Mass. School tries to force kids to be tolerant

[Texsox]

I agree with him 100% & I believe the majority of Americans do as well.  What's more I think in MA in 2008 we will find the majority in that state agree too. 

 

What shocks me in America & it is clearly orchestrated by sinful liberals is that this stuff ever enters into school.  I have friends & colleagues around the world & this stuff never gets the gold standard treatment in their schools like it does here.  They marvel at the culture war in America & they do agree with me that it's mostly the fault of liberals trying to impose their ideology on the rest of us.

 

Is it any wonder that America's public schools continue to fall behind when the rest are devoting their time & energy to teach reading, writing, math & physical science while we feud over garbage issues like this that serve as nothing more than a waste of time that could be put to better use?

 

I've got a novel idea.  Why don't we first teach the kids to excel in reading comprehension, writing composition, math, & physical science before moral relativism?  Oh wait.  I forgot this is a public school.  That's too much of a burden on the teachers.

 

Of course they agree with you, you'll never agree with an opposing view. Most people give up first. But I enjoy winning points and your only response is to ignore them and move on to something else.

 

America is the richest, most diverse, society on the planet with unique issues. To compare the US to any other country shows a level of naive that even you couldn't possess. But as always, it is impossible to wake someone up who is pretending to sleep.

 

This person would complain if the book used to teach reading (which we agree is important) has a picture of a same sex couple. How does his child being pulled from class help with his child learning to read? The same battle was fought 20 years ago with different racial couples in textbooks. Same battle, different couple. A homosexual professor of mathematics volunteers to teach 1st grade math, this parent would have his child pulled from the classroom. What does this parent value more than reading, writing, and mathematics? His child not seeing any homosexuals. How does that share your opinion of what is important in the classroom?

 

And your insults to teachers is just plain laughable. But I can understand that you probably had some s***ty teachers.

[southsider2k5]

Then you can’t be either a conservative or a Republican.  The school system in Lexington, MA is functioning exactly how our system of government intended.

 

Did the forefathers intend public education for every child in this country through age 16? Some how I don't believe that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had great teachers which led me to be a NMS award winner & a partial scholarship at a prestigious engineering Univ in America where I made the Dean's list more often than not.

 

Of course my parents sacrificed some of their disposable income to provide me a private education.

 

This crap shouldn't be taught in the school period. If liberals had an ounce of open-mindeness or fairness in them they would offer social sciences as electives & allow the parents to choose which elective best suits them. Even if that elective is Christian in nature. That's the whole point behind an elective. It's a choice.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Signatures are real & polls are nothing more than sampling data. It's very possible for someone to say No on a poll but vote Yes on a ballot. Especially when the issue is made part of campaigns in the 2006 elections.

[Balta1701]

Did the forefathers intend public education for every child in this country through age 16?  Some how I don't believe that.

I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about local control of public education, rather than universal public education, as being something the Republicans would claim was enshrined in the consitution.

[southsider2k5]

I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about local control of public education, rather than universal public education, as being something the Republicans would claim was enshrined in the consitution.

 

Was it even that much originally? Wasn't most education done at home in the 18th century?

[mreye]

I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about local control of public education, rather than universal public education, as being something the Republicans would claim was enshrined in the consitution.

This Republican knows that education isn't even mentioned in the Constitution and therefore should be handled by the states.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let's think about this & it's impact on education .. shall we?

 

First in order to understand even the basics of ID a student has to be well versed in mathematics, genetics, physics, chemistry, & molecular biology. So any suggestion that ID be taught in schools implies that this math & science rich core needs to to be introduced earlier. Something other nations have a lead on already.

 

With those as pre-requisites an ID course of study would then relate philosophy & metaphyics with the science. Something Japan is taking the lead in with respect to its Buddhist culture.

 

And for people like Texsox since he seems to want to suggest that it's our diversity (or what others might call the things that put America in the TOP 5 list of evil nations) that made us #1 super-power he's in for a rude awakening as well.

 

Once the societies of the other econ super-powers establish trust in banks & financial institutions America will fall fast & furious. I can post links suggesting this is begining to happen but I'm sure you can look it up yourself if you care. If things don't change in America soon we might find ourselves #2 20 yrs from now or sooner. It was the people's trust in banks & financial instutions that made America the strongest.

