Have Sex, Do Drugs,' Speaker Tells Students

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A guest speaker at an assembly at Boulder High School in Colorado has told students as young as 14 to go have sex and use drugs, prompting school officials to say they will investigate.

The instructions came from Joel Becker, an associate clinical professor of psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately," Becker said during his appearance at the school as part of a recent panel sponsored by the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs.

"Why I am going to take that position is because you are going to do it anyway," he continued. "I think as a psychologist and health educator, it is more important to educate you in a direction that you might actually stick to. So, I am going to stay mostly on with the sex side because that is the area I know more about. I want to encourage you to all have healthy, sexual behavior."
The assembly was mandatory for all students.

PS they invited him back next year.

[naut]

At least he wants them to act appropriately while using drugs/having sex. :shrug:

[TB666]

Well he has a point.
They are gonna do it anyway so might as well teach them to do it properly and act appropriately.
Especially sex.

[Husar]

It all depends, but he's a funny guy.

While this may be true for many, I personally never did either, and I'm 21.:inquisitive:
So it's not necessarily so that everyone is going to do it anyway.
Maybe I should see a psychologist like him because I'm way too different and old fashioned.:dizzy2:

[sapi]

Well, he does have a point.

I will tell you now that as soon as anyone starts making trite statements, however true, about the dangers of drugs and unsafe sex, the majority of students switch off.

At least by a statement such as that the speaker would have gained the audience's attention and been able to make positive improvements to their attitudes.

[Kuni]

Who knew an associate professor of psychology might try reverse psychology?

The biggest teenage buzzkill after all, is doing something an adult thinks is cool, how lame.

but seriously, education is the key specially with drugs.
My first post in the backroom, hey!

[HoreTore]

I really, really can't see anything wrong with this...

[Zaknafien]

Really.. so what? He's telling them to enjoy life but be responsible about it. How can people be upset over that?

[doc_bean]

We had a similar thing when we were 14-15, but just about drugs (virtually no one preaches abstinence here anyway)

Inverse psychology and all, it takes away part of the cool-ness of drugs, I think it actually kept some kids off of drugs, and made some users more aware of 'responsible behaviour'. It's not always about drugs OR a good life, it's about finding a balance.

Well, it was reasonably entertaining anyway.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You people need help. If my kid went to that school somebody would have a bloody nose. Does it occur to any of you that some of us may not like our kids being taught that in school?

[Zaknafien]

why not? whats wrong with being responsible?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you think thats responsible you need help. As does Boulder Col. So you would approve me telling your children that ? And at 14?

[Zaknafien]

lol at 14 most kids are already having sex. that's not exactly new. its been happening for thousands of years and is quite natural, i assure you. kids experiment. it happens. get over it.

[TB666]

If you think thats responsible you need help. As does Boulder Col. So you would approve me telling your children that ? And at 14?
That's the age in Sweden where you are taught sex-ed and drugs in school and that you should do it appropriately and is exactly the right age to teach it as well.

[Odin]

If you think thats responsible you need help. As does Boulder Col. So you would approve me telling your children that ? And at 14?

I dont know Gwain usually you and I see eye to eye, but at 14 I was doing bong hits before school and figuring out ways to become more appreciated by females.

While its not a fun pill to swallow (this guys speech), the overall message is responsibility for an act that he believes they will commit anyway.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

lol at 14 most kids are already having sex. that's not exactly new. its been happening for thousands of years and is quite natural, i assure you. kids experiment. it happens. get over it.

Some do most dont. If you want your 14 year old daughter doing drugs and having sex thats fine with me, but if you try to teach my daughter that , then again your looking for a punch in the nose.


While its not a fun pill to swallow (this guys speech), the overall message is responsibility for an act that he believes they will commit anyway.

So you think he should visit all schools in the country and give this speech? Maybe we should teach them how to roll joints in school as well. Or how to make crack. Their only going to do it anyway. The point is this is a public school. The thing was mandatory the students could not opt out and the parents were never consulted, Get real.

[Odin]

So you think he should visit all schools in the country and give this speech?

Can we come up with a term for one of Gwains broad statements? All schools Gawain? Nah, i think my sons kindergarten class can be by passed for now.



Maybe we should teach them how to roll joints in school as well. Or how to make crack. Their only going to do it anyway.

Really Gawain must you be so dramatic? You almost sound like a liberal.... :laugh4:



The point is this is a public school. The thing was mandatory the students could not opt out and the parents were never consulted.

this part we agree in principal, parents should have been informed first of the content of the presentation and be allowed to have the option of not having thier kids attend, we can find common ground on that point.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

this part we agree in principal, parents should have been informed first of the content of the presentation and be allowed to have the option of not having thier kids attend, we can find common ground on that point.

This is the only part I have a problem with. Its kind of funny though if you were to teach your kids to do drugs at home you would be aressted. And I wonder what the law would say if you allowed your 14 year old daughter to have sex with her boyfriend with your supervision and approval. Isnt that still against the law?

[doc_bean]

This is the only part I have a problem with. Its kind of funny though if you were to teach your kids to do drugs at home you would be aressted. And I wonder what the law would say if you allowed your 14 year old daughter to have sex with her boyfriend with your supervision and approval. Isnt that still against the law?

If that involves you watching I'm pretty sure there would be some legal issues...

Honestly, MTV, music, movies, and other teenagers scream *HAVE SEX* about a thousand times a day, somehow I doubt a clinical professor saying the same thing is going to have an impact...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Honestly, MTV, music, movies, and other teenagers scream *HAVE SEX* about a thousand times a day,

And as a parent you can control what your child watches in your home. Again my problem is that this was mandatory and the children had to go without parental consultation or approval.

[doc_bean]

And as a parent you can control what your child watches in your home. Again my problem is that this was mandatory and the children had to go without parental consultation or approval.

What makes parents more qualified to educate their children about sex than a clinical professor ?

[Odin]

What makes parents more qualified to educate their children about sex than a clinical professor ?

I dont know if you posted this seriously (in reply to Gawain) or not, but i might skip lunch to watch for his response. :laugh4:

From time to time doc, your a pretty funny guy... :balloon2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont know if you posted this seriously (in reply to Gawain) or not, but i might skip lunch to watch for his response.

Well to tell the truth I didnt really think it deserved a response but Id hate to be responsible for you missing lunch. So here goes a quicky. How about we just hand our kids over to the state at 6 or 7 like the Spartans and let them educate them in ALL that is important. The real question you should ask yourself is " What makes this clinical professor more qualified to parent your children than you"?

[The Stranger]

hes right about sex... not drugs... cuz when you are going to the same with drugs youre actually saying its oke.. and its not

[Louis VI the Fat]

Blimey, next thing you know they're going to tell students to eat food and breath oxygen. :no:

[lars573]

If you think thats responsible you need help. As does Boulder Col. So you would approve me telling your children that ? And at 14?
I got the sex and safe sex health class in grade 8. When I was 13 (the discomfort burned it into my memory). That was 12 years ago. Even then only about half the females in my class were still virgins.

[English assassin]

My first post in the backroom, hey!

Welcome to the backroom :2thumbsup:

Watch out for the squid.

