Candidate Friedman vows declawing ban

kitkat wrote:
Diane L. Schirf wrote:
In article ,
kitkat wrote:


And I teach in the suburbs of...LIBERAL
CHICAGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Chicago is generally pretty moderate/liberal, but Chicago's 'burbs
are
to various degrees moderate/conservative.

IMO, the stuff gaubster is talking about (i.e. taking the
constitution
out of education) is not really happening in too many places. Plus,
I've
been living in the North Shore of chicago for most of my life and it
is
pretty liberal here, compared to say, Central Illinois (where I went
to
school for 6 years).


U of I?

-L.

-L. wrote:
kitkat wrote:

Diane L. Schirf wrote:

In article ,
kitkat wrote:



And I teach in the suburbs of...LIBERAL
CHICAGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Chicago is generally pretty moderate/liberal, but Chicago's 'burbs

are

to various degrees moderate/conservative.

IMO, the stuff gaubster is talking about (i.e. taking the

constitution

out of education) is not really happening in too many places. Plus,

I've

been living in the North Shore of chicago for most of my life and it

is

pretty liberal here, compared to say, Central Illinois (where I went

to

school for 6 years).



U of I?

-L.

Yep, U of I for my undergrand and then ISU for my grad work.

kitkat wrote:

U of I?

-L.

Yep, U of I for my undergrand and then ISU for my grad work.

Ah ha! I grew up in IL - Kankakee. Armpit of the Midwest. I also
lived in Champaign and my bro went to U of I and ISU too.

-L.

kitkat wrote:
gaubster2 wrote:

So, do you think sex education belongs in school? I don't. That
falls under the parameters of the home environment. And don't give
me
this nonsense about some parents won't talk about this w/ their
kids.
I can make the same argument about religion in school. Condoms on
cucumbers and bananas DO NOT belong in school.

Well, first of all, when the students are of the age where they may
be
having sex (middle school on up) I *do* believe that sex education
has
its place and it falls nicely under the category of HEALTH. And since

there is a special place called RELIGIOUS SCHOOL for those who want
to
learn all about religion...that is nicely covered THERE. Plus,
Gaubster,
if you are simply talking about learning ABOUT religion...well then I

agree that it should be taught in schools. However, being told what
religion to PRACTICE does not.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of students that are having sex is not
in middle school. It's *much* older. Birth control does not fall
under the parameters of HEALTH. Demonstrating how to utilize birth
control doesn't either. And yes, I'm talking about learning ABOUT
religion. I'm not talking about FORCING "group" prayer or telling kids
that it "is now time to start praying". The conversation here has gone
in that direction, but I don't condone that. I'm discussing the fact
that the left wants to turn our government school system into a secular
place where there is no mention of God or religion (especially
Christianity), although learning all about and basing lesson plans on
practicing certain tenets of Islam seems to be ok.


Again, you are pointing to extreme religious zealots. I don't
believe
in killing abortion doctors. There are extremeists on each side.
I
don't condone either one.

I was merely pointing out where people break laws to justify their
bad
behavior...who just so happen to be...GASP...CHRISTIAN!!!!

The run-of-the-mill everyday citizen who believes in Christianity is
not going around commiting horrible felonies. That's picture that is
being attempted to be painted, but it's certainly not true.


Nobody is saying FORCE religion on kids in school.

If you stop your day to have some sort of organized prayer..it IS
forced.

Who's advocating for that? Not me.


I agree that you
should send your children to a religious school if that is what is
important. However, what is happening is that the government
school
system is bending over backwards to take ALL mention of GOD of
religion
(except Islam) OUT of school. There is a healthy balance that can
be
struck, but that is NOT what is currently happening. How about the
Cupertino school district that doesn't want the Declaration of
Independence taught because it mentions a Creator??

Well fortunately that is not happening anywhere that I know of around

where I teach. And I teach in the suburbs of...LIBERAL
CHICAGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And frankly, what you are discussing really
has
nothing to do with the notion of prayer in school. You keep asking
what
harm it would do...as if you need some kid to come in with a broken
arm
and say "THIS IS BECAUSE WE PRAYED IN SCHOOL TODAY". The harm that
organized prayer would cause does not have to be clear cut. As a
matter
of fact, you have a POINT in that it is not necessarily
harmful...however it is NOT NECESSARY. I still maintain that if a kid

wants to pray in school...there isn't anything to stop him or
her...unless he or she requests that everyone stop and acknowledge
what
he or she is doing.

Agreed.


Finally, in an IDEAL world...parents would teach their kids both
about
religion and sex/reproduction/etc...in the HOME. But that is not what
is
happening. However, society stands to lose a lot more (IMO) if our
kids
are uneducated about sex than if they are uneducated about Jesus and
his
disciples.

again, just my opinion. You can call me a wackjob or a liberal
nutcase.
(I'm not...but whatev) But I do think that *organized* prayer should
stay out of school and sex ed with teenagers should be addressed.

