
And your justifying kids bad behavior as "it's what they do"...Bad form of thinking! It's not what they do, it's what their enabled to do by adults justifying bad behavior as it's what they do. You may live you life like that, I say thank God you don't have a imput on my children!
Taking scripture and twisting it to fit your twisted view is not helpful. But I'll leave that to JudgeBob, for he can explain it much better than I can.
And your justifying kids bad behavior as "it's what they do"...Bad form of thinking! It's not what they do, it's what their enabled to do by adults justifying bad behavior as it's what they do. You may live you life like that, I say thank God you don't have a imput on my children!
You're an absolute idiot.
I don't care about the educational application you might be able to draw from this play. It presents morality issues that I don't approve of, period. It is not for the school to display this smut to my kid, period. The school teachers and administrators might approve or they might not. It is not for them to decide, period. This is why conservatives and Christians feel like it is being pushed on us. It is for the parent to instill morals, it is for the schools to teach people to read, write, and otherwise know how to obtain information. There are much less controversial works, interesting and relevant works that don't present foul language, indecent acts, and glorification of evil behavior. If it weren't controversial, I would want the kid to glean something from the skill it was created with, but the amoral society of today does not see the harm it can do to present this behavior to our youth.
Look, you don't want your 7 year old exposed to cage fights because the 7 year old emulates the aggression. In the same way I don't want my 17-18 year old exposed to indecency, and especially by a school who apparently believes they are not accountable to the parents. Its hard enough to teach our kids to fight their natures to grow into healthy adults. Yes we shield them from this kind of crap, for as long as we possibly can. There are plenty of examples in their lives without this, that we parents have to help them understand and fight within themselves. This school is in effect promoting the behavior depicted within the play by not addressing the morals, or not addressing them in the same direction the majority of parents would. Its not even their job.
The key fact here is that it is controversial. Controversy seems to be the aim of the schools these days. Its not fair to the parents, and its not fair to the kids. I don't even want this crap in a college course I would be taking, why on earth would I want my kid to have to deal with it. It might exist, but it is extreme, and certainly isn't healthy behavior.
There is no excuse for pinpointing this work when there are so many good works to pick from. Works that edify good morals.
Look, you don't want your 7 year old exposed to cage fights because the 7 year old emulates the aggression. In the same way I don't want my 17-18 year old exposed to indecency, and especially by a school who apparently believes they are not accountable to the parents. Its hard enough to teach our kids to fight their natures to grow into healthy adults. Yes we shield them from this kind of crap, for as long as we possibly can. There are plenty of examples in their lives without this, that we parents have to help them understand and fight within themselves. This school is in effect promoting the behavior depicted within the play by not addressing the morals, or not addressing them in the same direction the majority of parents would. Its not even their job.
The key fact here is that it is controversial. Controversy seems to be the aim of the schools these days. Its not fair to the parents, and its not fair to the kids. I don't even want this crap in a college course I would be taking, why on earth would I want my kid to have to deal with it. It might exist, but it is extreme, and certainly isn't healthy behavior.
There is no excuse for pinpointing this work when there are so many good works to pick from. Works that edify good morals.
"Then teach the true word of the Jesus - forgiveness WITHOUT JUDGMENT, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek. LOVE ALL MANKIND. All mankind, by the way, includes Mexicans, Muslims and gay men." Oh no you didn't!!! You want to preach my religion to me you hypocrite? Fine, give me the verses' addresses. What book do you find them in, what chapter? Have you even read them for yourself? Did you read them in context of the thought they framed? I demand an apology from you leftist hypocrites or anybody who's ever condemned a Christian for judging. I and my entire faith have been labeled hypocrites for exercising our God given responsibility to use good judgment. You have managed to convince nearly all of pop culture to judge and condemn us for judging. By mis-using our scriptures, you take one verse out of context and reduce thousands of years of wisdom to a three word bumper sticker slogan, "Don't Judge People" or "You Shouldn't Judge" effectively hijacking the lesson it was meant to teach and twisting it to fit your self centered agenda to continue in whatever sin you feel judged for. I'd be shocked if any of you could name the verse you so glibly quote to justify this charge against us. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to quote the next verse or any other verse that supports it, yet you have the nerve to quote our Holy Book to us without any understanding of its proper application.
I will rip your self righteous prejudiced condemnation of us to shreds and expose your hypocrisy before God and everybody if you try doing that to my face. If you ever do decide to read a scripture, try this verse; [John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."] Oh my God, open these hearts to the truth and make them face their shame for shaming the righteous. Don't snort! We know we are not perfect, neither are we wrong about this. Righteousness is one of those buzz words you hypocrites, who don't like being judged but, enjoy judging us for. If you had any idea what righteousness we speak of, you'd know your judgment of us is unfounded and just plain wrong.
I suppose you'll try to judge and condemn me for being angry next. When I am wronged, and especially when my entire faith is condemned on the basis of a prejudice, I have, not only a right, but a responsibility to be angry. Its called righteous anger and the Bible reference for that is Eph 4:25-27. [25 Therefore, putting away lying, each one speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry, and do not sin" do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.] It means I have to speak the truth, it means I have to say it in the face of those indulging in self delusion. It means I shouldn't bottle it up because that would give place to the devil using it in me to create my own prejudice. So if you don't like being judged with righteous proper judgment, tough, that doesn't give you license to judge us with prejudice and unrighteous improper judgment.
I will rip your self righteous prejudiced condemnation of us to shreds and expose your hypocrisy before God and everybody if you try doing that to my face. If you ever do decide to read a scripture, try this verse; [John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."] Oh my God, open these hearts to the truth and make them face their shame for shaming the righteous. Don't snort! We know we are not perfect, neither are we wrong about this. Righteousness is one of those buzz words you hypocrites, who don't like being judged but, enjoy judging us for. If you had any idea what righteousness we speak of, you'd know your judgment of us is unfounded and just plain wrong.
I suppose you'll try to judge and condemn me for being angry next. When I am wronged, and especially when my entire faith is condemned on the basis of a prejudice, I have, not only a right, but a responsibility to be angry. Its called righteous anger and the Bible reference for that is Eph 4:25-27. [25 Therefore, putting away lying, each one speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry, and do not sin" do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.] It means I have to speak the truth, it means I have to say it in the face of those indulging in self delusion. It means I shouldn't bottle it up because that would give place to the devil using it in me to create my own prejudice. So if you don't like being judged with righteous proper judgment, tough, that doesn't give you license to judge us with prejudice and unrighteous improper judgment.
Humbled Infidel - Freshman in high school? Yeah, that's a bit young. I'd wait until senior year at least, if not college. I would be uncomfortable with my freshman son or daughter reading this; there's simply too much that has to be brought up to put it all in context, and I am not sure if when I was 13 or 14 I would have been able to comprehend all of it. But, let the parents of that school decide for themselves, and stop making it sound like we're all going to Hell in a handbasket because one teacher has a really messed up sense of age-appropriate behavior. For every one of him there are a dozen teachers who are good people just trying to get kids to understand the world and prepare them for being decent grown-ups. Give the education system a break.
Judge Bob - Watch out, you're judging me! LOL
Gee, it looks like we're finally talking about literature! Excellent. And we're choosing one of the most controversial books today - arguably the one up for the most interpretation, and so easily picked apart for one's own purposes.