And now back to the fighting:


The real question you should ask yourself is " What makes this clinical professor more qualified to parent your children than you"?

Err, that would be his qualifications?

[Navaros]

Encouraging kids to have sex and do drugs is the politically correct thing to do nowadays. The speaker described in the original post was only slightly more blunt about it than any of the other "mainstream" speakers who deliver the exact same message everywhere. :furious3: This phenomenon is but one great example of the immoral cesspool that modern society has turned into.

[Zaknafien]

whats immoral about having sex?

[ajaxfetish]

What makes parents more qualified to educate their children about sex than a clinical professor ?
Well, the parents by definition have undeniable real-world experience with sex. How do I know this professor didn't just learn about it from his books? I'll take my education from the real experts anyday, thank you very much.

(and on a more serious note, the parents have a biological bond of concern for the well-being of their child. The professor has no such naturally good motives. One of my biggest concerns with modern society is the greater trust we give disinterested professionals over family)

Ajax

[Odin]

My first post in the backroom, hey!

To steal a term from another backroom patron welcome to the
cesspool :2thumbsup:

[doc_bean]

(and on a more serious note, the parents have a biological bond of concern for the well-being of their child. The professor has no such naturally good motives. One of my biggest concerns with modern society is the greater trust we give disinterested professionals over family)



Environmental activists, The Phelps family and Jihadists alike have the best intentions (okay, maybe not the Phelpses). I've said in other thread recently that motivation is a bad criterium to judge an action on.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Paging Dr. Timothy Leary...

[Devastatin Dave]

You people need help. If my kid went to that school somebody would have a bloody nose. Does it occur to any of you that some of us may not like our kids being taught that in school?
Dude, this is the wrong crowd to bring this up to. Morality is not a big issue to most here.

I just hate that my taxes are going to this public "education". Oh well, thank God for private schools, my kids will never see the inside of these government hell holes. :no:

[CrossLOPER]

whats immoral about having sex?
If you don't talk about it, it does not exist. Didn't you know that? Even thinking abouit sex makes you a pervert.

Of course, this repression can lead you to be a pretty screwed up individual with a shallow concept of sex, but hey, at least you're PRETENDING that you're not thinking about it.

[CrossLOPER]

I just hate that my taxes are going to this public "education". Oh well, thank God for private schools, my kids will never see the inside of these government hell holes. :no:
You know, if some parents would go ahead and do some research and teach their children about sex and drugs themselves, these half-baked presentaions would not be necessary.

But yeah, ignoring the core problem is fine too.

[doc_bean]

Dude, this is the wrong crowd to bring this up to. Morality is not a big issue to most here.

I just hate that my taxes are going to this public "education". Oh well, thank God for private schools, my kids will never see the inside of these government hell holes. :no:

If your kid gets influenced enough by such a little speech to completely give up his morals, you've done a bad job no matter where you put him. What do you think will happen when he discovers the real world ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You know, if some parents would go ahead and do some research and teach their children about sex and drugs themselves, these half-baked presentaions would not be necessary.

You dont think some do? If your a good parent you sure as hell do. The problem these days is everything is all about me and instant gratification. Let the state raise my kids. I cant be bothered. Unless your some crack pot conservative.

[doc_bean]

You dont think some do? If your a good parent you sure as hell do. The problem these days is everything is all about me and instant gratification. Let the state raise my kids. I cant be bothered. Unless your some crack pot conservative.

Errr...now that you admit most parents can't be bothered, how do you defend your "the parents knows best" statement ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Errr...now that you admit most parents can't be bothered, how do you defend your "the parents knows best" statement ?

Because its cause and affect. Why dont parents teach these things nowdays? because they think like you its the responsibility of the state. Most conservative parents will bother to teach these things. So you think the state knows best then. So lets return to the days of the Spartans. At 7 hand your children over to the state. The only reason to have children is for the good of the state. If the child is not perfect when born kill it.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So you're claiming that before schools had sex education, parents used to teach this stuff to their children themselves? No offence, but that's, well, wrong.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So you're claiming that before schools had sex education, parents used to teach this stuff to their children themselves? No offence, but that's, well, wrong.

So now your telling me what my parents didnt teach me? How is it before the pill and sex education teen pregnancy was at far lower levels than it is today? If you got laid in school when I was a kid it was rare. Oral sex was about the best that could be hoped for. Girls had morals and played hard to get :laugh4: Most girls today would have been called sluts back then if the dressed and acted the way they do now.

PS
Since most of you seem to think its fine and natural for kids to have sex at 14 I would imagine you would also support lowering the age of consent to that age and marriage as well.

[CrossLOPER]

So now your telling me what my parents didnt teach me? How is it before the pill and sex education teen pregnancy was at far lower levels than it is today? If you got laid in school when I was a kid it was rare. Oral sex was about the best that could be hoped for. Girls had morals and played hard to get :laugh4: Most girls today would have been called sluts back then if the dressed and acted the way they do now.
Yeah... the TP rate is actually lower now than it has been for about fourty years. So there's your slutty generation.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

yeah...

Well I know that certainly makes all you guys happy :laugh4:

I remember I was 19 when the pill became popular. Just in time.:laugh4: Man did things change after that. Nothing is all good or bad. Its my opinion that we were better off before it. But thats just my opinion. Most of you couldnt venture a guess because you have nothing to compare it to. Its always been this way for you.

[CrossLOPER]

Well I know that certainly makes all you guys happy :laugh4:

I remember I was 19 when the pill became popular. Just in time.:laugh4: Man did things change after that. The problem is you have to use it for it to work. Someone forgot to tell some of these girls it seems nowdays.
Read edit PLZ. :)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah... the TP rate is actually lower now than it has been for about fourty years. So there's your slutty generation.

Well being Im 59 you just proved my point thank you very much :laugh4: What happened 40 years ago?


PS I doubt anyone here has done more drugs or had more sex than me :whip: :laugh4:

[CrossLOPER]

Well being Im 59 you just proved my point thank you very much :laugh4: What happened 40 years ago?


PS I doubt anyone here has done more drugs or had more sex than me :whip: :laugh4:
It was STILL HIGHER IN THE FIFTIES.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/98news/teenrel.htm

To be fair, they were married then.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

So...... the entire argument appears to be bs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nice dodge but admit that you just proved my point please. :laugh4:

[CrossLOPER]

Nice dodge but admit that you just proved my point please. :laugh4:
I like to get in a word first. :beam:

edit plox.

All I'm trying to point out is that your claim that THE PILL MADE PEOPLE EVIL is false.

[TinCow]

What happened 40 years ago?

Gender rolls began to blur when women started entering the work place and achieving equal rights. Along with this blurring of gender rolls went the dissolution of the old system of gender morality, as shown by this statement:


Girls had morals and played hard to get :laugh4: Most girls today would have been called sluts back then if the dressed and acted the way they do now.

As you are stating, womens' morality changed, not mens'. We have always been the dirty dogs looking for action, that's no different today than 40 years ago. Yet because women have now started to become equal to men in almost all aspect of society, including sex, that is deemed a degradation of morality. One of the realities of gender equality is that your special princess becomes just one of the boys. (Relatively speaking)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It was STILL HIGHER IN THE FIFTIES.

