Public School Newspaper Censorship late 2005 edition!

That's so sad, that is seriously sad, and the guy's excuse, "We got 14 year olds reading this!" Does he seriously think 14 year olds have no familiarity with the concept of birth control and sex?

i've been a professional journalist since the mid-nineties, but i still think "the eccles" in 1992 and 1993 (number of editions made: six) will be the highlight of my career.

Of course there has to be some censorship for H.S. papers

Also:
"the student had not told her parents about the tattoo"

"I have a problem with the idea of putting something in the paper that makes us a part of hiding something from the parents," he said.

This is not news. why is it on cnn?

so many choice bits here, but i'll just take this one:

...."biased"?

anyway think if there would be legal trouble if there was an article in the school paper claiming Christianity as truth.

Also claiming birth control as "truth" ie presenting statistics about whether or not it works versus claiming an unprovable entity exists are kind of two different things, right? I mean spermicide really does kill sperm dead!

No, it doesn't. Information on reproduction and most likely various forms of birth control would also be available in the school library.

XPOST

how? are they physically compelling the kid to read it, clamping his eyeballs open w/ some Ludwig Van on the stereo, and forcing the text into his head?

Plz explain this notion.

xpost so then only hand out the newspaper to kids whose parents are complete wingjobs. I mean just look at the ones who need permission slips to check out books and exclude them. Then distribute the paper to EVERYONE ELSE, which would increase their readership by like 18 trillion-fold from 3 dorkpants up to the entire school so hey everyone wins.

many people teach there kids to wait until marriage to have sex and to only ever have sex with their spouse.

"There" is not the same as "Their".

Also, people don't need to know that intravenous drug use spreads AIDS because they're not supposed to shoot junk anyways!

xpost

And the fact that those people have higher STD and teen-pregnancy rates than kids who understand birth control just doesn't matter to you, does it? Nairn, Jesus Christ has turned you into a tool.

Yet the state has the right to legislate sexual behavior in place of the family. Fascinating. Hypocritical in the extreme, but fascinating.

Home schooling then.

What does this have to do with birth control?

A NAIRN
IS A TOTAL
BELL-END

with the attributive subdeck:

"jesus christ has turned him into a tool"

but it's not. it's ILX, and i'm 30 years old. so i won't stoop so low.

oh, fuck.

What does this have to do with birth control?

Except that most conservative "WE'S ABOUT THE FAMILY N' SHIT! WE EVEN HAVE THE WORD 'FAMILY' IN OUR GROUP'S NAME!" groups get all het up about this shit, and go about doing WHATEVER they can to prevent anybody's kids from learning this stuff. That's why they push for shit like putting the naughty books under lock & key, or sex-ed classes that teach only abstinence(and elect folks who only allow abst-only stuff taught).

You can't let that subversive knowledge get out there to anybody's kids or its sinful nature will surely infect the minds of our precious infants. I don't want my Johnny hanging with that papist Mary, since her tongue like a cow will make him go "wow." Etc.

None of this has anything to do with supplants the parents' "right" to keep their kids as dumb as possible. Those folks can take their own personal crotch-spawnlings out of these classes, so they're not affected. (effected?)

Xpost: wot Dan said.

How do you figure? Also, again, please tell me what what you said has to do with what is portrayed in this article as being the content of the censored information?

In other words, answer my fucking question.

http://www.probe.org/content/view/94/88/

http://www.probe.org/content/view/862/72/

it bloody well is for me and mrs fiendish. a nairn, have you ever actually had a functional relationship sex?

xpost WHOA

science!

Jesus Christ that's frightning.

Opponents refer to these requirements as "squeal rules" and denounce them as an invasion of privacy. This reaction illustrates how far our society has deviated from biblical morality.

I'm not sure what the exact wording of the article is and I don't know if it was an editorial, but the superintendent judged it to not be acceptable. Some parents would prefer not to expose their children to contraceptives and the article did this. They should be free have preferences on this matter. Why are certain liberal ideas against the liberty of certain people?

Words fail.

Dude, I am totally going to laugh about this with all the other Elders in my Secularist congregation.

Because certain people are dicks.

In what way is a fundie wacko's liberty affected by allowing an article, which they can choose not to read, be published?

Monogamy and abstaining didn't help the Virgin Mary, I can't figure out why you people aren't more reasonable on this topic in light of that information.

(xpost: No Snickers bar has ever given me an orgasm; maybe I should have stuck my dick in it as opposed to eating it.)

"Lisa, you're sure to be a hero when the rest of the class sees these layouts and these fonts!"

A couple years of that should take care of the whole "people want to have sex with me" problem.

Birth control was banned on religious grounds in eras when and in places where it was indeed a matter of life and death for monogamous women.

"The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death… "

"Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they can make that choice for themselves. "

kid A learns about abstinence, but doesn't follow it.
kid B learns about contraception, but does follow it.

They are in the same boat

kid A learns about abstinence, and does follow it.
kid B learns about contraception, and does follow it.

kid B is more at risk for STDs

no, It's idealolgies are based in Christian philosophy, but it is not a Christian nation. It has freedom of religion. (i.e. secularism shouldn't over shadow any religion in the public square)

It makes me nauseous when uppity Christians embrace the free practice part of the first amendment, then TOTALLY ignore the establishment clause.

Go stuff your Christian ideaLOLogies. The Founding Fathers were deists and freemasons.