The quotes you choose are so typical - as mine are, below. You can find a Bible quote that justifies anyone's reasoning. But, I'll play along. I knew one day that my 14 years of Catholic school and intense Bible study would be of use eventually!
I'm not partial to John's version of judgment, myself, as the whole misdefined "righteous" thing doesn't sit well with me. I like more of the one-two punch from Matthew and Romans in reply:
Matthew 7:2-5 esp. "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." and Romans 10:3 "Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness."
It's that last one I love the best, because I find it so apt for those who think they know EXACTLY what God's thinking ALL THE TIME ON EVERY SUBJECT. The mysteries of God are great and unknowable; we can only hope to discover an unfathomably small percentage of His ways. I certainly don't claim to know. Apparently, you do. So be it.
I don't like someone telling their small child that Jesus doesn't want them to have a candy bar before dinner and then turn around to me and say I take the Bible out of context. (Yes, that really happened to me, so I'm not hyperbolizing - and it wasn't the only time something ridiculous was attributed to Jesus in my presence.)
I'm not condemning anyone's faith. I'm not going to tell my Hindu friends or my Jewish friends or my Muslim friends that they're WRONG for not believing in Jesus, and I don't like Jesus' name thrown around for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda. NO one's right, and NO one's wrong. The people who use the Koran to justify blowing themselves up are no worse than the people who use the Bible to justify shooting doctors. The tenets of EVERY faith preach love and understanding; it's the crazies who pick the most incendiary parts to rationalize their hatred, bigotry and fear.
More of my favorite quotes from the Bible, which give me great comfort in my belief that God is good and probably wants everyone to just shut up now - Psalms 103:
(2) Praise the Lord, I tell myself, and never forget the good things he does for me. (8)The Lord is merciful and gracious; he is slow to get angry and full of unfailing love.
My favorite, though, is from Psalms 104:24 - O Lord, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures.
We're ALL God's creatures. Me. You. The Pulitzer committee. Gay men. The Dalai Lama. Palestinian teenagers. Kim Jong Il. If He made us all, then He loves us all; and if He loves us all, and I want to be more like Him, then so will I love us all. People mess up; do we need to get so hysterical and Chicken Little about it?
I find myself unable to be swayed from this opinion, just as I am sure you're unable to be swayed from yours.
Oh, alright, a parting potshot from Matthew 21:31, the oh, snap! moment to a rollicking good story I'm sure you know and that's mighty apt here:
"I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do."
Judge Bob - Watch out, you're judging me! LOL
Gee, it looks like we're finally talking about literature! Excellent. And we're choosing one of the most controversial books today - arguably the one up for the most interpretation, and so easily picked apart for one's own purposes.
The quotes you choose are so typical - as mine are, below. You can find a Bible quote that justifies anyone's reasoning. But, I'll play along. I knew one day that my 14 years of Catholic school and intense Bible study would be of use eventually!
I'm not partial to John's version of judgment, myself, as the whole misdefined "righteous" thing doesn't sit well with me. I like more of the one-two punch from Matthew and Romans in reply:
Matthew 7:2-5 esp. "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." and Romans 10:3 "Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness."
It's that last one I love the best, because I find it so apt for those who think they know EXACTLY what God's thinking ALL THE TIME ON EVERY SUBJECT. The mysteries of God are great and unknowable; we can only hope to discover an unfathomably small percentage of His ways. I certainly don't claim to know. Apparently, you do. So be it.
I don't like someone telling their small child that Jesus doesn't want them to have a candy bar before dinner and then turn around to me and say I take the Bible out of context. (Yes, that really happened to me, so I'm not hyperbolizing - and it wasn't the only time something ridiculous was attributed to Jesus in my presence.)
I'm not condemning anyone's faith. I'm not going to tell my Hindu friends or my Jewish friends or my Muslim friends that they're WRONG for not believing in Jesus, and I don't like Jesus' name thrown around for the purpose of promoting one's own agenda. NO one's right, and NO one's wrong. The people who use the Koran to justify blowing themselves up are no worse than the people who use the Bible to justify shooting doctors. The tenets of EVERY faith preach love and understanding; it's the crazies who pick the most incendiary parts to rationalize their hatred, bigotry and fear.
More of my favorite quotes from the Bible, which give me great comfort in my belief that God is good and probably wants everyone to just shut up now - Psalms 103:
(2) Praise the Lord, I tell myself, and never forget the good things he does for me. (8)The Lord is merciful and gracious; he is slow to get angry and full of unfailing love.
My favorite, though, is from Psalms 104:24 - O Lord, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures.
We're ALL God's creatures. Me. You. The Pulitzer committee. Gay men. The Dalai Lama. Palestinian teenagers. Kim Jong Il. If He made us all, then He loves us all; and if He loves us all, and I want to be more like Him, then so will I love us all. People mess up; do we need to get so hysterical and Chicken Little about it?
I find myself unable to be swayed from this opinion, just as I am sure you're unable to be swayed from yours.
Oh, alright, a parting potshot from Matthew 21:31, the oh, snap! moment to a rollicking good story I'm sure you know and that's mighty apt here:
"I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do."
SuperMatt! You are so full of win.
You have to be a high school senior to take AP English.
["Gee, it looks like we're finally talking about literature! Excellent. And we're choosing one of the most controversial books today - arguably the one up for the most interpretation, and so easily picked apart for one's own purposes."]
Yes, its controversial, that's why it is not being taught in schools today! though the vast majority prefer it was. Instead my 7th grade nephew is taught the Qu'ran and told to wear Muslim dress and recite a Muslim prayer. HMM. no hypocrisy there?
["You can find a Bible quote that justifies anyone's reasoning."
"I'm not partial to John's version of judgment"]
You took the first quote, and took it out of context. Until then I wasn't using any scripture. I was arguing from a secular standpoint. Now you accuse me of taking it out of context to justify my stance. The opposite is true, I have been putting into context to correct your out of context. You admit you are cherry picking your verses. You seemed to like John in the first application of scripture, now you don't?
Taking Bible quotes out of context is the whole point of my response to you telling me what Jesus said. What does the whole verse and more importantly the whole thought entail? hmm. Not to judge unrighteously, NOT just do not judge. For by the same measure in which you or I judge is the measure by which we will be judged. So there you were judging me for judging with the measure by which I want to be judged. (Righteous judgment) I haven't condemned anybody, but I have followed the direction all the scriptures give me. To tell the truth, to present the path of life to others. That's the love I am instructed to have for my neighbor, not to ignore their sin and allow them to trot merrily off to Hell. I don't pass judgment, it is not the same as using good judgment to 1 recognize sin 2 to call sin sin 3 not to allow that influence to get into my kids. So far #3 is the only application I've used here until I got preached to about using my judgment. That's when I got mad, and that's when I pronounced a judgment on you. Even that was not a condemnation of you, but a naming of an obvious truth to correct your judgment of me.
By the way the next scripture you quote is very applicable. You just need to reverse the application. I have pulled the plank out of my eye. (Salvation) Its taking years to heal, but I see a lot clearer these days. I am submitting to God's righteousness. In that verse He was referring to non-believers, not believers.
["It's that last one I love the best, because I find it so apt for those who think they know EXACTLY what God's thinking ALL THE TIME ON EVERY SUBJECT. The mysteries of God are great and unknowable; we can only hope to discover an unfathomably small percentage of His ways. I certainly don't claim to know. Apparently, you do. So be it."]