You better check what your posting and linking.


All I'm trying to point out is that your claim that THE PILL MADE PEOPLE EVIL is false.

I didnt say it did. I love sluts :laugh4:

[Husar]

Your problem is that you're just not enlightened enough, Gawain, the times change, orgies on the marketplace are the next big step I guess.
Some activist group will start it, the news will broadcast it and soon you will see it everywhere, it will be part of normal life, think of standing in line at the bus stop or in the supermarket...I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone and it's fun, no?:help:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your problem is that you're just not enlightened enough,

Tell me about it. And all this time here I was thinking it was me and my generation that started this whole mess.:laugh4: We were such closed minded bigots back in the 60s.

[CrossLOPER]

You better check what your posting and linking.
OK.... what do you see in those graphs?

[Shahed]

It's better to be on the good side of your kids. You can achieve this by supporting their natural instincts (within obvious limits). I'd prefer my kids did not hide that they were having sex and smoking joints all night. This way at least I'm aware what's going on. If you pose a challenge to the kids development they will hide things from you. It's better to be part of your childrens lives, than to be outside.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK.... what do you see in those graphs?

Is this a game ?

OK Ill play. What do you see? Nothing to refute my claims thats for sure. Its not even on topic. Well slightly Ill give you that.

[CrossLOPER]

Is this a game ?

OK Ill play. What do you see? Nothing to refute my claims thats for sure. Its not even on topic. Well slightly Ill give you that.
Pill came out in 1960.

You said:


So now your telling me what my parents didnt teach me? How is it before the pill and sex education teen pregnancy was at far lower levels than it is today? If you got laid in school when I was a kid it was rare. Oral sex was about the best that could be hoped for. Girls had morals and played hard to get Most girls today would have been called sluts back then if the dressed and acted the way they do now.

Graphs show that TPR peak was in 1957. YOU ARE WRONG.

What's the problem?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its says TBR are down

What else happened in the 60s?

[CrossLOPER]

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/gawain_wtf.jpg

[Kralizec]

It says that birth rates for women aged 15-19 became more prevalent in the 50'ties and peaked in 57, after wich it went down. After a short upward movement in the second half of the 80'ties, it went down again.

Catagories 18-19 and 15-17 don't appear on the graph before 1960 but otherwise follow the same pattern.

EDIT: mixed up birth and pregnancy rates

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You missed my edit :laugh4:

Anyway even if I give you that it was slighlty higher in 57 wouldnt you have to admit that with the amount of birth control available today its amzing that we still have that high a pregnancy rate? You certainly wont argue that teenage sex is far more prevalent today will you? The fat that birthrates have only gone down a little bit with the millions of abortions that have been performed is also worrying. You people forget that there are consequenses to sex and all of them are not fun. Again I ask should the age of consent be lowered to 14 everywhere?

[doc_bean]

You missed my edit :laugh4:

Anyway even if I give you that it was slighlty higher in 57 wouldnt you have to admit that with the amount of birth control available today its amzing that we still have that high a pregnancy rate? You certainly wont argue that teenage sex is far more prevalent today will you? The fat that birthrates have only gone down a little bit with the millions of abortions that have been performed is also worrying. You people forget that there are consequenses to sex and all of them are not fun. Again I ask should the age of consent be lowered to 14 everywhere?

Wait, what has this got to do with some professor talking in schools ?:focus:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wait, what has this got to do with some professor talking in schools

Everything if youve followed the thread.

[doc_bean]

Everything if youve followed the thread.

Not really, you're talking about non-causally related data

1) Teaching adolescents about sex
2) the increase of sex amongst adolescents

You even mention the rise of the pill as one of the most probable cause of the rise, yet you want to show that it's the fault of sex-ed.

Attitudes have changed,w hether or not some professor gives a speech to a bunch of HS kids doesn't make a difference.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You even mention the rise of the pill as one of the most probable cause of the rise, yet you want to show that it's the fault of sex-ed.


Where did I say that? I said if I want my child to go to such a meeting I want to be informed of whats is to be taught . And Im saying that its better taught at home.

[Cowhead418]

Well, he does have a point.

I will tell you now that as soon as anyone starts making trite statements, however true, about the dangers of drugs and unsafe sex, the majority of students switch off.So true. As a teenager right now, anytime an adult says "DON'T DO IT" it almost guarantees that I will have the urge to do it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So true. As a teenager right now, anytime an adult says "DON'T DO IT" it almost guarantees that I will have the urge to do it.

Wow thats new among teenagers . We never thought like that :smash:

So we should have the school teach our kids how to steal, their only going to do it anyway, how to lie, how cheat and to smoke cigarettes , pipes and cigars as well as chew tobacco and lets not forget to teach them same sex techniques . Their only going to do it any way.

[Kuni]

so who's teaching kids HOW to do drugs and HOW to have sex? You're totally missing the point Gawain.

EDIT: thanks for the welcome and the warning about the squid Odin and English assassin!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so who's teaching kids HOW to do drugs and HOW to have sex? You're totally missing the point Gawain.

No you are. Looking back I see its my fault. I cant find a link but it seems thats exactly what this guy was doing. And your missing the point. Lets change how to "its ok"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well Ive found a better link


Heres another one of their assemblies

Principal bans parents from pro-'gay' seminar (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54708)Public district students offered guidance on being homosexual

Im sure you are all in favor of forcing children to attend such things without their parents approval.

They had a second class where school officials ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.


The sophomore, Daphne, had been required to attend the panel called "STDs: Sex, Teens and Drugs," and accused panel members of presenting one-sided views and discrediting abstinence.

The White family said the conference statement wasn't even accurate.

"The panelists irresponsibly advised Boulder High students to have sex and use drugs," the family responded. "Teenage abstinence was dismissed as an unwise choice and indicative of religious hang-ups."

LINK (http://vitaly4.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1&CID=3)

[Kuni]

After a quick search, I found the full transcript of the assembly in question was available here (http://www.bvsdwatch.org/content/view/91/1/). I thought I should share it while I'm still reading it, because I'm a very slow reader. ~)

EDIT:

Alright, I've read the full transcript and think that the execution was good. One thing not to discount is that Boulder High is markedly liberal, as the speakers acknowledged, and likely tailored their introductory statements with this in mind. With their introductions and stated attitude toward the topic, they created an environment that made it conducive for students to ask, unashamed, questions they wanted answered. The students were encouraged to think about sex and drugs, mindful of their consequences. This is the responsible central message I got from it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You just dont get it. This is all well and fine if the parents give permission and the students are not forced to attend. Im no holier than tho. Your positions are ridiculous. As for me I think most of it was very clever and well presented but I didnt read it all and there were a few there that I wasnt sure past the smell test :laugh4: I sure wouldnt want my kid attending it. And thats the whole point. These guys remind me other parents who want to be their kids best friends. Whatever happened to telling kids they have the power to make good choices?

[Kuni]

This is all well and fine if the parents give permission and the students are not forced to attend.
What makes it suddenly not all well and fine if it was compulsory?