This is no longer settled law; it was superseded by TAFKAP vs. Connecticut (1991).

xpost

http://www.treefingers.com/gallery/gallery/thom/thom140.jpg

the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243

A) use birth control?
B) abstain from having sex?

x-post

Accepting this as a given bassed purely on church membership, who cares? The laws they set in place restrict the power of the state to favor one religious belief system over another. End of story.

They also wore wigs and stockings. Fortunately, our constitution doesn't bind us to 18th century fashion any more than it binds us to 18th century morality.

self control and consequences are at the heart of every sex ed program ever taught
This would be great if it was totally true.

re: mastrubation... I think lust is bad and self-control is good.

FYI, the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" between Church and State was established not only to protect the freedom to practice religion, but also to make sure that the government would not corrupt religion towards its own ends. The first amendment is in place to ensure that the practice of religious war that plagued europe for centuries would not savage America as well. (Which is exactly what we are seeing today, incidentally)

Am i wrong in thinking that it's this kinda thinking that results when American schools don't teach anything about the English Civil War?(among other things)

I was in 5th grade!!!!!!!!!

yup, exactly.

How the fuck is this the same boat? You did say "abstinence in place of contraception" so PRESUMABLY kid A has no clue about birth control. In other words, kid A is going to be a mother/father and kid B most likely won't. I think you mistyped.

Do you mean that religious ideas are having too much power? I think it could be the other way around. Look at the law suits to remove religion from the public over the recent years.

Positive neutrality insists that religious ideas should never be forced to hide themselves behind secular ones in order to participate in the public square. The government is not being neutral when it endorses a secular idea over a religious one in our schools or in other social programs.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/86/88/

Though come to think, Sex Ed 201 would have really come in handy.

also, as everybody else has mentioned, this is some sorta false-dichotomy bullshit. Al Franken keeps mentioning the "Abstinence education works....until it doesn't" when he talks about how his own kids had "Abstinence Plus" classes. Tell the kids not to fuck all you want, how it can screw up their lives to emotionally fuck around with folks when they're stupid and 15, but at some point, the kids is gunna fuck, and so that particular program took that into account. When you do do it, here's how you go about it safely etc.

Dammit, I wish Tep were still here. He knows more about how the latest "God doesn't want you fuckin' until you're like, married in a church n' shit" iteration came about, how it took some pretty involved Scriptural gymnastics to try to justify... Also, I've always wondered why folks concerned with this thought it sex after getting married in a civil/legal ceremony was okay.

A case study: Justice Sunday, in which various fundamentalist leaders make common cause with Republican congressmen to stack the high courts with "moral" judges.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. - 2 Samuel 12:8.

yeah, Tep would make good contrabutions.

By stepping in on this one, administrators are doing something much worse: they're trying to prevent students from sharing true, useful, and pertinent information about human sexuality. They're not just trying to keep it out of the classroom -- they're trying to keep that information from passing between the students themselves. All because of the obvious fear -- that parents can't tell the difference between the student newspaper as "the voice of the students" as "the voice of the school," and when their 14-year-olds come home with something they don't approve of, they'll be calling the principal first.

So while they might have the legal ability to do that -- and while they're probably making their own lives a lot more hassle-free by doing it -- they're doing a giant disservice to their students. At least some of the students are interested in safe sex and contraception. At least some portion of the student body wants to be armed with information about this stuff. And just imagine how dangerous and stupid it is to try to keep them from having it!

The kids that are actually pro-abstinence now have real facts and figured to argue with their friends and will be less shy about doing so since they're used to a dialogue on sex, no matter how awkward they choose to let it be. I'm sure they're going to argue that being able to talk even-handedly about sex issues removes the magic from the whole thing, but it might also remove the diseases! But, as nabisco just mentioned, in this case they're removing the dialogue between students. What's the good in that?

This is what I understand the schools motivation is too. I was kind of saying it up at the top; that the school should err on the side of the parents to avoid legal hassle. Then I went off into a more general sex ed then seperation of church and state stuff.

KID: I wonder what it would be like to go to the beach.
DAD: Don't go to the beach. It's dangerous, you could get sunburned.
KID: Oh. But like, if I did go, aren't there things I could do to keep me from getting sunburned? Plus I heard from Julie in homeroom that you can't get sunburned your first time.
DAD: Don't go to the beach.
KID: Also I heard there's some kind of lotion you can put on that will keep you from getting sunburned.
DAD: Don't go to the beach.
KID: Is it just regular lotion? Like Jergen's, or something? Or is it like a cocoa butter thing?
DAD: I'm going to work now, honey. I'll be back tonight. Whatever you do, DON'T GO TO THE BEACH.

I mean, even leaving aside the issue of sex education itself -- when kids are clearly looking for information on this stuff, at what point do you stop stonewalling and just say it, just break it down and talk about what's actually at stake in going-to-the-beach, what's at risk and what safeguards a person can take and what kinds of decisions need to be made?

E.g. -- Nairn brings up the pro-abstinence line about the emotional repercussions of sex. And that's an important point, but then again -- how many pro-abstinence parents actually sit their kids down and talk about what exactly those repercussions are? (How many of them have any experience or understanding of those repercussions to talk about?) And as far as contraception goes, well, look at the big reversal among the abstinence crowd: suddenly they're teaching their kids all about condoms and spermicides, too -- only they're teaching them that they don't always work, that the risks are still there. The cause is pretty much lost right there. You can interpret the information however you want; you can point your kids in whatever direction you want, based on science or morals or emotion or anything else. But there's no good reason to stonewall, no good reason to try to keep them from getting accurate information.