I don't claim to know all His ways, does that mean I shouldn't claim to know any of His ways? He makes the homosexual thing awfully clear. He also makes the 'protecting your kids' from evil influences' pretty clear.
["NO one's right, and NO one's wrong."] There you go with that, 'no judgment' thing again. of course there is a right and a wrong, that's why He tells us to judge with righteous judgment. How can you pick a religion without judgment? And no, they don't all preach kindness and light. They might call what they teach light, but I can do a little research and show you verses in the Qu'ran that instruct the Muslims to lie to the infidel, to subjugate them, place a special tax on them, kill anyone who leaves their religion, kill all the Jews, kill the homosexuals. I don't find that stuff in the New Testament. One is right, one is wrong. Christians may have done some bad things in the name of religion, but the foundation of the religion didn't support them. The Muslims extremism is found in the Qu'ran. And no, I don't put all Muslims on the judgment seat for the works of the few, they do that themselves by complaining about being labeled Islamo-Fascist. They identify themselves with the extremists. Whites aren't up in arms about the label being placed on white Supremists. We recognize the White Supremists as evil. Blacks don't get up in arms about the Black Panthers name, they know the Black Panthers are evil. Its only Muslims who do this.
["The tenets of EVERY faith preach love and understanding"] NO, they don't. You grew up in a Western culture where these things are normal, but they are not taught the same way in the East. They are taught to be nice to each other and to subjugate everyone else. Everyone, from the president to the Main Stream Media are not giving you the information you need to understand what's going on. In Iran and the Palestenian Authority they teach grade school kids to kill anyone not of their faith until they submit to Islam. There are schools right here in America that are teaching the same things without the firearms drills and the marching. I have an old article on my other blog at http://judgeright.blogspot.com called "In Their Own Words" showing videos of this as well as their most popular leaders speaking to thousands in attendance about subjugating the whole world, and they aren't quoting the Qu'ran out of context.
["God is good and probably wants everyone to just shut up now"] Jesus said spread the good news to the four corners of the Earth, That's hardly instruction to 'shut up!'
["he is slow to get angry and full of unfailing love"]
yes, that is what it says, but again, you are cherry picking to get what you want out of it. Slow doesn't mean never, someday we are going to sit on that judgment box, and nations and ideologies tend to get judged here and now to turn people back to God.
["We're ALL God's creatures. Me. You. The Pulitzer committee. Gay men. The Dalai Lama. Palestinian teenagers. Kim Jong Il. If He made us all, then He loves us all; and if He loves us all, and I want to be more like Him, then so will I love us all. People mess up; do we need to get so hysterical and Chicken Little about it? "]
God did not make Pulitzer committees or Gay men or Palestinian jihadi's, He made babies and they grew up to choose what they would become. Its on those choices that He makes His judgments. In the meantime, He is calling us to follow Him, to submit to His will.
["I find myself unable to be swayed from this opinion, just as I am sure you're unable to be swayed from yours."]
As you've demonstrated all the way through this conversation, no amount of reason matters to you, you want to believe what you want to believe. I have reasoned out my positions, give me reasons to change instead of bumper sticker theology and I might be swayed.
["I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do."]
Yes, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes who'd repented and changed their ways. Not people actively pursuing their own ways. Submission to God's will is key to getting into the kingdom. Anything else is licentiousness.
Yes, its controversial, that's why it is not being taught in schools today! though the vast majority prefer it was. Instead my 7th grade nephew is taught the Qu'ran and told to wear Muslim dress and recite a Muslim prayer. HMM. no hypocrisy there?
["You can find a Bible quote that justifies anyone's reasoning."
"I'm not partial to John's version of judgment"]
You took the first quote, and took it out of context. Until then I wasn't using any scripture. I was arguing from a secular standpoint. Now you accuse me of taking it out of context to justify my stance. The opposite is true, I have been putting into context to correct your out of context. You admit you are cherry picking your verses. You seemed to like John in the first application of scripture, now you don't?
Taking Bible quotes out of context is the whole point of my response to you telling me what Jesus said. What does the whole verse and more importantly the whole thought entail? hmm. Not to judge unrighteously, NOT just do not judge. For by the same measure in which you or I judge is the measure by which we will be judged. So there you were judging me for judging with the measure by which I want to be judged. (Righteous judgment) I haven't condemned anybody, but I have followed the direction all the scriptures give me. To tell the truth, to present the path of life to others. That's the love I am instructed to have for my neighbor, not to ignore their sin and allow them to trot merrily off to Hell. I don't pass judgment, it is not the same as using good judgment to 1 recognize sin 2 to call sin sin 3 not to allow that influence to get into my kids. So far #3 is the only application I've used here until I got preached to about using my judgment. That's when I got mad, and that's when I pronounced a judgment on you. Even that was not a condemnation of you, but a naming of an obvious truth to correct your judgment of me.
By the way the next scripture you quote is very applicable. You just need to reverse the application. I have pulled the plank out of my eye. (Salvation) Its taking years to heal, but I see a lot clearer these days. I am submitting to God's righteousness. In that verse He was referring to non-believers, not believers.
["It's that last one I love the best, because I find it so apt for those who think they know EXACTLY what God's thinking ALL THE TIME ON EVERY SUBJECT. The mysteries of God are great and unknowable; we can only hope to discover an unfathomably small percentage of His ways. I certainly don't claim to know. Apparently, you do. So be it."]
I don't claim to know all His ways, does that mean I shouldn't claim to know any of His ways? He makes the homosexual thing awfully clear. He also makes the 'protecting your kids' from evil influences' pretty clear.
["NO one's right, and NO one's wrong."] There you go with that, 'no judgment' thing again. of course there is a right and a wrong, that's why He tells us to judge with righteous judgment. How can you pick a religion without judgment? And no, they don't all preach kindness and light. They might call what they teach light, but I can do a little research and show you verses in the Qu'ran that instruct the Muslims to lie to the infidel, to subjugate them, place a special tax on them, kill anyone who leaves their religion, kill all the Jews, kill the homosexuals. I don't find that stuff in the New Testament. One is right, one is wrong. Christians may have done some bad things in the name of religion, but the foundation of the religion didn't support them. The Muslims extremism is found in the Qu'ran. And no, I don't put all Muslims on the judgment seat for the works of the few, they do that themselves by complaining about being labeled Islamo-Fascist. They identify themselves with the extremists. Whites aren't up in arms about the label being placed on white Supremists. We recognize the White Supremists as evil. Blacks don't get up in arms about the Black Panthers name, they know the Black Panthers are evil. Its only Muslims who do this.
["The tenets of EVERY faith preach love and understanding"] NO, they don't. You grew up in a Western culture where these things are normal, but they are not taught the same way in the East. They are taught to be nice to each other and to subjugate everyone else. Everyone, from the president to the Main Stream Media are not giving you the information you need to understand what's going on. In Iran and the Palestenian Authority they teach grade school kids to kill anyone not of their faith until they submit to Islam. There are schools right here in America that are teaching the same things without the firearms drills and the marching. I have an old article on my other blog at http://judgeright.blogspot.com called "In Their Own Words" showing videos of this as well as their most popular leaders speaking to thousands in attendance about subjugating the whole world, and they aren't quoting the Qu'ran out of context.