Some parents don't want other people to talk to their kids about sex and drugs because they themselves don't want to talk to their kids about sex and drugs. Like a lot of the patrons here have joked about, lack of information is what lessens these kids' power to make good choices. Not surprisingly, these are precisely the kids I want to be reached by these talks.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It is not all well and fine to tell 14-year-olds to go ahead and have sex and take drugs. However if you read the transcript of the event you see that this is not what Joel Becker said. The original quote was out of context. Look at the whole of the speech and you see that he is advocating waiting and he is not just talking about STDs and unwanted pregnancy; these you can take steps to avoid; he talks about the emotional aspects which you can't cover up by slipping something on. Add to that the contribution of the other speakers and you have an event that was probably beneficial. Perhaps it was a little explicit for my taste - but that it all it offends - my sense of taste and I am not sure that all these adults talking about sex will have much impact on 14-year-olds except to make them say "eugh gross!" but I don't see anything here to get annoyed about.

[doc_bean]

You just dont get it. This is all well and fine if the parents give permission and the students are not forced to attend. Im no holier than tho. Your positions are ridiculous. As for me I think most of it was very clever and well presented but I didnt read it all and there were a few there that I wasnt sure past the smell test :laugh4: I sure wouldnt want my kid attending it. And thats the whole point. These guys remind me other parents who want to be their kids best friends. Whatever happened to telling kids they have the power to make good choices?

Then why don't you want them exposed to other opinions and make up their own mind, you know, have a choice ? :inquisitive:

[Husar]

Then why don't you want them exposed to other opinions and make up their own mind, you know, have a choice ?
Why can't the kids choose whether they want to attend such things at school? Why make it compulsory?
It's funny that here in liberal Germany I was never forced to attend such things, don't even know whether they exist here. Ok, we had a teacher who liked to show sex-ed films sometimes, but that was quite funny and I think my parents were faster anyway.:laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Since most of you seem to think its fine and natural for kids to have sex at 14 I would imagine you would also support lowering the age of consent to that age and marriage as well.

The age of consent is there to prevent OLDER people taking advantage of minors. It's not very hard for an older someone who wants it, to convince a 14-year to have sex with him/her, as the 14-year old won't really know what they want. However, when we are talking about 2 14-year olds, the situation changes, because they are both at the same development stage, and one of them can't do the mind trick on the other like a 25-year old can.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The age of consent is there to prevent OLDER people taking advantage of minors.

So what if all sex is good as these people say,


However if you read the transcript of the event you see that this is not what Joel Becker said.

The one speaker there told them that orgies were fine. True most of it can be seen as positive.


Then why don't you want them exposed to other opinions and make up their own mind, you know, have a choice ?

Ok so we can teach Chrisitianity in schools again. Yay

[HoreTore]

So what if all sex is good as these people say

There's a big difference between exploitation and sex. You should know that.

[Odin]

Ok so we can teach Chrisitianity in schools again.

Fair point Gawain, accept that little thing of seperation between church and state. While technically its not in the 1st amendement (the specific term) there are a whole bunch of supreme court rulings that link the phrase to the 1st amendment.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state'...is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson

I agree with Jefferson, and while technically schools arent apart of the federal state he infer's, they are managed by individual states and therefore should be subject to the application of supreme courts rulings on seperations.

Or we could be literal and take the 1st amendment to the edge and allow every kook with a half baked notion thier freedom of speech, on the public dime.

Nah, lets leave the religous folks at church, but give them the right to decide of thier kids have to hear sex education lectures in the public schools thier taxes pay for.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Fair point Gawain, accept that little thing of seperation between church and state. While technically its not in the 1st amendement (the specific term) there are a whole bunch of supreme court rulings that link the phrase to the 1st amendment.

And they are wrong. The origianl verdict by them on the topic was that Christianity must be taught in schools. This seperation of church and state thing is a recent abhoration. Until the 1840s or later christianity was taught in every school in our nation.


agree with Jefferson, and while technically schools arent apart of the federal state he infer's, they are managed by individual states and therefore should be subject to the application of supreme courts rulings on seperations.


Well then you should study what he meant by that quote. It has been taken out of context. He wouldnt approve of the way we use it today.


Nah, lets leave the religous folks at church, but give them the right to decide of thier kids have to hear sex education lectures in the public schools thier taxes pay for.
Today 12:17

And if I dont want my tax dollars going for this screw me right :wall:

[Zaknafien]

well if people like you had their way long ago, school kids would still be taught that the sun revolved around the earth and that God made the world in 7 24-hour days. *groan*

[Odin]

And they are wrong. The origianl verdict by them on the topic was that Christianity must be taught in schools. This seperation of church and state thing is a recent abhoration. Until the 1840s or later christianity was taught in every school in our nation.

My comments on this would be a complete hijack of the thread, not to mention unflaterring to my christian friends here at the org so I will concede with the cavaet that I dont think they were wrong at all, but would have preferred they left it up to the states to decide.


Well then you should study what he meant by that quote. It has been taken out of context. He wouldnt approve of the way we use it today.

No he probably wouldnt, religion has far to much influence on the state as is, I know exactly what he meant, he conceded the power of religion as an influence on peoples decision making, and concluded it was best not to include that variable in the government process.

Hip hip hooray ! Sign me up :yes:



And if I dont want my tax dollars going for this screw me right :wall:

That depends on where you choose to live, your level of participation in local government and if how hard you choose to push. The problem is we hand over millions to admin to run a school program and we pipe up and scream foul when they do something we dont like.

the other 97% of the time there making decisions they were hired to make, based on thier credentials, thats capitalism in its wonderful glory.

[Odin]

well if people like you had their way long ago, school kids would still be taught that the sun revolved around the earth and that God made the world in 7 24-hour days. *groan*

Didnt he rest on the 7th?

No wait thats when he made the earth flat :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No he probably wouldnt, religion has far to much influence on the state as is, I know exactly what he meant, he conceded the power of religion as an influence on peoples decision making, and concluded it was best not to include that variable in the government process.

Wrong again


That depends on where you choose to live, your level of participation in local government and if how hard you choose to push. The problem is we hand over millions to admin to run a school program and we pipe up and scream foul when they do something we dont like.

Do you realise just how many parents would oppose such a class in their schools? Its a pretty large percentage. Just look at the comments posted by most people on that in the link provided.

By the way If you want a little spanking be my guest and start a thread on this topic. I already handed Zaknafien his head on a platter on it.:laugh4:


well if people like you had their way long ago, school kids would still be taught that the sun revolved around the earth and that God made the world in 7 24-hour days. *groan*

Really? Didnt you notice that I posted that the teaching of chritianity was mandatory in all US schools at least into the 1840s. Yet they didnt teach what you claim.

[Watchman]

Yet they didnt teach what you claim.You're saying they didn't teach creationism ? Word. Really ahead of their times then, given that the relevant scientific theories were still a fair ways in the future at that point...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You're saying they didn't teach creationism ?

Did they teach the sun revolves around the earth? I have no idea if they taught creationism. Im sure many did.


Really ahead of their times then, given that the relevant scientific theories were still a fair ways in the future at that point...

My point is that they taught what was relevant at the time.