The main drive behind preaching abstinence seems to be this idea that the kids shouldn't be thinking about this stuff at all, and that ship sailed long ago -- so far as I can tell, it's the sworn abstinent types who have to think about this stuff the most, because they've been preached at and sworn and made hyper-aware of the whole issue.

These are the same students that everyone assumes are going to have sex no matter what their education is after all.

What do you mean by "the same students?" No one here is assuming that the whole student body is interested in having sex or will have sex during high school. There are a number of kids that abstain from having sex because of religion, fear of consequences, emotional state, lack of interest in peers, or a combination of these and additional concerns (like Dan's!). Dialogue between students about sex is going to sound more intellectual from the crowd writing the paper (well, maybe -- my student paper was always written by the barely-literate who devoted the whole thing to the sports teams) and simpler in other groups. Anything more than calling some people sluts and gossip about "who's getting some" is a positive step.

The fear of cauliflower dick resonated much more deeply than fear of not being loved.

You get the idea.

xpost

I meant a common argument for pro-contraception education is that kids are going to do it any way, we should prepare them to do it the safest way.

I don't think any sane person (or anyone who's had to sit through health class) is going to disagree with this statement.

They also showed seniors a film about drunk driving before the prom, followed by a short speech from someone who worked at the emergency room at a nearby hospital during which she recounted some of the accidents she'd seen injuries from, with graphic pictures. Even kids who didn't drive OR drink had to attend, the injustice! Of course, immediately after the presentation I heard people inviting each other to post-prom parties. I remember rolling my eyes and thinking they were idiots.

Obviously I should have opted out of both of these warning presentations, since they didn't apply to me.

Discussion of herpes, aids, condoms, diaphragms and childbirth made you more comfortable about sex at age 15?

Well, AREN'T they going to do it anyway? You're going to have to try really hard to convince me that high school students are not going to have sex because their parents / teachers / priests tell them not to.

(sndtrk: Frank Zappa - Joe's Garage Vol. I - Catholic Girls)

Obviously. Still, if you're going to teach math, you teach ALL OF IT. Ditto sex ed: if you're going to bother teaching about sexuality AT ALL, then you have to cover both abstinence and birth control.

So, to ask yet another question of A Nairn: should we teach ANYTHING about sex in schools? Because they way I see it, it's all or nothing.

(and before you try "if you're going to bother teaching about science, you've got to cover both evolution and intelligent design," let me say this: DON'T.)

- hmmm... looks like we have a wee scheduling conflict

*looks at actual classes in conflict*

- oh, it's okay, those are the kids who won't be having sex or experimenting with drugs until college anyway

x-post, roger, that's depressingly close to correct..

Sex = babies! Or are you one of those northeastern liberal secularists who believe that contraception actually works?

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 1988

Argued: Oct. 13, 1987
Decided: Jan. 13, 1988

Issue: Whether school officials violated the First Amendment rights of staff members of a high school newspaper when they censored articles in the school newspaper.

Summary: Former staff members of the Hazelwood East High School's Spectrum, a student newspaper, filed suit against the Hazelwood, Mo., school district and its officials, alleging that their First Amendment rights had been violated when the school principal deleted articles from an issue of the school newspaper. The newspaper was written and edited by students in a journalism class. Pursuant to the school's practice, the teacher in charge of the paper submitted the paper to the school's principal for review. The principal objected to, and refused to print, two articles. One article described students' experiences with pregnancy. The principal objected to this article because even though the article did not name the pregnant students, they might be identified from the text. Further, the principal believed that the article's reference to sexual activity and birth control was inappropriate for the school's younger students. The second article discussed the impact of divorce on students attending school. The principal objected to this article because in the article a named student complained of her father's behavior without giving him opportunity to respond or consent to the article's publication.

Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the Court broke new ground by holding that a school need not sponsor or affirmatively support the sort of controversial expression that it must otherwise tolerate. The Court acknowledged a rich tradition of protecting students' rights to engage in their own expressive activities in school, such as the wearing of armbands. But it held that when schools are supervising or sponsoring expressive activities, such as publishing a newspaper, school officials may "exercise greater control" without violating the students' First Amendment rights.
The Court found that the school newspaper is not a forum for public expression as the public schools do not possess all of the attributes of traditional public forums. School facilities may be deemed public forums only if the school authorities have "by policy or practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public." The teacher in charge of the newspaper had a great deal of control over the publishing of the newspaper and every issue was submitted to the principal for review. Therefore, neither the school nor the newspaper is a forum for public expression.
School officials do not violate the First Amendment "by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities" so long as the officials' actions are "reasonably related to pedagogical concerns." Pedagogical concerns include exposure to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, an assurance that students learn lessons that an activity is designed to teach and that the views of individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school.
The Court found that the principal acted reasonably in deleting the articles from the schools newspaper and, therefore, the students' First Amendment rights were not violated.

Peter S. Bearman and Hanna Bruckner, "Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and First Intercourse," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106, No. 4 (January 2001), pp. 861, 862. The effects of a virginity pledge were shown to be statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

These are a couple out of the ten studies presented in this article ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm ) giving evidence that education that exclusively promotes abstaining from premarital sex can actually reduce sexual activity among the students.

You seem to be missing the point. Unless abstinence-only sex education is 100% effective in eliminating all sexual conduct among students who receive it -- which it obviously cannot be -- then those students who DO have sex will have NO clear information regarding birth control and disease prevention, and will be more likely to engage is risky sexual behaviors.

Or perhaps I can make my point more clear with spite: When your abstinence-educated daughter gets AIDS because she thought she could only get it through anal sex, don't ask "what happened."

