Yes I have but if your small miracle involves removing certain parts of my anatomy, please dont!!! :)

      Jeep, did you not get that part about sovergity? It was about recognizing a conquered nation. Not US citizens, but members of a nation predating the US. Sure they're US citizens now, but they weren't untill after those treaties were signed. You're comparing apples and motor vehicles here.
      Also, pureblood NA's (for the record I'm in Arkansas and the indians I know hate being called "NA's", but it was the term in use on the thread so I'm running with it) are almost non-existant. Fewer people are meeting the req's every year. They'll soon be simply 'American'. So I wouldn't worry about it to much, they just haven't been completely assimilated yet. Happens when we box 'em up on reservations. Draw 'em out and it'll go faster...
      By the by, we all wanted to attend catholic girls school.

      Slang, yup, Whit White. That's me. I even got sent to the office in jr. high for telling a sub that was my name. Of course I walked into the office and they said, "Why are you in here, Whit." So it didn't go to far.

Dont think of it as losing one thing....think of it as gaining three. And...this distraction could very well reduce your entertainment budget.

Just something to think about.

I'd sue the farking bastard for name descrimination

      It was a public school, what would they pay me in, 20 year old text books? Desks with half the bolts missing? 'Sides, I'd have wound up in the office within the hour anyway.

Condoms, silly!

They're a currency in some places.

So........is being gay a choice? How about being hetero?

Re: Re: Re: For what it's worth...
 

A right? Yes. A good idea? No. I am an atheist, but I would not vote for someone who promised to ban religion. I am heterosexual, but I would not vote for someone who considers homosexuals inferior. I don't want to vote for someone who will uphold my personal beliefs. I want to vote for someone who uphold the right to have personal beliefs. I am not asking for you to "support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God", I am asking you not to oppose it. The right place to oppose it is if someone tries to change your religion's rules. There are many rights that I am not in favor of the exercise of, but they should still exist.

Religious rules should be enforced within the church. If religious people of a certain faith people happen to hold a majority in a legislature, they should still keep religious rules and civil laws completely separate. Combining politics and religion corrupts and demeans both. There is no nonreligious reason to prevent gays from marriying, so it should be allowed secularily. Of course, doing so may risk expulsion from the church, but that isn't a government issue, and the government should keep its nose out of that.

Sure show up now that I have a choice to attend an all girls catholic school. MEANIE.

Did you have to CHOOSE this time to use your powers? Or did it just feel right?

I still don't see how my thoughts on a persons choice/genetics effects gay marriage. The government is just saying that if you choose to be gay or if its genetics you can't have certain benefits. Much like if I choose to be poor or if its in my genetics to spend every dime I ever make I won't be allowed certain credits. Or no matter how hard I pray, I won't be allowed to the catholic girls school.

When I was applying for student grants and loans, I was denyed several of the grants because my parents had 300 acres of land. Nevermind the fact I was 20 had a fulltime job and tried to support myself for 3 years. I brought a letter from the bank stating how much was owed, how much it was worth, and how much 'revenue' it brought in every year. Not that much when you factor in the payments. The nice lady who was there to help me took the end of her pencil and pushed the letter back across the table and said 'We don't need that information. If you parents want to help you to go to school, they'll sell the land if it doesn't make enough.' I didn't want my parents help, but the government wanted their information even though I lived on my own. I had to supply their records on my student grant forms until I was 24 or married. The land wasn't mine, and if my parents wanted to give it to me I'd have to have paid a hefty gift tax on it. If I bought it, they would have to pay capital gains tax. It wasn't until I was in my mid/late 20's that I even had a desire to work on the farm when it wasn't forced.


It was genetics that brought me into the world of rural living. To carry on that tradition, I'll be faced with several decisions in the future. I'll know I'll end up paying for this land again.

It will be nice to know that when gay marriages are recognized my genetics will not be as equal as a gay couples genetics/choice.

Um, are you on dope?

Genetics made you your parents' child. It was their choice to live and remain in a rural area that put you in the world of rural living.

I strongly suspect that neither you nor your parents have a Green Acres gene hardwiring you to be predisposed to rural living. At any time, they could have sold the farm and moved to Detroit, if they'd really wanted to do so. Equating that kind of decision with sexual preference is silly, at best.