[Zaknafien]

In the time of Washington, for instance, education was largely through allegory, and the bible played a significant part. If you've ever been to George Washtington's home, youll see many of what are called "School-stones", i.e., pictures on walls of people doing things, many of them stories from the bible, school children were taught through examination of the picture, what they represented, morality, etc.

[doc_bean]

Ok so we can teach Chrisitianity in schools again. Yay

I had 'religion' as a mandatory course :shrug:

[Watchman]

Did they teach the sun revolves around the earth?Learn to recognize a rhetorical hyperbole for emphasis for what it is.


I have no idea if they taught creationism. Im sure many did. Make that "all" and don't try to evade the point. Not only was there a dire shortage of competing versions, that was also a time when religion still played a rather dominant part in most folks' worldview.


My point is that they taught what was relevant at the time.Make that "thought to be important".

[Odin]

Wrong again

reference?

I have enough humility to admit when I am wrong (a rare trait in the backroom, dont you agree Gawain :inquisitive: )


Do you realise just how many parents would oppose such a class in their schools? Its a pretty large percentage. Just look at the comments posted by most people on that in the link provided.


absolutely I'm one of them thats why I said it should be approved at a town meeting level, ive been to plenty of them and sadly less then 30% of voters show up. Its only until after something like this happens do the people come waving thier rightousness sticks.



By the way If you want a little spanking be my guest and start a thread on this topic. I already handed Zaknafien his head on a platter on it.:laugh4:

Both images have given me cause to push away from my desk, in the literal sense of course. here in the fantasy world of the backroom, you dont frighten me one bit, and I suspect you having Zak's head on a platter is your own perception of how the discussion went, but hardly would be the concensus.



Really? Didnt you notice that I posted that the teaching of chritianity was mandatory in all US schools at least into the 1840s.

And they were wrong

[Zaknafien]

LOL wow. Talk about zealotry.. Look, I have an open mind about pretty much everything and can be convinced if given valid argument. But absolutely none of your points are convincing, Gawain. I'd re-evaluate my perceptions if I were you, you'll never convince an unbiased person that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians and wanted to educate Americans in the way of Jesus.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have enough humility to admit when I am wrong (a rare trait in the backroom, dont you agree Gawain )


Without a doubt :laugh4:


reference?




Separation: Original Intent or Recent Invention?

A Fatal Flaw

The constant appeal to Jefferson’s Danbury letter by hard core separationists reveals a fatal flaw in their approach. Quoting Jefferson’s opinion only matters if Jefferson’s original intent still applies today. If it doesn’t, then the Danbury citation is irrelevant. If it does, then Jefferson’s full views on the issue have merit in this discussion.

It’s clear, though, that the Everson Court used Jefferson’s words, not his ideas. The separation language itself was not in common use at the time. It does not show up in any notes of the Constitutional Convention or of the Congress responsible for the Bill of Rights or the First Amendment.

What was Jefferson’s intent? To show that the Federal government couldn’t establish a national denomination. That’s all. In another letter, this one to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson expanded on his view:

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far is it can be in any human authority.[viii]

This is a stunning revelation for advocates of a Jeffersonian model of separation. According to Jefferson, the Federal Government couldn’t prescribe religious exercise or discipline, but the states could. It wasn’t until 1947 that the Everson Court made the federal provision binding on the states, expressly contrary to Jefferson, though they quoted him for support.

For nearly two centuries state and federal governments have had such a benevolent attitude towards religion in general and Christianity in particular--including the almost universal practice of school prayer--that it would make a 1990s fundamentalist blush.

LINK (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5176)



Make that "all" and don't try to evade the point. Not only was there a dire shortage of competing versions, that was also a time when religion still played a rather dominant part in most folks' worldview.


Exactly. The founding father were no different. Despite what other here claim they were mostly deeply religious men

[Watchman]

Everyone knows they were devil-worshipping Freemasons every man jack of 'em anyway.

[Zaknafien]

Freemasons don't worship the devil, we don't worship any God but do think there is a sort of higher intelligence in the universe and simply seek knowledge. I am a proud Mason and am proud to say the Founders were in our ranks as well. They sought knowledge and enlightment like the rest of us, there is no discussion of religion in any meeting of Masons.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Freemasons don't worship the devil, we don't worship any God

Your daft

You are aware that every US president has been a christian right?

So now you are going to tell me none of these people were.


MASONIC PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
George Washington, 1st President, 1789 - 1797, Commanding General during American Revolution, made a Mason August 4, 1753, in Fredericksburg Lodge (now No. 4), A. F. & A. M., Fredericksburg, Virginia.
James Monroe, 5th President, 1817 - 1825, made a Mason November 9, 1775, in Williamsburg Lodge (now No. 6), A.F. & A.M., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Andrew Jackson, 7th President, 1829 - 1837 Harmony Lodge No. 1, Nashville, Tennessee, an Honorary Member of Federal Lodge No. 1, F. & A.M., Washington, D.C., and Jackson Lodge No. 1, F. & A.M., Tallahassee, Florida. In 1822 and 1823 he served as the Grand Master of Masons in Tennessee.
James Knox Polk, 11th President, 1845 - 1849, made a Mason September 4, 1820, in Columbia Lodge No. 31, F. & A.M., Columbia, Tennessee.
James Buchanan, 15th President, 1857 - 1861, made a Mason January 24, 1817, in Lodge No. 43 (it has no name), F. & A.M., Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Andrew Johnson, 17th President, 1865 - 1869, made a Mason during May, 1851, in Greeneville Lodge No. 119 (now No. 3), F. & A.M., Greeneville, Tennessee.
James Abram Garfield, 20th President. 1881, made a Mason November 22, 1864, in Columbus Lodge No. 30 F. & A.M., Columbus, Ohio.
William McKinley, 25th President, 1897 - 1901, made a Mason May 3, 1865, in Hiram Lodge No. 21, A.F. & A.M., Winchester, Virginia.
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President, 1901 - 1909, made a Mason April 24, 1901, in Matinecock Lodge No. 806, F. & A.M., Oyster Bay, New York.
William Howard Taft, 27th President, 1909 - 1913 - Chief Justice Supreme Court 1921 - 1930, made a "Mason at Sight" in an "Occassional Lodge" called for that purpose on February 18, 1909, in the Scottish Rite Cathedral, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Charles S. Hoskinson, Grand Master of Masons in Ohio.
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 29th President, 1921 - 1923, made a Mason August 27, 1920, in Marion Lodge No. 70, F. & A.M., Marion, Ohio.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President, 1933 - 1945, made a Mason November 28, 1911, in Holland Lodge No. 8, F. & A.M., New York, New York, the same Lodge in which George Washington, the Nation's first President, held Honorary membership.
Harry S. Truman, 33rd President, 1945 - 1951, made a Mason March 18, 1909, in Belton Lodge No. 450, A.F. & A.M., Belton, Missouri. He served as the Grand Master of Masons of Missouri in 1940.
Initiated: February 9, 1909, Belton Lodge No. 450, Belton, Missouri.
In 1911, several Members of Belton Lodge separated to establish Grandview Lodge No. 618, Grandview, Missouri, and Brother Truman served as its first Worshipful Master. At the Annual Session of the Grand Lodge of Missouri, September 24-25, 1940, Brother Truman was elected (by a landslide) the ninety-seventh Grand Master of Masons of Missouri, and served until October 1, 1941. Brother and President Truman was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33º, and Honorary Member, Supreme Council on October 19,1945 at the Supreme Council A.A.S.R. Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington D.C., upon which occasion he served as Exemplar (Representative) for his Class. He was also elected an Honorary Grand Master of the International Supreme Council, Order of DeMolay. On May 18, 1959, Brother and Former President Truman was presented with a fifty-year award, the only U.S. President to reach that golden anniversary in Freemasonry.
Gerald R. Ford, Jr. 38th President, 1974 - 1977. He was raised to the Sublime degree of Master Mason on May 18, 1951 in Columbia Lodge No. 3, F. &.A.M., of Washington, D.C., as a courtesy for Malta Lodge No. 465, F. & A.M. of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1908-1973. 36th President, 1963 - 1969. Entered Apprentice degree Johnson City Lodge No. 561, Johnson City, Texas October 30, 1937. Did not advance.