Jon OTM, but let's say we concede the point. Having teens make a pledge they can't possibly understand, and fussing over them for it, probably does prevent a couple of hook-ups. (More likely it leads to those weird high-school relationship agreements where anything goes except "all the way," making the issue much more about some ridiculous notion of purity than about delaying sexual activity or an emotional intimacy kids might not be ready to handle. But it's a losing battle against time and independence, and I suspect the cost is much higher than the authors acknowledge.

cf. the "Jusr Say No"/"This Is Your Brain" anti-drug campaign, which may indeed have stopped a kid or two from trying pot, but at the price of making everyone who did an instacynic when nothing bad happens. What did we learn from that campaign? That adults lie for no obvious good reason.

xpost

Sex ed that covers contraception IS NOT INTENDED TO KEEP KIDS FROM HAVING SEX.

xpost

If you don't accept abstinence as the only method of disease prevention and contraception, then you deserve to get an STI because you're a filthy little depraved beast awash in original sin and who deserves to have his cock rot off / womb shrivel up because YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FILTHY ANIMAL PARTS TO GLORIFY JESUS AND MAKE CHRISTIAN BABIES.

AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD (AND BLOOD TRANSFUSION PATIENTS TOO!)

xpost

I would argue the latter, you daft fucker.

Nairn, I have more sex than you but we both have the same number of STDs!

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

nairn how old are you?
-- oooh (...), November 29th, 2005.

ANSWER THE QUESTION SIR

(1st base, maybe some 2nd base)

again why is it so personal, why do I represent all these people? Just because I am one counterexample it doesn't mean the majority would be.

Yeah, I am upset that I live in a country backassward enough to produce people that believe the bullshit you do.

Actually, what about promoting lesbianism? That'd cut down the teenage pregnancy And the Aids rates. What you reckon?

Based on the arguments so far?

I had parents that tought me along-side health class more realistic and morally based things.

mark, homeschool your 2 daughters that way.

HALLELUJAH, you truly are one of the faithful!

Now excuse me while I spit bile: I refuse to credit as valid any opinion on sexuality from a dude who's never got his dick wet.

Heck, have them not go out with horrible boys, it's tempting...

Nairn, the blueballs are in your court. It'll be like "Witness" meets "Porky's".

P.S. I'm gay, so you'd never believe me about anything re: sex anyway, now would you?

Are you up for this Vegas trip or what, Nairn? Quit being such a tease.

(i'm kidding, i'm kidding)

Change planes in Denver, CO (DEN) $384
per person
Select
DIRECTV® On-Board more
View Seats
Frontier Airlines
Flight 643 / 789 4:50pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:15pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 8hrs 25min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Denver, CO (DEN) $384
per person
Select
DIRECTV® On-Board more
View Seats
Airtran Airways
Flight 429 / 111 9:05am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 4:00pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 9hrs 55min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Dallas/Ft Worth, TX (DFW) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 471 / 721 8:45am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 12:55pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 10min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 443 / 777 6:30am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:50am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 20min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 443 / 721 6:30am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 12:55pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 9hrs 25min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 447 / 764 12:45pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 7:45pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 10hrs - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 449 / 764 2:17pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 7:45pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 8hrs 28min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 485 / 764 3:03pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 7:45pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 42min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 447 / 105 12:45pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 8:48pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 11hrs 3min - 2 Stops

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Stop in Dallas/Ft Worth, TX (DFW) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 449 / 105 2:17pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 8:48pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 9hrs 31min - 2 Stops

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Stop in Dallas/Ft Worth, TX (DFW) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 485 / 105 3:03pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 8:48pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 8hrs 45min - 2 Stops

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Stop in Dallas/Ft Worth, TX (DFW) $431
per person
Select

Airtran Airways
Flight 443 / 121 6:30am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 12:00pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 8hrs 30min - 2 Stops

Change planes in Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Stop in Dallas/Ft Worth, TX (DFW) $435
per person
Select

America West Airlines
Flight 372 8:15am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:36am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 5hrs 21min - Nonstop
$514
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 8233 operated by America West Airlines 8:15am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:36am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 5hrs 21min - Nonstop
$514
per person
Select
View Seats
America West Airlines
Flight 777 8:40pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 11:09pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 5hrs 29min - Nonstop
$514
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 8380 operated by America West Airlines 8:40pm
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 11:09pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 5hrs 29min - Nonstop
$514
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 881 / 667 8:40am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 1:06pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 26min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Charlotte, NC (CLT) $523
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 443 / 691 7:00am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 11:27am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 27min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Charlotte, NC (CLT) $523
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 3042 operated by US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES / Flight 697 9:45am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 2:15pm
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 30min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Philadelphia, PA (PHL) $524
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 8119 operated by America West Airlines / 8251 operated by America West Airlines 7:05am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 11:23am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 18min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Phoenix, AZ (PHX) $524
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 3595 operated by US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-TRANSSTATES AIRLINES / Flight 625 6:30am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:28am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 6hrs 58min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Pittsburgh, PA (PIT) $524
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 3595 operated by US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-TRANSSTATES AIRLINES / Flight 8303 operated by America West Airlines 6:30am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:34am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 4min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Pittsburgh, PA (PIT) $524
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 3166 operated by US AIRWAYS EXPRESS-CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES / Flight 633 6:05am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:13am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 8min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Philadelphia, PA (PHL) $524
per person
Select
View Seats
US Airways
Flight 6319 operated by United / Flight 6982 operated by UNITED FOR TED 6:00am
Baltimore, MD (BWI) 10:05am
Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 7hrs 5min - 1 Stop

Change planes in Chicago, IL (ORD) $524
per person
Select

strangly

Strangle-y?