["God is good and probably wants everyone to just shut up now"] Jesus said spread the good news to the four corners of the Earth, That's hardly instruction to 'shut up!'
["he is slow to get angry and full of unfailing love"]
yes, that is what it says, but again, you are cherry picking to get what you want out of it. Slow doesn't mean never, someday we are going to sit on that judgment box, and nations and ideologies tend to get judged here and now to turn people back to God.
["We're ALL God's creatures. Me. You. The Pulitzer committee. Gay men. The Dalai Lama. Palestinian teenagers. Kim Jong Il. If He made us all, then He loves us all; and if He loves us all, and I want to be more like Him, then so will I love us all. People mess up; do we need to get so hysterical and Chicken Little about it? "]
God did not make Pulitzer committees or Gay men or Palestinian jihadi's, He made babies and they grew up to choose what they would become. Its on those choices that He makes His judgments. In the meantime, He is calling us to follow Him, to submit to His will.
["I find myself unable to be swayed from this opinion, just as I am sure you're unable to be swayed from yours."]
As you've demonstrated all the way through this conversation, no amount of reason matters to you, you want to believe what you want to believe. I have reasoned out my positions, give me reasons to change instead of bumper sticker theology and I might be swayed.
["I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do."]
Yes, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes who'd repented and changed their ways. Not people actively pursuing their own ways. Submission to God's will is key to getting into the kingdom. Anything else is licentiousness.
Re your links to articles about gay men infected with HIV to prove that gay sex - death:
Did you know that the highest rate of new HIV infections worldwide is among heterosexuals? Just curious.
Did you know that the highest rate of new HIV infections worldwide is among heterosexuals? Just curious.
http://www.silencingchristians.com/video4.aspx
Watch a little of this movie and see if you can understand Christians' concerns about school.
Watch a little of this movie and see if you can understand Christians' concerns about school.
JudgeBob, I think my basic objection to the premise of this post is catergorizing the play as "porn."
My understanding is that pornography is meant to get people sexually excited. The sex scene in Angels in America is designed not to be sexually exciting. It's presented as the man's attempt at suicide. Both before and after that scene the play presents scenes of people dying horrible painful deaths because they engaged in similar acts of risky sexual behavior.
In fact one of the main points of the play is that homosexual sex in the 1980s very often led to slow painful deaths. That's hardly pornography.
What the play does do is attack hypocrisy - by showing people like Roy Cohn, who made a career out of judging others finally dying of AIDS because of his secret gay sex life.
In a lot of ways that's why for mature 17 or 18 year olds this play could be extremely constructive. One of it's messages is that sex is safer, saner an healthier in the context of long term monogamous relationships.
A good teacher could certainly use the death scenes in the play to hammer that message home.
Another theme of the play is that before judging others you first need to judge yourself, which is another lesson a smart teacher could bring out.
The irony over arguing about this play with Christian rhetoric is that it's a play the celebrates and embraces Christian values. In fact, it might be the most religious text that those students are exposed to in their entire high school career.
It shows that today's world is full of dangerous temptations and that a single lapse in moral judgment can not only hurt yourself, by also the people who love you.
Isn't that the type of message we want children to be exposed to? Isn't that the same advice that a pastor would provide a child who asked about the temptations of Western Society.
In fact, I'd be less surprised if liberals were not angrier than conservatives over the teaching of Angels in America, since the play is very much a religious allegory that teaches exactly the values that are discussed in church on a weekly basis.
My understanding is that pornography is meant to get people sexually excited. The sex scene in Angels in America is designed not to be sexually exciting. It's presented as the man's attempt at suicide. Both before and after that scene the play presents scenes of people dying horrible painful deaths because they engaged in similar acts of risky sexual behavior.
In fact one of the main points of the play is that homosexual sex in the 1980s very often led to slow painful deaths. That's hardly pornography.
What the play does do is attack hypocrisy - by showing people like Roy Cohn, who made a career out of judging others finally dying of AIDS because of his secret gay sex life.
In a lot of ways that's why for mature 17 or 18 year olds this play could be extremely constructive. One of it's messages is that sex is safer, saner an healthier in the context of long term monogamous relationships.
A good teacher could certainly use the death scenes in the play to hammer that message home.
Another theme of the play is that before judging others you first need to judge yourself, which is another lesson a smart teacher could bring out.
The irony over arguing about this play with Christian rhetoric is that it's a play the celebrates and embraces Christian values. In fact, it might be the most religious text that those students are exposed to in their entire high school career.
It shows that today's world is full of dangerous temptations and that a single lapse in moral judgment can not only hurt yourself, by also the people who love you.
Isn't that the type of message we want children to be exposed to? Isn't that the same advice that a pastor would provide a child who asked about the temptations of Western Society.
In fact, I'd be less surprised if liberals were not angrier than conservatives over the teaching of Angels in America, since the play is very much a religious allegory that teaches exactly the values that are discussed in church on a weekly basis.
You know, given your description, you might be right about using the play the way you suggest, but in today's political climate, I have very little trust for the teachers especially given the performance levels of the kids graduating from those schools. I might take my 17 year old to see it so I could discuss the morals of the play with him, but I would not want that option left to the teachers. That's my main point. Its not their job, and they are wresting that job from the parents and doing a lousy job of what they are supposed to be doing. When they master the 3 R's we can get back to the moral dilemma of who's supposed to instill which morals.
As to the content of the play, it is far too graphic and far too profane not to be controversial and as I mentioned earlier, the Bible isn't taught because it is controversial and the vast majority of parents want the Bible taught. If that rule applies to Christian literature, it should certainly apply to secular literature presenting sexual scenes and profanity.
As to the content of the play, it is far too graphic and far too profane not to be controversial and as I mentioned earlier, the Bible isn't taught because it is controversial and the vast majority of parents want the Bible taught. If that rule applies to Christian literature, it should certainly apply to secular literature presenting sexual scenes and profanity.
Judge Bob,
When I see the Christian Right actually emulating Jesus, I'll change my hypocritical, heathen ways. But for now, I'm going to continue to be good to those around me and try not to get hysterical about people who have different opinions or beliefs than mine.
I agree with you on one thing - the portrayal of religious extremists in the media. Just as watching videos like "In Their Own Words" has caused you to make sweeping statements about the entirety of Islam, so too am I guilty of sweeping generalizations about Christianity after watching "Jesus Camp."
In every society, every religion - heck, every coffee shop in the world, you're going to get people who essentially believe the same thing, but to different extents and with wildly different ways of expressing those beliefs.
The thing is, I believe in God - but I'm not pompous enough to think that I'm 100% percent correct in doing so. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or Jews are "right" in their interpretation and faith in a higher power - or for that matter, atheists. There is no way of knowing! They believe they're right just as strongly as we do - so be it.
I'll go ahead and keep believing that Jesus is cool with me as long as I continue to try to do my best on this Earth. You keep vigilant and await your time in the Judgment Box. Muslims will fantasize about their 40 virgins and not eat pork. Jews will also not eat pork, and wait for a "real" savior. Hindus will not eat cows, and worship elephant goddesses with eight arms. Buddhists will leave oranges for and chant to their higher power.