Pam

Pam, I don't think you're a nutcase. We simply disagree on the sex ed
in schools issue. That is definitely something that should be covered
AT HOME, just as one should practice their religion AT HOME (on private
time).

kitkat wrote:
gaubster2 wrote:
Diane L. Schirf wrote:

In article .com,
"-L." wrote:


Why impose prayer on everyone?

Prayer should come from the heart, not be imposed.


Again, who is imposing prayer again?

Again, if we stop our kids in the middle of their geometry lesson for

prayers, it is being imposed upon them. Again.

Again, Kitkat, WHO IS DOING THAT??? Nobody is doing that. You're
arguing a false premise.

Cat Protector wrote:
You have inferred that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is
stupid as
well as other choice putdowns. You are the one who is judging others
so stop
trying to play the victim. You seem to do nothing but talk down to
others. I
guess you are doing your best to get the group's Assclown Award.


You're selectively remembering here. I don't talk down to others
(well, I do to Lauren, but she reaps what she sows!), but since you
worked in a Chris Jericho reference, I'll forgive you!

Cat Protector wrote:
I definately think they should have sex education in schools and also
have
the parent's teach their kids as well. The problem in this country is
that a
lot of parent's seem to want to avoid the topic and their kids end up
having
sex without the education they need to make the right choices. As a
result
of the parent's lack of attention to the matter we have plenty of
teenage
pregnancy's and of course the chance of getting a sexually
transmitted
disease.

The problem in this country is that everywhere you go, you're being
told to have sex and that you can do so w/o consequences. Ever stood
in the checkout line of your local grocery store? Just look at the
numerous magazines that are shouting out SEX to anyone and everyone
within arm's distance (including our kids and teens). That's not to
mention the sexually suggestive ads on billboards, from tv, etc. The
problem is not that our teens (and younger) are learning about the
mechanics of sex, but that they are not being taught about the very
real consequences--first of which is pregnancy, then STDs, then AIDS,
not to mention that the vast majority of our youngters aren't prepared
mentally. I would suggest that since just about every governement high
school in America hands out free birth control to our kids (sending the
message that you're expected to do this, so here, use this as a tool),
that the standard is set very low and people will achieve what you
expect out of them. The bottom line is that teaching "sex ed" in
schools in not only unneccesary it is harmful as well. I have no
problem with the teaching the basics of the reproductive system, and
STDs as part of health, but when you go further than that, it becomes
something that has no place in our public school system--just as you
feel that religion has no place in our public school system.


As for your claiming nobody is trying to force religion on kids in
school,
it seems that by your posts that you feel their needs to be prayer in
school
which of course leads to that. Of course Gaubster nobody can really
tell you
that without getting picked on.


Oh, if only I had that power--if I "feel" that something needs to
happen, then it does!

Don't be so thin-skinned. I'm not picking on you, I'm simply debating
you. You haven't been able to show any harm in a student "praying" at
school, AND IN FACT....nobody has been able to show where in the
Constitiution it says that we should even have a government school
system, let alone whether prayer or mention of religion is disallowed,
etc. There is a lot of opinion being thrown around here and that's
about it!

KellyH wrote:

Unfortunately, "under God" is still in the Pledge. It was only added
in the
1950's, you know. I wish it would be taken out. I don't feel like
this
nation should be "under God" unless the gov't is a theocracy.

Kelly, what HARM is there in that?? You sound as if you are one of the
extremeists in this country that an absolute abolition of *any*
religious reference of *any* kind, anywhere. There is no harm in
saying the pledge "under God" unless you are an atheist who wants to
force your way of life on everyone else. Again, the majority of this
country are Christians, and you are in a very small minority. Why
force your minority beliefs on the public at large? Hmm?



I'm living a successful life without a higher power known as God,
thank you
very much. I do believe in some type of supernatural power we can't
explain, but I don't believe in naming it or feel it necessary to
belong to
a particular religion.
Please, don't feel you need to "educate" me either. I went to a
fundamentalist Christian middle and high school and probably know
more about
church history than the average person. I fell for it while I was an

impressionable youth, but once I really started to learn about
Christianity,
I decided that it was not for me.

Oh boy, yeah, you sure sound happy. Nobody here is trying to "educate"
you. Why are you so paranoid? Since you have rebelled against your
upbrining, what exactly is it about Christianity that you "aren't
falling for" any longer? Is there something that the rest of need to
know?

"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kelly, what HARM is there in that?? You sound as if you are one of the
extremeists in this country that an absolute abolition of *any*
religious reference of *any* kind, anywhere. There is no harm in
saying the pledge "under God" unless you are an atheist who wants to
force your way of life on everyone else. Again, the majority of this
country are Christians, and you are in a very small minority. Why
force your minority beliefs on the public at large? Hmm?