They need to use some fucking condoms!

I'm this close to offering to pay for the tickets...

Not for nothing, bro, you're on really thin ice with this line of reasoning.

*realizes he probably needs to spell it out*

What can anyone who hasn't had sex know about the consequences? And how can you trust the veracity and integrity of anyone who has?

NB: Not having sex before marriage greatly increases your risk of becoming Mr. Adolph bin Streisand.

In fact, if you insist that only a sexually-active person can offer comment, you're playing into the philosophy of people who want to take sex ed out of schools, etc, because you're supporting the idea that knowledge = action. For those of you who're just tuning in: IT DOESN'T. The survival of sex ed programs, it seems to me, actually DEPENDS on everyone agreeing that kids can handle knowledge about sex & protection of all kinds and still retain the option of NOT ACTING.

Anyway I think ILX needs to be less mean to Nairn. I mean, he's practically saintly in these arguments, politeness-wise. So when his arguments fall apart and start cat-twisting and spitting out loads of nothing, it's like ... either we can delegate someone to patiently pick them apart, or we should all just leave it be and move to another thread. It's kind of depressing when a thread comes down to Nairn politely following really bad reasoning and everyone else tearing their hair out and yelling at him!

I guess one problem I have is the possible traumatizing effects of certain mandatory sex ed, and no option/freedom for parents to prevent these. Sex ed classes I think could generally be R, NC-17, and/or X-rated.

Pervs And Your Website

But parents and kids can opt out of these classes. What you're proposing is to restrict everyone's access to the information!

One sinister corollary to this involves telling yourself the lie that all evidence, facts, statistics and science are cherry-picked, concocted or spun. This pre-Enlightenment worldview, should it prevail, has the potential to usher in a real-life Narnia far more retrograde than any retrovirus.

Man claiming his opinions are God's immutable truth is very unChristian, and much more along the lines of what an Athiest or Secularist would do.

One sinister corollary to this involves telling yourself the lie that all evidence, facts, statistics and science are cherry-picked, concocted or spun.

that would be a lie, but it would also be a lie to tell yourself that there is nothing more than evidence, facts, statistics and science. well maybe not a "lie" but loveless

This is entirely true. I'd probably be more ashamed if he weren't such a good sport, and that is a very very poor excuse for bad behavior.

So when his arguments fall apart and start cat-twisting and spitting out loads of nothing, it's like ... either we can delegate someone to patiently pick them apart, or we should all just leave it be and move to another thread.

Fuck moving to another thread. nabisco, I nominate you as our champion.

xpost

But I (and elmo too, I think) agree!* It's the reductio ad absurdum of A Nairn's refusal "to credit as valid any opinion on abstinence from a dude who's already got his dick wet."

So lectures on abstinence from anyone but virgins would be meaningless, presumably incl. married faculty.

*Not making any claims to voice-of-reason status though :-)

big xpost.

a) he has sinned, as we all have
b) he has repented and been born again
c) he has been forgiven by the only entity in the universe whose forgiveness ultimately matters.

There is scant difference, in a fundamentalist's view, between secret sin and sin committed proudly and in the open. Hypocrisy, while problematic as a form of lying, is not a significant or defining aspect of the underlying sin.

So unless you're content entertaining yourselves, you're wasting your time arguing with A. Nairn along these lines.

why is this about me? Are we playing a game where the one with the most logical responses wins (most of us probably are). I am just trying to learn some things. Why am I the only one who has to respond to the actual logical arguments. Other people could do that too. My views are not so strange and individual. I try to base them in a long standing tradition that is available to anyone. Maybe ILX is too one-sided.

I don't really care about the insults, either way. How so you know how I feel, I think you are just projecting some biased view of what you think I should feel onto me.

????

This is beautiful and true, especially that last bit. But it has absolutely no bearing on what we should be teaching da youf. Privately held beliefs need to stay that way, and the public sphere should remain concerned with things we can all agree on e.g. evidence, facts, statistics, science, the vexation of after-hours calls at home from loony parents, etc.

*ahem* Because you're the only one willing to stand up and speak for inanity.

c) His sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus.

1) Credit the most logical response to logic, not to the responder, and follow it where it leads you.
2) I suggest setting no preconditions on the things you might learn.

I think you're the only one here advocating abstinence-only education so you're on your own.

Don't argue with me! argue or consider or learn about a hugly influential long lasting tradition that I try to follow.

Yet God remains as silent on the subject of 8th-grade health curricula as He does on the mystery of why his most-beloved creatures, made in his image, should have to suffer.

"things we can all agree on?"

I'll quote this agian too:

Positive neutrality insists that religious ideas should never be forced to hide themselves behind secular ones in order to participate in the public square. The government is not being neutral when it endorses a secular idea over a religious one in our schools or in other social programs.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/86/88/

ROF-L!

Say... you wouldn't be using this thread to score cheap Excelsior points would you?

“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

This is a true enough statement, but I fail to see what bearing it has on this discussion. Discussing STDs, contraceptive choices, and similar topics /= advocation of sex-before-marriage. I don't see how you are conflating the two, and by your own logic via Probe.com, endorsing abstinence-only education would then therefore also be the government being non-neutral. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are advocating a system in which both viewpoints are presented or you are not, but don't play it when it's convenient to your side.

I was gonna say!

See, the thing is, this is asinine.