I think my ire comes down to this: I choose to believe in God the way I do, because I cannot fathom a God that hates the people in my life who have shown me the true meaning of friendship, forgiveness, compassion and generosity. It pains me to know that you'd meet the people in my life, these people who mean so much to me, and that after meeting them you'd still believe they are damned by God. It hurts me, and that hurt turns to anger and makes me lash out at those who think anyone on this earth is lesser than they.
When I see the Christian Right actually emulating Jesus, I'll change my hypocritical, heathen ways. But for now, I'm going to continue to be good to those around me and try not to get hysterical about people who have different opinions or beliefs than mine.
I agree with you on one thing - the portrayal of religious extremists in the media. Just as watching videos like "In Their Own Words" has caused you to make sweeping statements about the entirety of Islam, so too am I guilty of sweeping generalizations about Christianity after watching "Jesus Camp."
In every society, every religion - heck, every coffee shop in the world, you're going to get people who essentially believe the same thing, but to different extents and with wildly different ways of expressing those beliefs.
The thing is, I believe in God - but I'm not pompous enough to think that I'm 100% percent correct in doing so. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or Jews are "right" in their interpretation and faith in a higher power - or for that matter, atheists. There is no way of knowing! They believe they're right just as strongly as we do - so be it.
I'll go ahead and keep believing that Jesus is cool with me as long as I continue to try to do my best on this Earth. You keep vigilant and await your time in the Judgment Box. Muslims will fantasize about their 40 virgins and not eat pork. Jews will also not eat pork, and wait for a "real" savior. Hindus will not eat cows, and worship elephant goddesses with eight arms. Buddhists will leave oranges for and chant to their higher power.
I think my ire comes down to this: I choose to believe in God the way I do, because I cannot fathom a God that hates the people in my life who have shown me the true meaning of friendship, forgiveness, compassion and generosity. It pains me to know that you'd meet the people in my life, these people who mean so much to me, and that after meeting them you'd still believe they are damned by God. It hurts me, and that hurt turns to anger and makes me lash out at those who think anyone on this earth is lesser than they.
Now that's cherry picking statistics. Here in the U.S. the highest rate of new infections is in the gay community and the world wide epidemic is due to heavy promiscuity. That is an unfair comparison considering that many in the gay community consider HIV infection a badge of honor.
You have some well thought out points.
My concern is that perhaps one of the reasons students these days come out of high school so poorly prepared for college is that the books that are taught in English classes are not particularly good examples of writing.
I worry that because school boards are worried about upsetting parents they tend to select books that are designed not to offend. The problem is that dating back to the time of Michaelangelo almost all great art is offensive at some level to some people.
Therefore when you teach only the "safe" books you short change students, by not exposing them to the most well written works possible.
Both liberals and conservatives are equally guilty in this respect. For example there are liberal groups that have pressured high schools to remove "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries because of the politically incorrect way Huck talks about black people. That this classic work of American literature is being taken away is a tragedy.
As to the Bible, I agree that there are elements of it that could be of great value to students. It is, after all, the primary work of Western Literature and the entire way we evaluate a book's theme, structure and metaphor comes from early interpretations of the Bible. Plus, we teach Greek and Roman myths, which are certainly not secular.
I guess I simply don't see it as an either/or or moral dilemma. I
f I had children in high school I would want them exposed to the best writing possible, and that would include The Bible as an example of classical literature, Milton's Paradise Lost (which is also controversial) and modern morality tales like Angels In America (if not Angels In America, then "Bright Lights Big City" which is also a very well written metaphor about the dangers of the world's temptations.)
My concern is that perhaps one of the reasons students these days come out of high school so poorly prepared for college is that the books that are taught in English classes are not particularly good examples of writing.
I worry that because school boards are worried about upsetting parents they tend to select books that are designed not to offend. The problem is that dating back to the time of Michaelangelo almost all great art is offensive at some level to some people.
Therefore when you teach only the "safe" books you short change students, by not exposing them to the most well written works possible.
Both liberals and conservatives are equally guilty in this respect. For example there are liberal groups that have pressured high schools to remove "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries because of the politically incorrect way Huck talks about black people. That this classic work of American literature is being taken away is a tragedy.
As to the Bible, I agree that there are elements of it that could be of great value to students. It is, after all, the primary work of Western Literature and the entire way we evaluate a book's theme, structure and metaphor comes from early interpretations of the Bible. Plus, we teach Greek and Roman myths, which are certainly not secular.
I guess I simply don't see it as an either/or or moral dilemma. I
f I had children in high school I would want them exposed to the best writing possible, and that would include The Bible as an example of classical literature, Milton's Paradise Lost (which is also controversial) and modern morality tales like Angels In America (if not Angels In America, then "Bright Lights Big City" which is also a very well written metaphor about the dangers of the world's temptations.)
["I think my ire comes down to this: I choose to believe in God the way I do, because I cannot fathom a God that hates the people in my life who have shown me the true meaning of friendship, forgiveness, compassion and generosity. It pains me to know that you'd meet the people in my life, these people who mean so much to me, and that after meeting them you'd still believe they are damned by God. It hurts me, and that hurt turns to anger and makes me lash out at those who think anyone on this earth is lesser than they."]
God does not hate people unless they choose to hurt the defenseless, neither does He change. He is calling people to Him because of His love. But some people we would condemn He will forgive, and some people we would forgive, He will condemn based on that submission thing. He is sovereign and we are His voluntary subjects. If we don't voluntarily submit then He will not have us in His kingdom. Heaven wouldn't be heaven unless everybody is submitted to the One Authority. He isn't condemning them, they are condemning themselves by not fighting their natures. My job according to the scriptures is to point out the truth, not to hate, the problem is that the hearer interprets my pointing to the truth as hate. I really believe it is hate to allow people to self destruct with giving them the option of knowing the Healer, the Counselor, and the eternal Hope of that loving God.
God does not hate people unless they choose to hurt the defenseless, neither does He change. He is calling people to Him because of His love. But some people we would condemn He will forgive, and some people we would forgive, He will condemn based on that submission thing. He is sovereign and we are His voluntary subjects. If we don't voluntarily submit then He will not have us in His kingdom. Heaven wouldn't be heaven unless everybody is submitted to the One Authority. He isn't condemning them, they are condemning themselves by not fighting their natures. My job according to the scriptures is to point out the truth, not to hate, the problem is that the hearer interprets my pointing to the truth as hate. I really believe it is hate to allow people to self destruct with giving them the option of knowing the Healer, the Counselor, and the eternal Hope of that loving God.
Judge Bob, you say, "the Bible isn't taught because it is controversial..."
The Bible is controversial because of HOW people want it taught in schools - as, well, the God's honest truth, for lack of a better phrase. I'd love to learn ABOUT the Bible - its history, why King James decided to get involved, what other versions there are, why we follow some of its teachings and not others (and, unless you own slaves and are burning bulls on an altar, you're not following all of its teachings), comparing and contrasting it to the great books of other religions.
We're a diverse society, and one religion should not be shoved down the throats of people who do not share those beliefs. Just as you cannot imagine your child being told all day in school that the Torah is God's only true word, so too should a Jewish parent not have to worry about their child being fed Christian dogma all day.
People are going to continue pushing the envelope for as long as the Christian Right keeps sealing it shut. That's what I meant by God wanting everyone to shut up now. Do you really think you're going to win me over to Jesus by telling me my gay friends are damned for all eternity, and my Muslim friends hate freedom? If we all calmed down and live and let live, and kept a clear separation of church and state (I think BOTH sides have gone too far), we'd be better off.