[Zaknafien]

would you mean "you're" daft? I assure you, Freemasonry has nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Practically the opposite. Look at our charters, if you think differently.

The Supreme Being is purposefully very vague allowing any intrepreation you wish.

[Odin]

Without a doubt :laugh4:


LINK (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5176)




Excellent Gawain, its moment like these that I put aside my notion that your a whacko and replace it with a man who backs up his claims, thank you for not dissapointing. :2thumbsup:

I was wrong in my application of the quote in relation to subsequent rulings. I do however hold that his initial intent still holds true in spirit, and thus the use of the quote by me and others. the subsequent rulings obviously havent quelled the spirit of his intent, and that on a spirtual level perhaps (pun intended) still makes it a valid point of argue.

Albeit not in technical terms of law.

[Zaknafien]

Yes, Masons are allowed to hold any religious belief they choose, hence the vagueness of the Supreme Being creed. The popular choice to be an American president would be a profession in Christianity that should not suprise you. What is your point?

by the way, the author of that piece in the link you provided, Koukl, is a religious nut-case.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Albeit not in technical terms of law.

SCOTUS definetly over stepped its bounds in the Everson case just as the did with Roe vs Wade. There is no basis in the constitution for either.


would you mean "you're" daft? I assure you, Freemasonry has nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. Practically the opposite. Look at our charters, if you think differently.

Now you are claiming to be a free mason? Well go back and look at my list. Look where some of these people were inducted into free masonry

[Slyspy]

My point is that they taught what was relevant at the time.

Lol.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lol.

What did you expect them to teach nuclear physics? :wall:

[Zaknafien]

uh, yes I am a Mason, thats not very difficult to do, a plurality of officers in the US Army are.

[Slyspy]

What did you expect them to teach nuclear physics? :wall:

No, I was laughing at this statement in the context of the thread as a whole, not at what they taught in 1840.

Edit:

How about we move the Masons to another thread?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

uh, yes I am a Mason, thats not very difficult to do, a plurality of officers in the US Army are.

And to think I was in the Marines and never met a one. Must be an army thing :laugh4:

Being a Mason does not exclude you from being a practicing christian. In fact many claim the hold the secret to the holy grail and that they are the desendants of the Templars. A christian holy order to be sure.

By the way how many Muslims are Masons? How about hindus , Jews?

[Watchman]

Didn't the whole thing originally grow out of the associations of Medieval cathedral-builders to begin with, anyway ?

[Odin]

By the way how many Muslims are Masons? How about hindus , Jews?

You must be loads of fun at the casino, always raising the ante

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Didn't the whole thing originally grow out of the associations of Medieval cathedral-builders to begin with, anyway ?

Actually they claim to go back much earlier than that, much of their teaching is tied to Solomon's temple, But modern masonry came about in 1717.

As to Zaknafien's claim that they do not practice or are based on any religion maybe he should quit and join a new organization.:laugh4:


Source of Authority. Masons refer to the Bible as the "Volume of the Sacred Law" (V.S.L.)

This is only for christian lodges lol. They use the Koran for Muslim ones


Masons require one to believe in God to be a member,


You must be loads of fun at the casino, always raising the ante

Well it is only a 3 hour drive to Atlantic City :)

Besides as I posted I found out that Masons have lodges based on every religion.

[Watchman]

That's brownie points for them then.

[ShadeHonestus]

I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately


The assembly was mandatory for all students.

PS they invited him back next year.

Back on topic, so I can go off topic.

This reminds me of when one of my brothers as student body president and economics major once invited a black economist to give a series of lectures at his campus. My brother was celebrated among the liberal economic professors, endorsements all around. The not so secret secret to anybody who actually knew the field of economic players at the time, was that he was conservative. After the lectures my brother received threats all around, repeatedly being referred to as that conservative S O B by most professors (this is the same crowd that will spend your tuition dollars for half a semester, trying to convince you that Reagenomics were the antichrist lol). When he asked if he should extend the invitation next year...well the answer was of course, NO. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who did he invite Walter E. Williams? :laugh4:

[ShadeHonestus]

Who did he invite Walter E. Williams? :laugh4:

Yep :laugh4:

The university was St. Olaf in Minnesota...not a conservative think tank to put it mildly. Although they did have an extremely high academic rating back in the 70's and early 80's, they have lost a ton of cred since then.

[Spino]

I got the sex and safe sex health class in grade 8. When I was 13 (the discomfort burned it into my memory). That was 12 years ago. Even then only about half the females in my class were still virgins.

That's really disturbing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I just noticed this

LOL wow. Talk about zealotry.. Look, I have an open mind about pretty much everything and can be convinced if given valid argument.




Obviously as you claim you were once a conservative and now havent a vestage of conservatism left in you. Have I confinced you yet that the FFs were christians and that this was and is a christian nation? That there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution?


I suspect you having Zak's head on a platter is your own perception of how the discussion went, but hardly would be the concensus.

Then just like global warming the consensus would be wrong. I havent heard a word from him since. The supreme court said that the US was a christian nation and that no school could be built here that did not teach christianity. What more proof do you need? This was so until 1947.



That's really disturbing.

Isnt it. Funny some where here I asked about the age of consent and was told it was to stop older people from taking advantage of chidren. Thats the point their chidren. What makes them any more fit to have sex with someone their own age? That they probably will have a better experience?

This has to be the most convoluted thread every here.

[Odin]

Then just like global warming the consensus would be wrong.

trade you two apples for an orange Gawain :wall:



I havent heard a word from him since.

Talking about Zak right? That will change, he most be in the can.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

trade you two apples for an orange Gawain

Hey it was a metaphor a joke.


Talking about Zak right? That will change, he most be in the can.

