Separation of Church and State.

[chicamahomico]

Keep the middle east BS out of this, it will ruin the discussion which up till that point was excellent.

Some excellent points on this thread. I have a hard time understanding much of the concerns of the camp that thinks kids shouldn't have complete sex eduction in class but be taught only by their parents. And complete means everything from human biology, detailed explanations, putting condoms on cucumbers and a thourough discussion of lifestyle choices. Education is supposed to increase people's understanding or at least make them aware of some basic facts. The end result hopefully being that they are more tolerant and willing to accept other people and their points of view. Bottom line, I don't think you can lose with in school sex education.

[spywizard]

Maybe this will help......

You give birth to a child... it is a representation of you.. you house it, cloth it, share your life with it...

do you want that child to be a monument to you??? or to people of the state..

A child is a wonderful thing........... to mold a mind is a huge responsability...

Example.... you stated children should be taught sex ed........ that's your opinion..

In my example.. my 2 daughters... were taught survival techniques.. eating from the wilderness.. to survive in cold and heat, and water....

to shoot over 15 different guns....... to fight with a knife, hand to hand, and different throwing devices..

They both are "A" students.. 1 finished college in 3 years.. the other is working in the mortgage industry..

neither of them are pregnant, and both are in stable relationships (with men) and both of those men are successful in business.

both of my girls came and told me when they had decided to become sexually active.. (i had the sex talk with them...at age 12, 13,14,15,16,17) they finally told thier mother just before they moved in with the guys..

they Both made decissions to pray in school.. (public)... and will debate with anyone thier rights to do so.......



On the other hand, i have argued the rights of the children to have access to proper sex education, and medical support provided by the state, and have done so with the school districts..

So............. ignorance is a bad thing...........

knowledge without guidance is just as bad.......

Keep the middle east BS out of this, it will ruin the discussion which up till that point was excellent.

Some excellent points on this thread. I have a hard time understanding much of the concerns of the camp that thinks kids shouldn't have complete sex eduction in class but be taught only by their parents. And complete means everything from human biology, detailed explanations, putting condoms on cucumbers and a thourough discussion of lifestyle choices. Education is supposed to increase people's understanding or at least make them aware of some basic facts. The end result hopefully being that they are more tolerant and willing to accept other people and their points of view. Bottom line, I don't think you can lose with in school sex education.

[Tock]

they Both made decissions to pray in school.. (public)... and will debate with anyone thier rights to do so.......


knowledge without guidance is just as bad.......

That's cool . . .
As far as I'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public school, go ahead. Incidently, that's the position of the Supreme Court as well.
The thing is that the gov't shouldn't be telling kids what to pray or who to pray to. And they can't . . . well, not legally.
-Tock

[spywizard]

Cool.......I think this is one of the first times you and i have agreed on anything.......lol

The issue 10 years ago....here in Minnesota........ a liberal state......... it was frowned on to pray even silently......

It was a big deal... and there were alot of lawsuits........

I agree it isn't required.. but it has to be allowed as long as it dosen't interfere with the operation of the school.......... and teaching..

peace

That's cool . . .
As far as I'm concerned, if a kid wants to pray in public school, go ahead. Incidently, that's the position of the Supreme Court as well.
The thing is that the gov't shouldn't be telling kids what to pray or who to pray to. And they can't . . . well, not legally.
-Tock

[Elliot]

as far as the sex ed goes. my parents never had a sex talk with me. they never told me the risks of aids/hiv, stds or more importantly pregnancy. if it wasnt for school i would have been having unprotected sex and by now would have had a kid and/or a std or worst... maybe my parents are irresponsipble but i've been raised up in a way where i acuierd all my knowlage throught school or outside reading. my parents havnt really thought me that much. i envy all thoes kids that had thier father teach them how to shave or how to drive a car. but hey what doesnt kill you only makes you stronger right..?