You can spread the word of Jesus to the four corners of the world. But I'm sorry, thinking that the Bible should be taught in school as a religious tool is disrespectful to other people's beliefs.
I will grant that the students are being a little short changed in the equation, but the loss is small compared to the risks involved with sexual indoctrination. Let those things be approached in college. Even then, I would choose a college like Hillsdale who do not accept government grants and so are not compelled by the state's requirements, but are more concerned with who pays the bills. I have more confidence in a conservative college to interpret those morals the way I would. Public schools really do need to focus on competing with the rest of the world and leave liberal arts to the colleges.
Morals are taught at home and have nothing to do with the 3 R's you mentioned earlier. I'm just as terrified as you are about the state of our schools - but EVERYTHING should be kept out of schools except for the essentials (which include art, music and physical fitness). That's the only way we'll get back in the game.
Again, the Bible is a controversial subject in public schools, that is why it isn't used in public schools. That is ok until they start teaching my nephew Muslim prayers and habits. I'm not saying it should be taught, I'm saying there is a tremendous double standard against Christians of any stripe. It was Christians who made the Bible a controversial subject in the public schools. But if we're going to ban one religion, we have to ban them all, even secularism or atheism. They are faiths as surely as Buddhism is a faith.
I would win you over to faith based on reason, not emotion. There is a standard of truth, there is no standard of emotion. emotion is one of those things in our natures that we have to battle.
I would win you over to faith based on reason, not emotion. There is a standard of truth, there is no standard of emotion. emotion is one of those things in our natures that we have to battle.
I went to a Quaker school for first grade, and I remember that we celebrated every holiday that came up, the whole school year, for every religion. And because we were in first grade, it was made "fun" - we learned different prayers, ate different foods, played dressup in different clothes. It was pretty cool.
I think we agree on something? LOL That regarding religion in schools, it's gotta be all or nothing. I vote for nothing - because there's no WAY anyone's going to get the "all" right. Someone's always going to be offended.
I think we agree on something? LOL That regarding religion in schools, it's gotta be all or nothing. I vote for nothing - because there's no WAY anyone's going to get the "all" right. Someone's always going to be offended.
Well, I can see that we are now coming to some common ground. I agree with everything in this paragraph with the caveat that art is not all inclusive as it is now portrayed. Here in California, we spend the most of all the states per student and we are getting near the lowest results. Last week a 3 judge panel ruled that home schooling parents could not teach their own kids unless they became accredited teachers for the grades they were teaching. This in the face of the fact that a government study shows 4th and 8th grade home schooled kids performing better than any other venue. And the colleges are actively recruiting home schooled kids because they are better prepared for college. The public schools are spending the moneys they take from us in taxes on brand new administration buildings and hordes of administrative staff. Very little of it is making it to the class rooms. Class sizes often top 60 kids. The unions are strangling the education budget and the state can't fight them based on tenure rules. Its not the teachers' fault, its their own unions and yet they keep voting them back to their seats of power. It would take a major power to clean house and nobody in the state has the communication skills to rally the voters to clean house. Its a daunting task and their seems to be no end in sight.
I posted a link to a movie called 'Silencing Christians' a little while ago, have a look, it will be very educational.
I believe that home schooled kids are better prepared, as well - but that scene from Jesus Camp still scares me, in which a mom pretty much writes off evolution in a single sentence, and the kid eats it up. That made me physically uneasy. If the 3 Rs are to be taught, science needs to be included in there, too - 3 Rs and an S? - as objectively as possible. You can't pick and choose what you want to teach your kids, you know? I mean that in terms of overall subjects, not individual tasks.
I also wish that there was some way that home schooled kids could be exposed to more of the world, somehow. Well, heck - I wish ALL American kids were more exposed to the world. The European kids I know (about 20 from a total of 6 countries) are amazingly intelligent socially; they're more comfortable around adults, around people different than they, and much, much more tolerant at very young ages than most college kids I know!
I agree with you on teacher unions, class sizes - 60 kids in a room is a crime. And I agree it would be ludicrous to ask parents to become accredited using the same process as regular teachers.
But, how do we monitor what's actually being taught? The Christian Right thinks it's fine to dismiss evolution; what about a white pridesters omitting the existence of Africa? What about overeager feminists teaching literature using only books written by women? What about holocaust apologists dismissing WWII? What about black separatist who teaches American history from the point of view of white oppression? And who knows what crazy liberal hypocrites would teach their children?? ;)
Where do we draw the line?
I also wish that there was some way that home schooled kids could be exposed to more of the world, somehow. Well, heck - I wish ALL American kids were more exposed to the world. The European kids I know (about 20 from a total of 6 countries) are amazingly intelligent socially; they're more comfortable around adults, around people different than they, and much, much more tolerant at very young ages than most college kids I know!
I agree with you on teacher unions, class sizes - 60 kids in a room is a crime. And I agree it would be ludicrous to ask parents to become accredited using the same process as regular teachers.
But, how do we monitor what's actually being taught? The Christian Right thinks it's fine to dismiss evolution; what about a white pridesters omitting the existence of Africa? What about overeager feminists teaching literature using only books written by women? What about holocaust apologists dismissing WWII? What about black separatist who teaches American history from the point of view of white oppression? And who knows what crazy liberal hypocrites would teach their children?? ;)
Where do we draw the line?
Oh JudgeBob, how I do love your screen name. It implies superiority and authority in one fell swoop. Perhaps I should change my screen name to JudgedMatt, just to keep things consistent.
Speaking as the chosen representative of the entire worldwide community of gay men and women, I have to tell you what an outrage it is for you to say that some gay people consider their HIV+ status as a badge of honor. It's utter nonsense and you know it and shame on you. No one with any illness needs your smug scorn, and it's utterly clear how much pleasure you derived from that made-up "fact." You're an embarassment.
No salmon burger recipe for you.
Speaking as the chosen representative of the entire worldwide community of gay men and women, I have to tell you what an outrage it is for you to say that some gay people consider their HIV+ status as a badge of honor. It's utter nonsense and you know it and shame on you. No one with any illness needs your smug scorn, and it's utterly clear how much pleasure you derived from that made-up "fact." You're an embarassment.
No salmon burger recipe for you.
"You have to be a high school senior to take AP English".Then you should call that school in topic here and fill them in on that rule.
You obviously have no defense for your sin so you verbally attack someone for knowing their facts and presenting them.
Everyone this is the exact language I wanted you all to see. The Ultimate judgment upon anyone who shows why this lifestyle is not healthy or natural.
THE INTOLERANT OF THE TOLERANT! "SUPERMATT41 THE INTOLERANT"
ANY QUESTIONS?
Everyone this is the exact language I wanted you all to see. The Ultimate judgment upon anyone who shows why this lifestyle is not healthy or natural.
THE INTOLERANT OF THE TOLERANT! "SUPERMATT41 THE INTOLERANT"
ANY QUESTIONS?
That's a federal law.
AP English classes by definition are federally funded classes that allow high school seniors to earn college credit during their senior year of high school. Hence, why they might be assigned books that are more challenging and controversial than would be used in a traditional high school class.