I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody. BTW - I'm an Agnostic, not an
Atheist. It doesn't matter if the phrase "under God" harms anyone or not,
it doesn't belong there. Last time I checked, this is not a theocracy.
Just because Christians are the majority, doesn't mean they get to make the
rules for everyone.

Oh boy, yeah, you sure sound happy. Nobody here is trying to "educate"
you. Why are you so paranoid? Since you have rebelled against your
upbrining, what exactly is it about Christianity that you "aren't
falling for" any longer? Is there something that the rest of need to
know?


I'm a lot happier now that I don't have the threat of going to hell hanging
over me. Just a few examples of some of the things I'm "not falling for"
any longer: the universe was created in 7 days, if you don't accept Jesus
into your heart, you're going to hell, even if you are an upstanding
citizen, but happen to be a Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., all the numerous
inconsistencies in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, need I go on?
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

-L. wrote:
gaubster2 wrote:

Nobody is pushing any agenda. I don't care who sleeps with whom.


Oh really? Then why did the "sisters of multnomah" go against
state
law and not consult with the other member of the board and decide
to
"legalize" gay marriage?

I don't know you would have to ask them.

That's exactly it. I CAN'T ASK THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT/HAVE NOT
OPENED THE SUBJECT UP TO DEBATE. This is a perfect example of somebody
pushing their homosexual agenda on the public.


That is an agenda that is PUSHED onto the
ciitizens at large. It was never put to a public vote and why was
that? Because it would've gone down in flames!

IIRC when "gay marriage" did go to vote in OR, it wasn't that big of
a
margin for loss. Well, at the time I finally went to bed on election
day, that is.

The score at halftime is not what matters, only the score at the end of
the game.


Karl Rove made sure the "gay marriage" issue was put on the ballots
in
order to bring out a "certain" type of voter in support of his
candidate. He succeeded.

Oh boy! What is w/ the paranoia in the anti-religion crowd?? You're
giving the man waaay too much credit and I've got news for you. He has
nothing to do individual state's issues. You've got bigger problems if
you think everything is a big conspiracy theory!




The concept that marriage can be 2 people of the same-sex was voted
down in 12 states out of 12 states. Does that offend you?

Doesn't ofend me. It makes me sad. It shows we are a nation of
bigots.

It shows that we have values. Homsexual people have the same right as
anybody else to get married....just not to members of the same sex.
There is no bigotry here, just your warped impression of what is right
and wrong.




What exactly is a "homosexual agend" anyway? Are you afraid
someone
might try to "make" you gay or something?

See above! You don't like prayer being "pushed" on kids, I don't
like
perversion being displayed for my child to see.

I'm sorry you see two people who love each other as "perversion".
That's a really sad ideology, IMO. You know, in the '40's and '50's
my husband and I would have been prohibited from marrying as well -
interracial marriage was banned and labeled "perverse" by many.

My sister is 15 years younger than me. What if we were madly in
love....should be allowed to get married (and we are of the opposite
sex)?? What about people that "shack up"? The point is: If 2 people
want to "hook up", fine, but don't call it marriage.


snip

For whatever reason, the left likes to
discriminate against Christianity, but not any other religion.

Nope. Christianity is the only religion that steadfastly tries
to
change federal law into religious (biblical) law. the Jews don't
dso
it, the Muslims don't do it, the Buddhists don't do it, the
Hindus
don't do it, etc. etc...If any one of the other religions tried
to
do
the same, I would be against them doing so, as well.

Not true. How about in middle east where you HAVE to practice
Islam?

We are talking about the US, dear. US politics. Christians are the
only ones trying to turn this government into a theocracy.

Proof please.


The majority of this country is Christian, yet we don't have a
state-mandated religion (the 1st Amendment in action!). Federal
law
is
based on biblical law.

Nope. Federal law is based on morals and ethics.

Really? I'll bet that you think its morally right as well as ethical
to murder millions of unborn babies a year? How about let criminals
out of jail before they finish serving their sentences? I could go on
and on.


Murder is not allowed in this country. Ever
heard of, "Thou shalt not murder"? Lieing is prosecuted in certain
circumstances...."Thou shalt not lie". See what I mean?

I didn't know that Christians had a monolpoly on morality. Silly me,
I
thought all religions espoused morality. Not to mention those of us
who have moral values because of culture, upbringing, etc. Sorry,
but
I don't think you and your Fundie friends can take all the credit for
developing morals in this country, Gauby.

I am SO NOT a fundamentalist. That's been apparent from my posts here
and I don't live my life as a fundamentalist ANYTHING! But since you
think that Karl Rove is the puppetmaster in various states and that the
black helicopters are circling overhead, whatever!

It's been fun, Gauby, but I have to go. My kitties need some
loving...

Sure thing, I've trumped your pathetic arguments and you've got to go!