He certainly is never short for words :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Isnt it. Funny some where here I asked about the age of consent and was told it was to stop older people from taking advantage of chidren. Thats the point their chidren. What makes them any more fit to have sex with someone their own age? That they probably will have a better experience?If they now are going to have sex with someone, better it be another curious kid than some creepy adult. I would think the difference between the two was fairly obvious ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If they now are going to have sex with someone, better it be another curious kid than some creepy adult

Are you serious. Who knows more about sex? Exactly when do you become creepy? Its better to have two people who dont know what their doing? :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

well actually I was at work, but am home now :) As for your quote on the Masons, no, there is no requirement to believe in "God". There IS a requirement to believe in the "Great Architect". This belief is deliberately vague, which allows any Mason to interpret his belief however he chooses. The foundation of the Masons is a seeking of knowledge, not a belief in any religion. While most believe in "One God" this is not defined as Christianity or Judaism or Islam, it is the acknowledgement of an intelligent design.


From the Supreme Council Scottish Rite website:


Is Freemasonry a religion?


No. While it is a requirement that each member believe in a Supreme Being, it is not important how one expresses that very personal belief. Further, there is no dogmatic system in Freemasonry. However, confusion about the secular nature of Freemasonry has been a common misconception for many years. Most likely, this misconception is due to the Holy Book that sits on the altar in the middle of a Masonic lodge. This Holy Book does not have to be Christian, like the Bible, rather it can be any Holy Book that is important to the members of the lodge. In the U.S. where the population is mostly Christian, the Holy Book most often used in Lodges is the King James Version of the Bible.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

there is no requirement to believe in "God".

So then the article I quoted lied?


Is Freemasonry a religion?


Did I ever say it was? How could it be with so many religions represented.

[Zaknafien]

Yes, the article you quoted lied. The "Supreme Architect" is not defined as God. Although, yes, in some lodges the majority if not all members happen to understand God as the Christian concept of God and thats fine, they can do that if they so choose.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You better stop joining organizations on a whim of the moment like the army :laugh4:


"While all these faiths assert their claims to the exclusive possession of the Truth, Masonry inculcates its old doctrine, and no more: 'That God is One ...'" (Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma" p. 576, Teachings of the 26 Degree).


"God in the view of Pythagoras, was One ..." (Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma, p. 667 Teachings of the 27 Degree).


What do Masons believe in?

All Masons believe in one God and in respect for each other.


Atheists are not accepted into our fraternity.

Maybe you should quit.

How many sites would you like me to link these quotes too?

[Kuni]

You must be loads of fun at the casino, always raising the ante
at least it's on-topic. oh, wait.

[Zaknafien]

Oh, Im not really an Atheist, Im more of a skeptic-deist. I acknowledge there is a sort of order to the universe and that an intelligent designer or designers may well exist at a higher level of knowledge than us, but the concept of the judeo-christian god is inherently false. Masonry is all about seeking ancient knowledge, for example the roots of ancient hebrew religious cult and the many gods they worshiped which evolved over centuries into the concept of Yahweh.

I should caveat though by putting emphasis on my own skepticism; I often wonder for example about the silly notion of man being made in God's own image Our DNA string is riddled with useless leftovers of elder days and lower creatures, we have an appendix, a useless vestigal tail, a needless coat of hair thats grown (and shed) while still in the womb, easily worn out knees and lower backs, insane reproductive organs (especially for us men)... if God is in the details, he seems sort of clumsy and maybe drunken.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your problem is that you hear to much of this hype that god is perfect and I guess believe it. If he created us he couldnt be perfect seems to always be your argument. Well its obvious that if there is a god he is not perfect. On that you will get no argument from me. Why should he be perfect. It doesnt take all that much to be superior in knowledge to us :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

yes, but silly religions claim he is all knowing and perfect, without sin, blah blah blah. which directly contradicts the torah which says many times that god is angry, or jealous, or spiteful. its crazy what some people believe (evangelicals mostly). Im not denying anyone the right to a spritual belief in a "Creator" or "Designer", even if it turns out to be some alien entity of ancient intelligence or whatever. But the adherence to ancient cults borne of the ignorance of early man is anathema to me.

[ShadeHonestus]

its crazy what some people believe

I just had to quote that for the sake of referencing its source.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

yes, but silly religions claim he is all knowing and perfect,

Again you keep mixing up religions with organised churches. These IMO are abominations of his ideas . Jefferson thought the same. Thats why you think he is anti religious yet he claims to be a true christian. If you want to be a christian then follow the words of Christ and not the dogma of some church that claims only it represents his word.

[Zaknafien]

yes but the ideal of Christ itself is rather silly and implies a self-important view of humanity and some personal intrest of this supreme entity in your silly little life.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

yes but the ideal of Christ itself is rather silly and implies a self-important view of humanity and some personal intrest of this supreme entity in your silly little life.

And thats bad because? What if their right?

[Watchman]

Egocentrism tends to be regarded as a negative trait in general.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Egocentrism tends to be regarded as a negative trait in general.

Isnt that what religious people think of atheists . We think your too wrapped up in your own and mans grandeur. That you are all that counts. No my friend the shoe is on the other foot here. How does believing in god make you self centered person. Just the opposite is so.

[Zaknafien]

Thats ridicuclous. The idea of personal religion is the most egocentric and self-important view one can have. To imagine that the Supremo-Ultimate GOD of Goodness and Awesomeness has an intrest in a cosmically insignificant collection of matter such as yourself that lives for only a nanosecond on the cosmic timescale is just silly. To imagine that you need to converse with said deity several times a day just to remind him that you're there is even worse. People aren't that important.

[doc_bean]

Isnt that what religious people think of atheists . We think your too wrapped up in your own and mans grandeur. That you are all that counts. No my friend the shoe is on the other foot here. How does believing in god make you self centered person. Just the opposite is so.

It's not about believing in God, it's about believing God gives a damn about you and you're the reason for creation.

Honestly, I don't think either side can claim to be less egocentric, it's all about interpretation and who's egocentric depends more on the eprson than his or her beliefs :shrug:

[Redleg]

Honestly, I don't think either side can claim to be less egocentric, it's all about interpretation and who's egocentric depends more on the person than his or her beliefs :shrug:

Absolutely correct in my opinion.

I also find it funny how Zaknafien continues to modify his postion versus admitting that his initial statement was indeed incorrect as it relates to the founding fathers of the United States,

Being a free-mason does not necessarily mean one is not a christian.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Honestly, I don't think either side can claim to be less egocentric, it's all about interpretation and who's egocentric depends more on the eprson than his or her beliefs

Exactly. As I always say moderation in all things is the name of the game. This is something Zak really needs to learn :laugh4: Stop going off on extremes and find the middle ground. Thats where the truth usually lies.

I just noted thats sort of an oxymoron (where the truth lies) Stupid english language :)
I guess theres more that 1 way to take that.

[Major Robert Dump]

Parents should have been warned and have the option for their kid to opt out in a non conspicuous way. I don't care how qualified this guy is, if you are going to counsel someone on a topic such as this, it is best done in an intimate manner, not in a huge, mob-rules assembly of all students.

Had a similar instance when i was in high school 14 years ago. This is hoestly nothing new. The "speaker" said things that I had never concieved, and I wasn't exactly a boy scout. Can't say the "speaker" screwed me up in life, but nonetheless I'm sure there were people in the audience who didnt need to hear it.