Also, most students can't get into AP English, they have to apply to the class - and this is by federal law - with an application signed by their parent or local guardian.
That parent or guardian can obvious ask to see the syllabus before granting permission for the application, so obivously no one is being required to read this text.
That said, it is perhaps the most Christian text I've ever heard of being assigned to high school students, so I'm shocked that you object to it.
The entire point of this text is to resist the temptations of the world, live a good life, to not be promiscuous and to be honest. And the text says that if you abandon these values you will die a horrible death and live in hell on earth.
So, I can't imagine why Christians would object to it. I could see liberals objecting to it - because it implies that a homosexual lifestyle and/or sexual promiscuity leads to disease and death.
But I can't honestly see a single reason why a Christian would object to a text that tells people to be faithful to their spouse and that suggests that sin is a form of suicide.
AP English classes by definition are federally funded classes that allow high school seniors to earn college credit during their senior year of high school. Hence, why they might be assigned books that are more challenging and controversial than would be used in a traditional high school class.
Also, most students can't get into AP English, they have to apply to the class - and this is by federal law - with an application signed by their parent or local guardian.
That parent or guardian can obvious ask to see the syllabus before granting permission for the application, so obivously no one is being required to read this text.
That said, it is perhaps the most Christian text I've ever heard of being assigned to high school students, so I'm shocked that you object to it.
The entire point of this text is to resist the temptations of the world, live a good life, to not be promiscuous and to be honest. And the text says that if you abandon these values you will die a horrible death and live in hell on earth.
So, I can't imagine why Christians would object to it. I could see liberals objecting to it - because it implies that a homosexual lifestyle and/or sexual promiscuity leads to disease and death.
But I can't honestly see a single reason why a Christian would object to a text that tells people to be faithful to their spouse and that suggests that sin is a form of suicide.
JudgeBob,
I just want to say that I really appreciate the level of respect you have given to our arguments. While I may disagree with you on some issues, i think we have a level of agreement on others.
If nothing else I get the sense that you took me seriously - and I want you to know that I take your arguments seriously as well.
I wish that more people were like you - and I wish that the woman who posted this post in the first place had your sense of decency and willingness to listen.
I don't ask anyone to agree with me. Heck I'm a catholic heterosexual writer who found myself today talking about a homosexual themed play - a role I never thought I'd find mysel fin.
What I do ask - and what you have provided - is a healthy debate so that we can find what we have in common as reasonable adults.
I do with the original writer of this post was as thoughtful and insightful as you are.
You made me think today.
I hope that you or I can make humbled infidel think tomorrow.
I just want to say that I really appreciate the level of respect you have given to our arguments. While I may disagree with you on some issues, i think we have a level of agreement on others.
If nothing else I get the sense that you took me seriously - and I want you to know that I take your arguments seriously as well.
I wish that more people were like you - and I wish that the woman who posted this post in the first place had your sense of decency and willingness to listen.
I don't ask anyone to agree with me. Heck I'm a catholic heterosexual writer who found myself today talking about a homosexual themed play - a role I never thought I'd find mysel fin.
What I do ask - and what you have provided - is a healthy debate so that we can find what we have in common as reasonable adults.
I do with the original writer of this post was as thoughtful and insightful as you are.
You made me think today.
I hope that you or I can make humbled infidel think tomorrow.
Hi Bart - This reading was required of a freshman high-school class. There is where the trouble started. If you read both articles above you'll see the actions taken and the results, not favorable results, but none the less the results.
Bart this book may be teaching the morals you say, the whole problem Christians have with this teaching in public schools is..."I don't want an school system that is not allowed to speak of Jesus and the Bible to teach any morals to my children.
If a teacher cannot share with a highschool kid where good morals come from, I'm speaking of Jesus and the bible, then they have no business teaching morals. They can't give a complete teaching, because they are silenced on biblical conversation or teachings.
I know many good teachers that are Christians and I don't want them teaching any highschool kids morality, because they are censored. They are not allowed to use biblical teachings.
That's it! I would have no problem with some of these teachers I know to teach my kids on some moral issues in their homes. In their homes they are not censored!
Censored Christianity in public education is what the uproar is about. Miss C talked about evolution and said Christians want that to have no part of education. Really? Is that true? I know Christians who homeschool their children and they learn about evolution. They learn Creationism. They don't hide their children from world issues, their children learn of all, not just a select few.
The real intolerant here is not allowing Christianity to have a part in public education. Therefore kids don't get as good an education as homeschooled kids do.
This is the problem. Have I explained to where you understand where Christians come from on these issues? I hope so.
Bart this book may be teaching the morals you say, the whole problem Christians have with this teaching in public schools is..."I don't want an school system that is not allowed to speak of Jesus and the Bible to teach any morals to my children.
If a teacher cannot share with a highschool kid where good morals come from, I'm speaking of Jesus and the bible, then they have no business teaching morals. They can't give a complete teaching, because they are silenced on biblical conversation or teachings.
I know many good teachers that are Christians and I don't want them teaching any highschool kids morality, because they are censored. They are not allowed to use biblical teachings.
That's it! I would have no problem with some of these teachers I know to teach my kids on some moral issues in their homes. In their homes they are not censored!
Censored Christianity in public education is what the uproar is about. Miss C talked about evolution and said Christians want that to have no part of education. Really? Is that true? I know Christians who homeschool their children and they learn about evolution. They learn Creationism. They don't hide their children from world issues, their children learn of all, not just a select few.
The real intolerant here is not allowing Christianity to have a part in public education. Therefore kids don't get as good an education as homeschooled kids do.
This is the problem. Have I explained to where you understand where Christians come from on these issues? I hope so.
I just read your comment to Judge Bob, interesting comment! Maybe I should have read this before I replied to your comment to me.
I do want you to know, I appreciate your thoughtful conversation with Judge Bob. He is a very good man and I too value his insight. I'm thankful for your respectful manner in which you speak with him.
I do want you to know, I appreciate your thoughtful conversation with Judge Bob. He is a very good man and I too value his insight. I'm thankful for your respectful manner in which you speak with him.
["3 Rs and an S? - as objectively as possible. You can't pick and choose what you want to teach your kids, you know? I mean that in terms of overall subjects, not individual tasks."]
The science class has been another area of indoctrination you have obviously bought into. This video of a science teacher displays how secularists and atheists have spread their own doctrine by mandate into the science classes. Proven lies are being taught as fact. Where's the science in that? All people of faith in any version of God want the the theory named a theory and presented with an alternate theory that attributes the known universe's existence to a designer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJDAupZlsc
look, if you're going to object to my faith, at least look at my blog so you'll be informed of what it is that I am saying. I'm pulling these links right off of my blog.
["I also wish that there was some way that home schooled kids could be exposed to more of the world, somehow. Well, heck - I wish ALL American kids were more exposed to the world. The European kids I know (about 20 from a total of 6 countries) are amazingly intelligent socially; they're more comfortable around adults, around people different than they, and much, much more tolerant at very young ages than most college kids I know!"]
most home schoolers are being exposed to the world, far more than most publicly educated kids. Home school parents are hosting foreign students too, they take vacations too, and they have access to public venues too. In fact most home schoolers go to church. Guess what, most churches send out missionaries to other countries. they have guest speakers from other countries. Your are expressing a bias against conservatism, we get out, we actually participate in aid efforts to other countries. Ever heard of Youth With A Mission, how about Shake the Nations? These take school kids to other countries to either work on a project like building a church or to reach the youth of that nation for God. As I've demonstrated throughout our conversation, we are not haters, we love people of all stripes. We want to see them blessed with good information. These kids are led by people like me to do what I'm doing here. Speak the truth, whether its received or not. Again, its the hearer's interpretation of the truth we speak as hate speech, not our intention to be hateful.