A Nairn, do you want to be the one to open the door that lets the Flying Spaghetti Monster in? Are you comfortable with a more Krishna Consciousness-centered curriculum?

Sigh. Only nabisco can save us now. Why have you forsaken us?

By your own admission, you were taught your moral system by your parents. It dictates when it's appropriate to have sex and the inherent religious obligations. Would an individual of your caliber be more likely to break his or her resolve were they to learn more about some of the physical facts of sex in school? I understand your argument, but it really rings of "well, I was fine with this, but some of my weaker-willed brethren might be tempted by this curriculum.."

I really question claims that facts about the efficacy of birth control, statistics on number of abortions, etc. are going to lure otherwise morally proper individuals into some life of sin. Face it, everyone is going to have to face a fair amount of reality unless they live in an Amish-style community apart from the world at large, or make an extreme effort to temper their interactions with the world. If someone is bound to pick up a behavior merely because others are doing it, frankly, they suck at upholding their moral obligations according to the system they claim as their own!

Why, when you make no effort to understand or engage with the influential, long lasting traditions that I follow?

I'm suddenly realizing that my civics joke was astoundingly limited. Teaching kids about government doesn't mean they'll vote. Teaching kids long division doesn't keep them from using calculators. Teaching kids grammar doesn't appear to do much at all. Teach kids enough about sex -- hell, encourage it! -- and there's some slim chance you'll have a perfect world where goody-goody responsible kids are kickin it with dental dams and everyone else is too cool to even make out.

I'd like it to be played for both sides, but possible the more passive side might be better when there is a conflict. Which is more passive? I'm not sure. I don't think the system could ever be perfect. Both sides are trying to push it slightly in their direction using the same idea of not letting the differing view over-shadow. I'm just advocating a push in the side I see as more reasonable just as most of you are. It's a democracy in the US not a utopia.

what I mean by this is that having abstinence-only is over shadowing for the kids where learning about contraception would be best, just like having contraception education is over shadowing for the kids where just learning abstinence would be best.

"best" not just being messured in STDs, but in the pursuit of happiness and religious freedom, etc.

I said above that I am learning here. I am not just playing the rhetoric game

So what do you recommend? It seemed as though you were in favor of abstinence-only programs. Would you accept a balance between advocating abstinence and educating kids about contraception and stds? Or do you think that students and parents should vountarily divide into two separate programs that take different approaches? You talk about protecting the freedoms and interests of religious students but then you seem to be concerned about the sexual activities of all teenagers. So which is really your concern: keeping information about sex and contraception away from Christian students who don't want to hear about it or making sure that all teenagers live up to your Christian standards?

xpost

For instance: many Christian Scientists believe that people should not use medicine. They believe that disease is natural, and that the response to it should be to pray to God for healing. However: when they send their children to school, we all accept that those children will be taught about medicine in the modern world -- they'll learn what causes diseases, how they're treated, and so on. They're free to believe what they want, and practice how they want, but they're expected to be informed about the facts, too. The same would go for anyone who didn't believe in secular math, or the English language.

So why should sex be different? The issue here isn't about abstinence, or STDs, or any of the junk we've been arguing here. The issue here is that many, many people just don't want anyone to talk about sex. They don't want sex public; they don't want their kids to hear about it; it has nothing at all to do with the effects of the education itself, or any of the statistics you've been tossing out.

Because: in what other context do these arguments come around, these arguments that talking about it leads kids to do it? When I was in high school, we had a representative of the D.A.R.E. program come to our health class. (Along with a low-level celebrity, no less!) He showed us drugs. He let us touch and smell them. He explained how they were used, what effects they had on the body (positive and negative), and what the legal and emotional consequences could be for using them. This is a fairly common thing, and yet I'd don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that these events encourage children to use drugs -- the whole point of them is that they accomplish precisely the opposite.

How exactly is sex different -- apart from the fact that so many people just don't like talking about it? Why are we drawing this line between only two options -- either "promoting" sex or strictly preaching abstinence? Why would it be so difficult to do what most sex-education classes already do -- something very much like the D.A.R.E. program, where the facts are laid out, the consequences are explained, abstinence is encouraged as the absolute safest route, and students walk out armed with a complete set of information about the issue?

The "big picture" as in not just rhetoric. Something more, like some part of an absolute truth.

A) I don't think I understand what this means--how do you decide who is best to learn what?
B) Does this follow to include all subjects taught in school?

I think this would be better worded as "away from students whose Christian parents want to keep it away from their kids."

Great! That's settled then. I'm pretty sure students and parents can already voluntarily opt-out of sex-ed classes and then we can keep the abstinence stuff out of it for the kids who actually want to learn something. I understand your stance on the newspaper article and it was the school's legal right to censor it. The issue is a little blurry though because at a certain point the article is not much different from overhearing a couple of students discussing sex in the hallway.

Why wouldn't they want to hear about it? Wouldn't it be good to get further information proving your point correct or your viewpoint valid?

STAY HOME. If the school system is expected to "respect" your rights w/r/t teaching dirty sex to Christians, then it should also respect the rights of any parent objecting to basically anything taught in a given curriculum. Virulent racists probably don't want their kids to learn that slavery was, you know, a bad idea and that Hitler had it wrong all along. School is, as it stands right now, a place for children to learn about the world, warts and all. If you're not down with that, cool. Teach them youself.