So my green thumb doesn't count? How long till that gene is found and people say that some are predestined to live on the farm, but that's not my point.


My genetics of my parents will grant me no rights to my parents estate. But a married gay couple will have tax imunity on estates.

so marry your dad!

Good call Monkey!

At the time the partial-birth abortion ban was completed, Bush was asked in a press conference whether he still believed - as he announced some time ago - that the society is not in favor of a complete abortion ban, thus that it isn't appropriate to push for it. And he answered, plainly, yes, nothing has changed.

I found that very heartening. Yes, he personally believes that abortion isn't right, but that doesn't mean a ban is the right thing for the country or the society. (Or politically.)

Yes, the beliefs of the people who don't believe what you believe, STILL COUNT.

:blink:

Did he just hijack the thread back ON topic? Well, closer, anyway?

Either that or he knew better than to start the shit-storm that would follow if he answered "no."

Depends on how cynical you are.

No, that's not what I said. When I speak of the depravity of man, I am talking about all mankind. We are all born with a sinful nature, and unless we willfully submit to God, then we will continue on a downward path. Satan is sinister. His influence over those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit is quite powerful, whether you believe/acknowledge that or not.



Surely you realize that my point was that people did not do these things as often in previous years because there was not the need that there is now for the precautions. You had previously stated that you felt the world was better overall; I was merely making the point that it is indeed getting worse.



I'm assuming you are speaking of the time that God stayed His own hand against Nineveh after the people there repented of their sins... I'm sorry. I do not see the problem here. God was angry with their sin. He sent Jonah to preach repentance. They did. God was merciful.

Afterward, Jonah went and threw himself a little pity party. He did not like the people of Nineveh. That is why he disobeyed God the first time around and had to be escorted in the belly of a fish. He did not want the people of Nineveh to repent and be spared. That was his problem. He was wrong.

Jonah was so disappointed that he decided he just wanted to die. He went out into the desert to fry. God caused a plant to grow to give him shade which he decided he was glad about. The next day, God caused the plant to die. Jonah was so distraught over the death of the plant, that once again, he wanted to die.

Jonah 4:9-11:

But God said to Jonah, "Do you do well to be angry for the plant? And he said, "I do well to be angry, angry enough to die."

And the Lord said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night.

And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"

If you will go back and read my original post, when I spoke of God being unchanging, I was talking about His being just. Moral rights and wrongs to not change with God. When He spoke against homosexuality in the Bible, He was making a moral judgment over that sin that will last for all eternity.

The fact that God is unchanging means that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He will not tolerate sin. He will not look upon it. Nineveh was in danger of annihilation because of their sin, but they repented. God did not change His mind, but rather He responded to repentance.

In the same way, if a person will repent (agree with God that it is sin, ask forgiveness and turn away from) of the sin of homosexuality - God will respond with forgiveness and mercy. If they will not repent, then God will have no choice but to respond with judgment over that sin, which, btw, will cause Him great sorrow, as it would me also.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I consider people, living a homosexual lifestyle, to be inferior. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that all people are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. I would also not want to support such a person.



I'm sorry, Happy Monkey (it feels strange to address you that way. I'm Jennifer, btw.), but that is just the nature of christianity. I do not oppose homosexuality just to be a contrary party-pooper. But rather, I stand against it because of what that sin will mean in the lives of the people who embrace it. I care far too much for all of mankind, just to let sin permeate and wreak havoc.

Also, I find it hard to "not support" something without "opposing" it at the same time.

So, you homeschool, Jennifer? How have your experiences with that been?

My wife is against it because she feels that it denies children of the opportunity to learn social interaction. I personally don't see how she came to this conclusion, as both of our encounters with school stunted our social interaction skills for many years.

That's what the NEA has been trying to promote as a good reason for not homeschooling (since the homeschoolers have such higher grades than the public schooled kids).

It's nonsense. My best friend homeschools, his kids are better than good in all measurable catagories.

Yeah, I agree. Like I said, I really don't understand that argument. I mean, nothing stunted my social growth more than Jr. High and High School. I only learned to interact with people long after I graduated and joined the work force.