[Husar]

Thats ridicuclous. The idea of personal religion is the most egocentric and self-important view one can have. To imagine that the Supremo-Ultimate GOD of Goodness and Awesomeness has an intrest in a cosmically insignificant collection of matter such as yourself that lives for only a nanosecond on the cosmic timescale is just silly. To imagine that you need to converse with said deity several times a day just to remind him that you're there is even worse. People aren't that important.
If people are that unimportant, then why is it frowned upon if someone gets rid of a few of them/us? Not a great loss for the universe anyway.

Besides that, in the bible God himself says that he cares, if that's true, it's not an assumption and you yourself are assuming things about God that he himself declined. Of course you don't believe in the bible, but I'm not trying to burn you for heresy either so you might want to cool down a bit or stop constantly calling the believes of others silly. :sweatdrop:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Next he will be telling us he used to be an Evangelical preacher :laugh4: But has seen the error of his ways first hand.

[Zaknafien]

Nah, but like I said I did study New Testament and Old Testament at a Christian college my freshman year.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nah, but like I said I did study New Testament and Old Testament at a Christian college my freshman year.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I knew it


I was waiting for

"Well Im no priest but I Did Stay in a Motel 6 Last Night.

[Zaknafien]

Yep. Im a regular Rennaissance Dude. Of course, it was Southern Baptist... I dont know if that counts since they're a little more crazy than most Christians.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A little :help:

[Odin]

A little :help:

Not from me, its far to entertaining to watch you two go back and forth, besides Ive been a pagan for far to long to engage in the silly back and forths on the bastard offsprings of christs teachings. He' was a jew after all, but dont let me muddy the waters on this whole religion, god thing.

But when Ragnarok comes neither of you clowns are getting into Valhalla on my dime. :clown:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not from me,

Well I wasnt really looking to argue with him. Im afraid of the Southern Baptists. No wonder he thinks Christians are nuts :laugh4:

[Reverend Joe]

I return to say this:

I refuse to even read any of this thread.

I say only on reference to the speaker noted in the original post:

Far :daisy: out.

(Albeit sex at 14 is kinda weird...)

[Strike For The South]

Things must have been allot better in the 50s with people farting roses and throwing up lollipops, granted the kids who grew up then are the baby boomers who have run this country in the datgum ground. My parents aernt very strict with me at all now becuase when I was younger they instilled good vaules in me while they did use some throw back methods they were also realists and told me never to drive drunk and always wrap it up knowing tell me not to do it is just sheer idoicy. The ones who are really screwed up are the kids who are tuaght its bad. There loons

[Gawain of Orkeny]

granted the kids who grew up then are the baby boomers who have run this country in the datgum ground.

You do realise your condemning those who started this whole thing you support. I agrree with your assessment but for just the opposite reasons. We messed it up alright by telling everyone have sex anywhere anytime its good for you. How allof you can ignore the baggage that comes with sex is beyond me. Kids should enjoy being kids for a while. It cracks me up how some of can claim their mature enough to have sex with a 14 year old but not with an 18 year old or older. Like that changes the maturity of the younger person. Your either mature and old enough to have sex or your not.

[Zaknafien]

Honestly, our more civilized ancestors view on sex was much more liberated than our own and they were just fine. It wasnt until the advent of sexually repressive Christianity that sex became taboo in the West.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Honestly, our more civilized ancestors view on sex was much more liberated than our own and they were just fine.

More civilized than who?


It wasnt until the advent of sexually repressive Christianity that sex became taboo in the West.


This is all pretty much the doing of one man though his name escapes me at the moment.

[Zaknafien]

The Greeks and to an extent the Romans were more enlightened than us on views of sex. Especially where homosexuality was concerned, for instance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Greeks and to an extent the Romans were more enlightened than us on views of sex

There you go again making another silly statement. More enlightened according to who, you?


specially where homosexuality was concerned, for instance.

Yes In Greece if you were a closet homosexual and they found out you were executed. Also all homosexuals were stripped of their rights, Very enlightened indeed. Dont confuse pedestary with homosexuality.

[Zaknafien]

Well, to anyone who thinks, I should think. Or do you postulate that our own dangerously repressive culture is superior?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, to anyone who thinks, I should think.

And thats your big problem n these boards. Anyone who doesnt think like you is an idiot. You need to have more respect for other peoples opinions.


Or do you postulate that our own dangerously repressive culture is superior?

Well now being a liberal I would think you would favor the moral equivalency argument. That all cultures are equal.

[Zaknafien]

not at all, clearly cannabalistic and human sacrifice cultures are inferior. Oh, and Im not a liberal.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, and Im not a liberal.

:laugh4:

[Husar]

Or do you postulate that our own dangerously repressive culture is superior?
Our christian repressive culture is far superior, the danger lies in all the have sex and breed stuff, just ask the Chinese.:furious3:

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well, to anyone who thinks, I should think.




So unless we think like you we're wrong.....? We got us a real enlightened fella here!:laugh4:

[Kralizec]

Also all homosexuals were stripped of their rights,

This variated a lot between different city-states and different times. Generally however they weren't as repressive towards homosexuality as pre-modern European countries were.

[scooter_the_shooter]

And Zaknafien you are always claiming to be in the army and such to help your argument. And I am not claiming your a fraud or anything.

But could you tell us what your MOS is, to add to your credibility.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Generally however they weren't as repressive towards homosexuality as pre-modern European countries were.

Well that would depend on where in Greece you lived now wouldnt it? In Sparta you would be in big trouble unless you came out of the closet and were willing to lose your rights. This notion of the Greeks embracing homosexuality is a modern distortion to say the least. They wouldnt approve of what we call the gay life style. Most of these people would be put to death believe me. The greeks realized the main purpose of sex was reproduction and that the pleasurable side was just a very nice bonus. They certainly were far more open and sexual than the Europeans and Americans before the late 20th century

But he said


The Greeks and to an extent the Romans were more enlightened than us on views of sex. Especially where homosexuality was concerned, for instance.

Well me maybe :laugh4:

[Slyspy]

Well that would depend on where in Greece you lived now wouldnt it? In Sparta you would be in big trouble unless you came out of the closet and were willing to lose your rights. This notion of the Greeks embracing homosexuality is a modern distortion to say the least. They wouldnt approve of what we call the gay life style. Most of these people would be put to death believe me. The greeks realized the main purpose of sex was reproduction and that the pleasurable side was just a very nice bonus. They certainly were far more open and sexual than the Europeans and Americans before the late 20th century

But he said



Well me maybe :laugh4:

Of ocurse Kralizec was responding to your earlier statement which was just as generalised as, if a little more accurate than, Zak's.

You could have saved a bit of time by simply typing "I agree Kralizec"!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You could have saved a bit of time by simply typing "I agree Kralizec"!

That would be spam :laugh4: Also I was making a new point that what we label as homosexuality is not the one that Greeks used. It is a recent development. Their were no gay bars in Greece at the time :laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

And Zaknafien you are always claiming to be in the army and such to help your argument. And I am not claiming your a fraud or anything.

But could you tell us what your MOS is, to add to your credibility.

uh, sure when I was enlisted I was a 96B. (Tactical intelligence analyst) and now I'm a 35F on the O side.