[Tock]

as far as the sex ed goes. my parents never had a sex talk with me. they never told me the risks of aids/hiv, stds or more importantly pregnancy. if it wasnt for school i would have been having unprotected sex and by now would have had a kid and/or a std or worst... maybe my parents are irresponsipble but i've been raised up in a way where i acuierd all my knowlage throught school or outside reading. my parents havnt really thought me that much. i envy all thoes kids that had thier father teach them how to shave or how to drive a car. but hey what doesnt kill you only makes you stronger right..?

One of the more interesting aspects of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is that one group (for the most part) holds that even if the parents don't take care of the kids, the state has no obligation to take up the slack, while the other group feels that yes, when parents drop the ball on things like sex ed, or basic health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of them.
IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

[tryingtogetbig]

IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

Best thing I have heard in a long time!!

Tock, but since "teaching" everything is so important, how can we automatically excuse a child from learning the pledge of allegiance, including "under God" just becasue they don't want to. A parent's note should be required in order for the child to not say it. It's too important a part of our country's history.

After reading through the posts, I could probably agree that teaching the "fundamentals" of sex, risks associated with sex, rumors, facts and statistics, etc. would be appropriate...as long as the parents are supplied the opportunity of knowing who is teaching the class and what the curriculum will be.

peace,

ttgb

[Tock]

Best thing I have heard in a long time!!

Tock, but since "teaching" everything is so important, how can we automatically excuse a child from learning the pledge of allegiance, including "under God" just becasue they don't want to. A parent's note should be required in order for the child to not say it. It's too important a part of our country's history.
ttgb

The courts have said that if they take "under God" out of the pledge, then it's ok to have the kids recite it.
Otherwise, the state cannot ask people if they wish to participate in anything religious. They can't ask if you approve of it, or if you disapprove. They can't ask if you beleive in God or if you don't, they can't ask what religion you belong to, they can't ask why you don't belong to a particular church or why you have no beleifs at all.
As soon as the state says, "Ok, anyone who wants to be excused can come and tell us," they are asking people to volunteer whether or not they want to participate in saying a religious phrase. And back in 1963, the Supreme Court said that the gov't can't do that, as well it shouldn't.

On top of that, every person in this country has the right not to participate in a state-sponsored religious activity (yes, when a taxpayer funded public school does the "one nation under god" thing, it's a state-sponsored religious activity--a very brief one, but still a religious activity), and a person can not be required to volunteer whether or not they wish to participate in order to exercise their First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.

So . . .

You hear a lot of whining that "liberals are against the Pledge of Allegience," but really all it is, is a fight by religious people to keep as many references to religion in public schools that they can. If the Pledge had the two words "under god" removed (and why not? That's what we had from 1897 to 1954, and it worked fine), then it would be not only constitutional, but welcomed into public school systems by lily-livered liberals all over the nation. The religious conservatives wouldn't like it, 'cause they'd consider it had been neutered, but it would still be a statement of patriotism.
I say let the religious people whine, let's neuter the pledge and get it back where it belongs . . .
--Tock

[Mr. Death]

You hear a lot of whining that "liberals are against the Pledge of Allegience," but really all it is, is a fight by religious people to keep as many references to religion in public schools that they can. If the Pledge had the two words "under god" removed (and why not? That's what we had from 1897 to 1954, and it worked fine), then it would be not only constitutional, but welcomed into public school systems by lily-livered liberals all over the nation. The religious conservatives wouldn't like it, 'cause they'd consider it had been neutered, but it would still be a statement of patriotism.
I say let the religious people whine, let's neuter the pledge and get it back where it belongs . . .
--Tock

I understand your point, but I think it is unfair to label all of the supporters of the words "under God" as religious zealots. Like I said, I am atheist, but I believe the words "under God" should be kept in the Pledge because those words are based on the principles by which our country was founded. IMO you don't have to believe in God to respect and praise what others do in his name.

[tryingtogetbig]

One of the more interesting aspects of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is that one group (for the most part) holds that even if the parents don't take care of the kids, the state has no obligation to take up the slack, while the other group feels that yes, when parents drop the ball on things like sex ed, or basic health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of them.
IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

Tock you well know that I am very conservative and do agree with most of the ideals from the right side. But I did want to clarify one point you made about not providing health care, etc. to those citizins (heavy emphasis on "citizens") that cannot fend for themselves. I do believe in providing food stamps, unemployment, health care for those that aren't able to provide for themselves...BUT, only for a limited amount of time.