I may not be most people, of course. But certainly, a small percentage of people share those experiences.

I have a friend who homeschools. His son is articulate and personable, to a greater degree than many of his conventionally schooled agemates.

I had the same reservations about homeschooling, largely perpetrated by seeing the freakazoids who make it to the finals of the National Spelling Bee. The more I look into it, the better it all becomes. It does require extremely dedicated parents, and a motivated kid. without that, the whole system breaks down.

I have a lot of issues with the way things are now taught in the schools ... the dumbing down of America distresses me greatly, as does the school system taking on the role of moral educator and parent — one step away from "The state is mother, the state is father."

In the event that I ever reproduce, I'll be homeschooling.

Juju,

It is a daily adventure! This is our 9th year to homeschool, and some days I am thinking, "...what was I thinking...". But most days, I just enjoy my children so very much.

I do think it is important for children to socialize. Church, of course, offers plenty of opportunity...we just about live there. We also try to help our kids develop interests outside of church...sports, clubs, music, etc.

Our oldest daughter participates in a marching band. She absolutely loves it. She is also in my dh's youth group and meets herself coming and going.

DD #2 plays violin and takes ballet. She got a part in The Nutcracker this year and is beside herself over that. I run myself crazy getting her to practices.

Ds is adopted. We are convinced his birth father is an NBA star. He shore didn't get it from us! He may attend high school in the future to play ball, but in the meantime, he needs to learn how to treat his sisters ;)

Youngest dd is going to be the death of me. I always say..."When one comes out that acts like that...it's time to stop." And we did!

I don't think we could handle much more socialization! :eek:

One of the reasons I/we chose not to homeschool was becuase of socializtion, although in general I think it's a fairly weak argument. Lumberjim works long hours and I am a fairly antisocial person (probably scarred for life from public school) so that was a concern of mine.... taking the kids to the park a couple times a week didn't seem to be enough, especially since they were often the only kids there for some reason.
I stressed about school for my older kid for a couple of years, and then found a very small, very laid-back private school, and my son attends 3 days a week. We all love it.

Here's a link if you want to check it out.

Jennifer, as someone who became an Atheist thanks to extensive religions education in Catholic school I am curious how you manage to hold on to your beliefs having actualy read the bibile?

You talk of morals, of rights and wrongs - yet I felt that it would be immoral to follow the bible. Where do my morals come from? From clear thought and pure logic. I believe that all people should have equal rights regardless of race and geneder. The bible does not. Therefore I cannot believe in it.

To show what I mean here are quotes from the bible that have caused me many problems:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-- Exodus 20:17 (AV), The Tenth Commandment

The wife is listed amongst things that 'belong' to the neighbour. As a woman do you not feel offended being listed right next to an ox and ass?

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Yet another case of the bible treating the women as a lesser being. Women must only speak in submission? Can only ask their husband at home? Why can the man speak in church yet not the woman? Is THAT moraly right?

If as a woman you'd like to know more about how the bible feels about your place in this world http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#ref1223 should help.

How about human sacrifices of children? Moral? No? Oh...crud it's in the bible though. The ever just is at it again..

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...
-- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV)

Do you believe slavery as moraly right? NO?! Why not?! It's alright God says..

... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)

Did Jesus come to bring peace and love to the world? Yes? Oh...wait no he didn't!

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

I could go ON and ON and ON about Jesus, about the old testament, the new testament etc. Fact is that God DOES change and he has shown himself to not be just. He has shown himself to make mistakes, get angry, take his anger out on people, be jealous etc.

So ok the bible is bad...fine no bible. But faith in God (christian) has only brought about the good in people right?

Wrong.

Fact is that Christianity has always been and continues to be an cruel, closeminded and bloody religion. Bush himself admited that his attack on Iraq was 'ordered' by god. Ashcroft is out busy taking away our rights. I often feel that the whole point behind christianity is to make everyone a slave of the bibile with no permission to think about the meaning of life or trying to understand the world. Instead catholics would have us believe that we most have faith in god and that is all we need for all our success shall come from god and our worship of him is the purpose of our life.