(...eek. did I just invoke Godwin's law?)

xxxxxxposts

This is probably true. However, where do we draw the line at "opting out?" To knowingly pull out a far-fetched test case -- what if someone is morally opposed to math? Should we let them opt out on the bases that (a) their views should be respected and (b) they're a fringe case and you probably won't get a lot of others following suit?

As you pointed out in your previous post it's all basically voluntary anyway since parents can opt-out by choosing a private school or homeschooling. Of course math is a requirement for graduation while sex-ed isn't so it's a little different.

(I don't want to open another can of worms here, but I think I might be.)

One Christian view is that talking about sex could be bad.
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body

and

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

"fleeing" and "must not even be named" goes against laying all the facts about sex out.

In a democracy this view which has influence on the public square should have equal say. The outcome will not be perfect, it may tip either way, but their should be equal say.

Look at the history of the first 150 or so years of the U.S. and how the Christian view was involved with the public square.
here is a quote from Lincoln just to give you an idea:

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

but it doesn't mean the freedom to shield your children from basic information.

But what is basic information? Who says what it is? I say Jesus dying on the cross to save people from their sins is the most essential basic piece of information. Should parents sheild their children from that?

According to many (et tu, Nairn?): yes. And science usually IS required.

xpost
Nairn: no parent in the U.S. is able to shield his or her children from Christianity. So in response to your question, no -- every child who goes to school in this country walks away knowing that there is such a thing as Christianity, and knowing a great deal of the history and tenets of that religion. (The same cannot always be said for other religions.) I think you know full well what my definition of "basic information" would be -- testable or credibly-recorded non-religious information. "Jesus died for our sins" is not a testable or credibly-recorded piece of information; it's a belief, not a fact. What is a teachable fact would be something like: "Many people believe that Jesus died for our sins, and those beliefs have had a profound influence on our history and culture in terms of X, Y, and Z."

I learned about a lot of things I was either disgusted by or had little application to my life in school, but that doesn't mean it was a waste of my time. Even presuming these kids will never need the contraceptive methods presented and will never get a sexually transmitted disease they would need to identify, why would they be so afraid to hear about it? It seriously rings of the "sex is magic" attitude that poor Christian kids get called out on for being "prudish." Yes, sex can take on deep significance when between two loving, married individuals. That doesn't mean there can't be physical facts too, stop getting grossed out by them.

There are many topics that are outside the realm of public education but that shouldn't include issues that may affect many students' health should they not have the right information. The censorship this thread is about was in a high school paper -- by that point, kids should be able to make their own choices about whether they want to read the information presented. I know some people who were very religious in high school and probably wouldn't have read it. That's fine. If they really felt underrepresented, couldn't they have written a pro-abstinence article and submitted it to the same issue?

Of course then you get the lawsuits whining about universities not accepting "The Spaghetti Monster's Influence in American History." Has there been a thread on that already?

Absolutely. As long as they don't expect to change the curriculum for everyone else just to suit their viewpoint. I guess the question is if a student should be allowed to graduate if they don't take biology. This probably depends on the state-by-state curriculum but I suppose it's possible to give Christian students a biology waiver and make them do some form of alternative biology tutoring that leaves out evolution. The parents shouldn't complain if their children don't perform well on standardized tests or in college though.

xpost

hearing it goes against the verses from the bible I quoted above. especially the Ephesians 5:3-4

I challenge that you are doing a huge disservice to Christianity by alleging that there is a continguous & cohesive "Christian" viewpoint, and a "true" definitive interpretation of scripture.

Christians, by and large, hold many disparate and varied beliefs, though I think the only thing you'll get them to agree on is the divine nature of the Christ.

So stop playing the Pharisee.

"have to"? on what basis?

I and many Christians say the only thing you have to learn is a saving belief in Jesus. I base this on the Bible which I claim is the word of God.

defining basic information as "a testable or credibly-recorded piece of information"

Again why is science more basic than religion? It is only more basic for the secularist. Religion is more basic for the religious.

At what point then do you realize that your situation is special and your needs are considered unreasonable by the majority so maybe the public school system isn't for you?

So stop playing the Pharisee.

ok, I agree about the many different things that fall under then name of "Christianity." I am talking of a Biblical view point.

I am often pharisitical. That is one of my weaknesses. See the verses above about the purpose of weakness.

(Some people caliming to be Christians don't even think of Christ as divine just a wise guy.)

it's a democracy, and much of the original intent of freedom of religion was to have religion have a say in public.

Seriously, the attitude you're advocating, including what I think is an exaggerated view of what your religion restricts, ends up mythologizing sex and raising it to either a higher level than it need be, or makes it dirty enough that it remains forever taboo, causing issues with repression or dysfunction later in life. Look across ILX -- like I know you've probably done -- there's a continuum of people who are everything from sex fiends to nearly asexual. You're treating this issue like the establishment is cursing the world with this knowledge, while statistics and reasoning show that an open approach decreases indidence of disease and teen pregnancy.

Can you at least admit that you would rather have higher teen pregnancy and disease amongst those who live a lifestyle you disapprove of, rather than have the good kids hear some dirty things? That's what many of us hear when told you want to restrict teaching or remove teens from these classes.

in what way? what's the absolute truth that you see us as avoiding?

Also, along the lines of what Nabisco mentioned; if even the barest mention of education is overtly "promoting" it, does anyone else see this as going along with their reasoning that acknowledging that gay folks exist is somehow promoting the "gay agenda"?

Right, which is why your minority point of view is thankfully not public policy (yet).

I guess a lot of it comes down to that I think those few verses in the Bible have much more authority than any research, and I trust God's soverignity in every individual situation that all will ultimately work out for the good, and that this world will never be fully good. Many other Christians think these too, and they have a say in a democracy.