I get sick and tired of seeing these people on welfare, food stamps, etc and still having babies, getting paid more a month for more babies and them living off of it their whole lives. What really pisses me off is seeing some of the welfare kids showing up at school with their Mom dropping them off in a brand new $30,000 car. They can't afford lunch for their kids or school supplies, but they will have a brand new car, kick ass stereo system in it and all of them wearing $150 nike shoes. That is ridiculous and NOT the American way...IMO.

peace,

ttgb

[Tock]

Tock you well know that I am very conservative and do agree with most of the ideals from the right side. But I did want to clarify one point you made about not providing health care, etc. to those citizins (heavy emphasis on "citizens") that cannot fend for themselves. I do believe in providing food stamps, unemployment, health care for those that aren't able to provide for themselves...BUT, only for a limited amount of time.

I get sick and tired of seeing these people on welfare, food stamps, etc and still having babies, getting paid more a month for more babies and them living off of it their whole lives. What really pisses me off is seeing some of the welfare kids showing up at school with their Mom dropping them off in a brand new $30,000 car. They can't afford lunch for their kids or school supplies, but they will have a brand new car, kick ass stereo system in it and all of them wearing $150 nike shoes. That is ridiculous and NOT the American way...IMO.

peace,

ttgb

I still have mixed feelings about welfare . . . I've seen some abuse, seen people collect for no other reason than they were too lazy to work and were accustomed to getting free public money. On the other hand, I've seen honest working people get laid off or get sick or have sick kids, or have generall terrible things happen to 'em, and need $$$.
I suppose I'm in favor of helping folks who genuinely need it.
But then, suppose someone becomes homeless from either laziness, or maybe they had been brought up by an idiot parent who didn't teach 'em ethics or how to work, etc. What do we do with them then? Let 'em wander the streets, become a health hazard, or wander into crime?
I really don't know . . .
It might be cheaper to taxpayers to pay more for personalized education (tutors) or special schools or whatever, than to let them become a problem and warehouse them in a prison for $40,000 a year. But then, are there reasons to suppose that wouldn't be a smart thing to do, after all?
I don't know . . . you tell me . . .

But pretty much, I think we agree about most stuff. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at all if after we discussed all this political and religious stuff that we'd agree on more things than not.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it . . .
--Tock

[spywizard]

Another thing we agree on...............

now im scared........

They did this in ???? can't remember the country... they paid $100 per vasectemy...

One of the more interesting aspects of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is that one group (for the most part) holds that even if the parents don't take care of the kids, the state has no obligation to take up the slack, while the other group feels that yes, when parents drop the ball on things like sex ed, or basic health care, it's the government's responsibility to take care of them.
IMHO both sides of the dispute have merit . . . probably mass neutering and spaying of the irresponsible adult human population would be the smart thing to do . . .
--Tock

[chicamahomico]

You took my bait sucker...... just kidding buds. Your example is excellent because you obviously care a great deal bout your children, however many other children are not in the enviable position of having parents who do care enough to educate them. Thats primarily the reason I think it should be taught in school. The children with good parents are in no danger, its all the little Sally's with crack-ho momma's that could benefit from state sponsored sex education.

Maybe this will help......You give birth to a child... it is a representation of you.. you house it, cloth it, share your life with it.........

[spywizard]

Crap..........i thought i had argued the other side of this subject also...........

I agree........it is for the Sally crack ho momma's ..............

but then i believe you should have a license to have children...

but that leads to the whole............ who sets the guidlines and requirments.. much as many religions, governments, and societies have done in the past... and we don't want to jack this thread do we...........

You took my bait sucker...... just kidding buds. Your example is excellent because you obviously care a great deal bout your children, however many other children are not in the enviable position of having parents who do care enough to educate them. Thats primarily the reason I think it should be taught in school. The children with good parents are in no danger, its all the little Sally's with crack-ho momma's that could benefit from state sponsored sex education.