Also, the founding fathers of the United States were atheists or pagans.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-- Isaac Asimov

Jinx does it not scare you that only "over 50%" of graduates go to college from that school?

In perspective the public school that I went to had a rate of over 98%.

No, not at all, why?

98%?......please. was this in the US? where people have to pay for school? if you can prove that, I'll eat my hat.

that's got to be higher than the percentage that graduated.

Am I to assume then that you do not desire a college level education for your kids?

Or are you confident that 3 days a week is sufficient to gain entry into a competitive college?

dude, he's 5yrs old

Yes US where people pay for schools.

Radnor High School. Look it up.

I'm also looking it up right now...I may find it first if I do I'll post it.


Well I found 91% at http://www.radnorhighschool.com/college/
When I was attending that school I constnatly had 98% thrown out at us during the counceling sessions etc..

Well then, do you intend to continue the program. I'm not being judgmental just curious.

Well, he's 5, this is his first year and the 3 day week is working out really well ( it's a long day and his first group experience). When/if he's ready to go 5 days we'll give that a try.
I'm not really worried about college at this point, my main concern is the here and now. I agree with the philosophies put forth by this school, I love the non-coersive environment for learning. If my kids go on to college I hope it's becuase they want to, and they have specific goals that they'll meet there. I would not be disappointed if they did not go to college though - it's just a small part of a bigger picture in my opnion.

Skilled trades will be in high demand for the foreseeable future. Especially right after the boomers retire/die. College tuition might be a million bucks a year by the time he goes too.

I agree (for what it's worth regarding the education of your child).

College isn't for everybody anyway.

Yeah, just ask the darbs I work with.

Me: Would you enjoy and find fulfilling working here until the day after you die? Or might you want to expand your skillset?
Them: Fuck off and speak English asshole....for I kick yer ass.

Of course not. But it seems to be mandatory for anybody who wants a job over 80k/y.

First of all, I do not think that college is worth shit. So far I've wasted 3 years of my life in college with 2 more to go (5 year program) and honestly the only thing I've gotten out so far is people saying that they're impressed with my education when they're really impressed with my knowledge.

Fact 1: Every skill I use or have ever used at my job was self taughtt.

Fact 2: My formal education was highly responsible for most of the jobs I got.

My parents forced me into college because they both have PhDs and I had to have college education also, plus my father insisted that I'd be a different person after college. (If he meant more bitter and more broke...he was right)

The thing is, in the end you may want to provide your kids with an education that gives them a sense of self value and forces them to think for themselves while giving them all the knowledge they may need in the world. Yet the world won't accept or respect their education until they have a BS in whatever...

eh...hem

Yes exceptions exist, but open the newspaper and look at job listings.

Pretty much everything wants college.

College has become almost as mandatory as a drivers license. Which is also responsible for the whole grade inflation thing...even the dimwits need a degree...

Well, I think jim has already pointed out that the money thing is incorrect. I can also think of quite a few of my own friends who have very impressive degrees and don't make anywhere near $80K.

What I want to provide my kids with is confidence a desire to learn more. If they choose to go to college, believe me, I'm all for it. I think your point though, is sometimes true. But I don't see aquiring a token degree as all that difficult either - and definitely not something to plan a chidhood around.

Now that I look back, earning my college degree was easier than high school for me. And IIRC, college was actually cheaper than my high school.

If I'm not mistaken, LJ is using the age old principal of consistent, focused work.

Thats something many degreed pros assume they are bypassing by earning a degree.

Ok, not many, just me.

After traveling around the country in a vw microbus and generally fucking off for a few years anyway....

Good to know. There's hope for me.

Oh, and by the way:
You only quote this part, but fail to quote the rest of the story. I could post it, but to save time and space, I'll sum up:

In the Old Testament, the "wages of sin" were death. (Romans 6:23) That means, if you sinned, you had to sacrifice something. There are alot of cases of animal sacrifices, which animal to pick, and all that.

Now. In the above quote, the part you left out is this: Abraham takes Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice his child, because God told him to. When he gets up there, he raises his hand to kill his son, and the angel of the Lord stops him, and tells him, you have not withheld your only son. (So, it was a test of Abraham's faith.) Abraham doesn't kill his son.