["But, how do we monitor what's actually being taught? The Christian Right thinks it's fine to dismiss evolution; what about a white pridesters omitting the existence of Africa? What about overeager feminists teaching literature using only books written by women? What about holocaust apologists dismissing WWII? What about black separatist who teaches American history from the point of view of white oppression? And who knows what crazy liberal hypocrites would teach their children?? ;)"]
Do you think these things aren't going on in public schools? and there, they affect hundreds or thousands of students over time. We don't need no thought control. is a line from an old rock song by a leftist rock group. You may have heard of them, Pink Floyd and the album its on is called The Wall. What you are suggesting is a form of thought police. Again check out the article on my blog about indoctrination called Clinton's Indoctrination Agenda.
The line has already been drawn. Law is a reactive program of deterrence. You can't arrest somebody until they do something unethical, that is described in the penal code. Laws are on the books about seeing to the welfare of your own children. Some kids lose out, I'm sorry about that. But how much worse is it to force everybody under one dictator's moral agenda. That's what it comes down to.
The science class has been another area of indoctrination you have obviously bought into. This video of a science teacher displays how secularists and atheists have spread their own doctrine by mandate into the science classes. Proven lies are being taught as fact. Where's the science in that? All people of faith in any version of God want the the theory named a theory and presented with an alternate theory that attributes the known universe's existence to a designer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJDAupZlsc
look, if you're going to object to my faith, at least look at my blog so you'll be informed of what it is that I am saying. I'm pulling these links right off of my blog.
["I also wish that there was some way that home schooled kids could be exposed to more of the world, somehow. Well, heck - I wish ALL American kids were more exposed to the world. The European kids I know (about 20 from a total of 6 countries) are amazingly intelligent socially; they're more comfortable around adults, around people different than they, and much, much more tolerant at very young ages than most college kids I know!"]
most home schoolers are being exposed to the world, far more than most publicly educated kids. Home school parents are hosting foreign students too, they take vacations too, and they have access to public venues too. In fact most home schoolers go to church. Guess what, most churches send out missionaries to other countries. they have guest speakers from other countries. Your are expressing a bias against conservatism, we get out, we actually participate in aid efforts to other countries. Ever heard of Youth With A Mission, how about Shake the Nations? These take school kids to other countries to either work on a project like building a church or to reach the youth of that nation for God. As I've demonstrated throughout our conversation, we are not haters, we love people of all stripes. We want to see them blessed with good information. These kids are led by people like me to do what I'm doing here. Speak the truth, whether its received or not. Again, its the hearer's interpretation of the truth we speak as hate speech, not our intention to be hateful.
["But, how do we monitor what's actually being taught? The Christian Right thinks it's fine to dismiss evolution; what about a white pridesters omitting the existence of Africa? What about overeager feminists teaching literature using only books written by women? What about holocaust apologists dismissing WWII? What about black separatist who teaches American history from the point of view of white oppression? And who knows what crazy liberal hypocrites would teach their children?? ;)"]
Do you think these things aren't going on in public schools? and there, they affect hundreds or thousands of students over time. We don't need no thought control. is a line from an old rock song by a leftist rock group. You may have heard of them, Pink Floyd and the album its on is called The Wall. What you are suggesting is a form of thought police. Again check out the article on my blog about indoctrination called Clinton's Indoctrination Agenda.
The line has already been drawn. Law is a reactive program of deterrence. You can't arrest somebody until they do something unethical, that is described in the penal code. Laws are on the books about seeing to the welfare of your own children. Some kids lose out, I'm sorry about that. But how much worse is it to force everybody under one dictator's moral agenda. That's what it comes down to.
["Oh JudgeBob, how I do love your screen name. It implies superiority and authority in one fell swoop. Perhaps I should change my screen name to JudgedMatt, just to keep things consistent."]
Wie thankye son. Super Matt doesn't imply any superiority though? Seriously, I encourage everybody to use their judgment. It's required for a successful life.
["Speaking as the chosen representative of the entire worldwide community of gay men and women, I have to tell you what an outrage it is for you to say that some gay people consider their HIV+ status as a badge of honor. It's utter nonsense and you know it and shame on you. No one with any illness needs your smug scorn, and it's utterly clear how much pleasure you derived from that made-up "fact." You're an embarassment."]
You don't need to speak for the world wide community of gay people, I talk to them myself thank you very much. I have been in a recovery group with gay people, now don't tell me there aren't gay men out there purposefully contracting aids. I've talked to them myself. Denying the truth makes you blind to the realities. I referred to this fact in defense of the comparison to the world wide majority of new contracted cases being hetero. It was an unfair comparison.
Wie thankye son. Super Matt doesn't imply any superiority though? Seriously, I encourage everybody to use their judgment. It's required for a successful life.
["Speaking as the chosen representative of the entire worldwide community of gay men and women, I have to tell you what an outrage it is for you to say that some gay people consider their HIV+ status as a badge of honor. It's utter nonsense and you know it and shame on you. No one with any illness needs your smug scorn, and it's utterly clear how much pleasure you derived from that made-up "fact." You're an embarassment."]
You don't need to speak for the world wide community of gay people, I talk to them myself thank you very much. I have been in a recovery group with gay people, now don't tell me there aren't gay men out there purposefully contracting aids. I've talked to them myself. Denying the truth makes you blind to the realities. I referred to this fact in defense of the comparison to the world wide majority of new contracted cases being hetero. It was an unfair comparison.
["So, I can't imagine why Christians would object to it. I could see liberals objecting to it - because it implies that a homosexual lifestyle and/or sexual promiscuity leads to disease and death.
But I can't honestly see a single reason why a Christian would object to a text that tells people to be faithful to their spouse and that suggests that sin is a form of suicide."]
Bart, be honest. We covered this last night. I think I was pretty clear, even after your description, why it is not appropriate from the Christian perspective.
I appreciate the level of discourse we've enjoyed as well. If I didn't think you were taking me seriously, I wouldn't have made the effort. As always, when the conversation remains on topic or relevant to the original topic, and everyone is providing serious thought to their responses, I find that I am not only fighting for the truth, but having fun doing it.
As far as Humbled Infidel is concerned, she is my friend and biggest cheerleader because I am able to articulate the Christian perspective where she becomes flustered and frustrated. I know the feeling. Its taken me years of study to find answers to all, I mean ALL the Numerous charges leveled at Christianity first and now conservatism in general.
I've been neglecting my blog while we have this conversation. I'm going to head over there and get some work done. So, I will speak to you again some time tomorrow.
"Ever heard of Youth With A Mission, how about Shake the Nations? These take school kids to other countries to either work on a project like building a church or to reach the youth of that nation for God."
Sorry, Judge Bob, this is where our conversation ends. I wish you all the best.
Sorry, Judge Bob, this is where our conversation ends. I wish you all the best.
http://judgeright.typepad.com
http://judgeright.blogspot.com