Because our government has regulational power over science vested in it by the constitution, aligning the government with enlightenment principles of objectivity.

EAT MY ASS.

He hasn't taken sex ed. He wouldn't even know where to start.

Does this mean that every idea which "has influence on the public square" gets "equal say"?

Do other Fundamentalists (Taliban-style Moslems or Ultra-orthodox Jews to name but 2) get "equal say"? Or just Christians?

What happens when 2 people with equal say disagree about what kids should learn?

And shouldn't it be the responsibility of the individual to educate children outside of the public system if they want the education to have a religious element?

THAT'S BEYOND FUCKED UP. THAT IS THE MOST FUCKED UP THING I'VE EVER HEARD.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

"have to"? on what basis? -- You "have to" learn math and English on the basis that, duh, (a) all American children are required by law to be schooled, whether publically or privately, and (b) that schooling is required by law to cover commonly accepted fundamentals like arithmetic, reading, and so on. If "you and many Christians" say the only thing anyone "has" to learn is "a saving belief in Jesus," then I would totally encourage you to mount a campaign to abolish the mandatory schooling of children in things like basic literacy. Really, give it a shot, people will love that.

why is science more basic than religion? -- Where, exactly, did I say it was, Nairn? Right now, the assumption of schools is that people believe all sorts of different things -- and as such, it's better to leave the religious education of children to their families and churches. (This is similar to what you're asking for with sex ed, actually!) At the same time, religion is taught in school, in the same factual way as science -- kids learn what the major religions are, where they come from, some basics about what they believe, and how they've influenced history. This is the same stuff kids learn about science: what people have believed, historically, about how things work; what we believe now; what we've demonstrated and proven, and what we hypothesize for the future. If you're asking why there's more focus on teaching science than religious history, the obvious answer is that schools are designed to prepare kids to be productive members of society, and there's a lot more to be done with a working knowledge of science than with a working knowledge of theology. People are looking to train doctors, scientists, and engineers, and public schools are (wisely) happy to leave theological education to specialized theological institutions. This is the same reason schools teach more science than music, and more science than visual art; you can go to an arts school if you want to, but the government concentrates more on the practical applications of things like science, or education.

it has to do a lot with numbers, and is not always totally accurate.

And shouldn't it be the responsibility of the individual to educate children outside of the public system if they want the education to have a religious element?

that would be a naked square and not Positive neutrality.

I'm glad you're speaking so openly about this. I'm wondering what your stance on self-mutilation is.

How do you see this desire to flee from sexual immorality justifying dysfunction, in this case, bodily damage? Would this also apply to a fundie Christian parent's desire to keep their children pure from such immortality justifying female circumcision(still going on nowadays) or male circumcision(as apparently started up again amongst Gentiles in the mid-late 19th-C)?

To be blunt, at what point do some apparently righteous ends justify the means?

Oh boy...

See, this is where math eduation comes in handy...

I believe in total depravity, that man can never be fully righteous enough. I also believe that everything follows God's plan to an ultimate good. some apparently righteous things contradict other apparently righteous things. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

So what you're saying is that even though they are a minority, Christian fundamentalists should get an equal say to secular atheists (or pro-science Christians) because they are a larger minority than say rastafarians and satanists? So where is the cutoff in terms of numbers? You seem to be advocating some kind of parlimentary system of ideas where losing ideas still get a seat at the table.

(hum to the tune of Whitney's "Greatest Love of All")

xpost: and don't forget us secular humanist Christians

-- Banana Nutrament (straightu...), August 4th, 2005.

Banana was completely OTM on another thread.

less than total depravity would give some of the glory to man that is meant for God.

We expect pictures and police reports.

Yes or no.

b-b-but I'm not done avoiding work yet!

No, to the extent you believe as a matter of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, you believe those verses have absolute authority over any research; you know this and I know this, and it is disingenuous and dishonest (not to mention borderline gnostic) of you to qualify the nature of your belief. Okay?

I believe in earth bound law. It's purpose is to point to the depravity of man.

yes, but research such as hermeneutical research is still valuable at understanding the Bible. Other research is too. Man's understanding and research of the Bible is still in this world and faulty, but is still used by God to lead people under His plan.

hey, I was pushed into it.

effective for man, or for God?

This takes us down the road (and I can't remember now if this was a real heresy or invented by Borges or Sade) of glorifying God and exalting Jesus' sacrifice by sinning as frequently and grotesquely as possible.

Jesus came and pushed him off the shelf

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, [4] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

I don't know, the few typos might make a believer rely more on faith, which would give him more glory than suffering.

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU TO GIVE ME A DEEP SWIRLING RIMJOB.

if these fall under self-control, I think they are fruits of the spirit. If they fall under sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I think they are bad.

More cursing to the choir.

I believe in earth bound law. It's purpose is to point to the depravity of man.

Laws have purposes. Facts do not. I acknowledge the possibility of knowledge of objective facts, which are facts whether or not I acknowledge them. Many of these facts are not earth-bound. The ancient light that shines into my eye when I look into the night sky through a telescope supports the assertion that the universe is older than seven thousand years. Contorting one's mind to reject facts that contradict one's beliefs is, I should think, itself utterly depraved.

yeah I know, except for it's origin and other supernatural interventions by God.

why u read ilx???????/

also, how are "dissensions" bad?

I think this is the one comment that "got me" the most.
I need to go for now too.

House Loan or House Loan or http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ [http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ House Loan]