I can't think of any instance where a follower of God's word offered up a human sacrifice to God. God offered Jesus up for sacrifice, and that supreme sacrifice is what stopped all other sacrifices, because Jesus became the "Lamb of God." The "wages of sin is death" rule is STILL in effect, but now the difference is that Jesus suffered that death for us. Hence, why he is called the redeemer.

i think we should start a new thread...this belongs in religion

Did you purposefully ignore this quoted text then?

I didn't look it up, just reading the thread. But it sure looks that way to me. Unless "I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means...

Quzah.

Update: I'm better than halfway done with this monster. The HTML tags are in, half of the links are in and I checked to see how the test page looks on the cellar (in this format).

This isn't nearly as good of a job as I'd like to crank out, however, I have put a lot of time and effort into it. It will be posted tomorrw regardless of it's completeness (so I can go on to do other things, like sleep).

Someone please kick me squarely in the testicles should I come up with this idea again. Didn't I say that last time I made a mega post?

Of which thread in this tapestry do you speak?:haha:

Ah, the heart of the problem that most of us have with "fundies". Rather than live and let live you want to "save" everyone that doesn't follow your teachings. Historically it's been a short step from wanting to "save" people (poor misguided heathens) and "the end justifies the means" type of proactive missionary.
I'm not saying that you personally would do that, but the religion you support has manifested itself in that form repeatedly and I've never met a Christian Clergy or devout Christian that didn't think they knew what was best for ME.:(

No, what he has shown is there are exceptions. There always was and will be, but that's a tough thing to bet on. With the disappearance of good paying manufacturing jobs the squeeze is getting worse. I most office scenerios you need a degree to get an interview even if they are going to train you to do things their way. Of course you could groom the tyke to marry for money...Oh, he doesn't look like Jim does he? :D

I didn't mean to point that at you. I was trying to make an on-topic example, and made it too simplistic.
Feel free to call me Matthew.

xoxoxoBruce said it already, but I'll take a stab at it, too. That is not a good reason to oppose gay marriage on a governmental level. If you feel the need to save people's souls, the correct route is to prosteletize and attempt to convert people, and then provide religious arguments to members of your church. Religious arguments should not be used to determine public policy. Religious convictions can be a reason for a particular person to look for and make legal arguments, but there are no nonreligious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If your only argument is religious, then you shouldn't be making laws based on it. This is not a theocracy.
Really? I find it very easy. For example, I do not support massive handgun ownership, but I realize it is a right that people have, so I do not oppose it.

To which the boy should have replied: "Fuck you!"

Quzah.

Good grief! Simply outrageous! :rolleyes:

"A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday."

"A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him "gay" was a "bad word" and sending him to the principal's office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again."

Glad I'm not a parent..they'd have to put me UNDER the jail for what I would do to those bigoted freaks. :mad:

      I'm going to have to disagree with doing anything really nasty, Rho. I think that like, well, all bigotry, this is based on ignorance. Shredding the idiots doesn't solve the problem. Frankly, the school needs to be educated. Educating without the use of physical harm is preferable as it tends to stick in the mind better.

This is rather amusing if you think about it. The teachers had him come to school early and lie repeatedly. Consider writing:

"I will not use the word 'gay' in school again."
"I will not use the word 'gay' in school again."

Ok, the first one is clearly a lie, since you just wrote it after you said you wouldn't. This would repeat until the end of the process. Thus you end up lying N-1 times, where N is the number of times you were instructed to write it.

On a related note, these teachers were definately ignorant, since there's clearly another use for the word 'gay'. Additionally, they'd better hope they don't have to do a report on Marvin Gay or... yeah you get the point. Absurd.

Quzah.

Who will educate the educators?

      Good question, I believe that it is officially the school boards job. It's also the school boards job to make sure they themselve are educated enough to respond properly. So, I doubt any more will come of this. Save, of course, the effect on one boy that has been forced to act in a way that suggests his understanding of the world is bad, bad as in leaning towards evil way. (By writing that crap on the board) Besides, who cares about how badly one boy is hurt when protecting proper moral structure? Can't worry about being good to people when making sure people are good after all. (If you didn't catch the sarcasm in that please put me on your ignore list)