Edited October 21, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Mercy!]

I could be wrong, but I think he was talking about local control of public education, rather than universal public education, as being something the Republicans would claim was enshrined in the consitution.

Yes, local control of public education through elected school boards as provided by the various states due to the powers reserved to the states by the federal Constitution.

 

However, I'm a she, not a he.

[Texsox]

Yes, local control of public education through elected school boards as provided by the various states due to the powers reserved to the states by the federal Constitution.

 

However, I'm a she, not a he.

 

Republicans can't tell the difference. Remember they are all about inclusion and tolerance and it isn't important if you are a man or a woman as long as you are a breeder. Oops.

 

BTW, 250 posts and what, about half, are explaining you are a woman? You should have a sexy Chomsky avatar to give a visual clue.

 

And as far as what is making us #1, I will agree with Juggy that a coming financial crisis will seriously impact our ability to maintain that ranking. it will be the spend and don't tax approach of the GOP which prefers to borrow from every potential rival than tell Americans that can't have everything without paying for it. But of course that is negative to the Grand Old Party and should be ignored.

 

Juggy would have been arguing that mixed race couples were destroying our society and pulled up Bible versus to prove it. So this is no exception.

 

And thanks for the vitae, of course that and the extensive network of friends worldwide makes you the final authority, How could we ever encourage you to run for President of the world.

[JUGGERNAUT]

That mixed race analogy is getting so old & so nonsensical that only a liberal takes it seriously any more. Especially given that fundamentalist Christian groups played a major role in ending slavery in America & forging civil rights.

 

They got tired of other whites treating blacks as second class citizens. That's why the civil rights movement came about. Both were actions BY THE PEOPLE to bring about social change. RvW, Lemon Test, & the rest of the crap that came thereafter all represent actions by a liberal extremist court to bring about social change.

[Kyyle23]

That mixed race analogy is getting so old & so nonsensical.....

 

You know, I was thinking the same thing about all of your posts.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's only logical to group that which is common to most (reading comprehension, writing composition, mathematics, & physical science) as a core & group that which is least common to most (lifestyles, politics, philosophy, morality, pyschology, sociology) as electives.

 

Liberalism is a disease that stifles competition of ideas.

[Mercy!]

BTW, 250 posts and what, about half, are explaining you are a woman? You should have a sexy Chomsky avatar to give a visual clue.

Get out! All this time I thought that Soxy is real butch and getting way up there in years. Chomsky, huh?

[Soxy]

Get out!  All this time I thought that Soxy is real butch and getting way up there in years.  Chomsky, huh?

Do.not.mock.Chomsky.

 

And, for the record I do own a couple pair of Doc Martens, a few Ani cds, and I NEVER ask for directions--I don't know how butch that makes me. . .

[Kyyle23]

Do.not.mock.Chomsky.

 

And, for the record I do own a couple pair of Doc Martens, a few Ani cds, and I NEVER ask for directions--I don't know how butch that makes me. . .

 

I dont know. It could either make you butch, or make you a damned dirty hippy...

[KipWellsFan]

Liberalism is a disease that stifles competition of ideas.

 

Why does it always come back to this with you Juggs, you are completely bonkers. Smearing ideas and opinions of liberals as a group is a disease that stifles the competition of ideas. You may know 10000% more than me about Science, Philosophy, and Politics but you'll always be lightyears ahead of me in ignorant asshatery.

 

[Rex Kickass]

That mixed race analogy is getting so old & so nonsensical that only a liberal takes it seriously any more.  Especially given that fundamentalist Christian groups played a major role in ending slavery in America & forging civil rights.

 

They got tired of other whites treating blacks as second class citizens.  That's why the civil rights movement came about.  Both were actions BY THE PEOPLE to bring about social change.  RvW, Lemon Test, & the rest of the crap that came thereafter all represent actions by a liberal extremist court to bring about social change.

 

So what your saying is that gay people's arguments using a mixed race analogy isn't acceptable because not enough straight people view gay people as their equal?

 

I'm making a leap of faith here, not a big one, but I'm going to guess that one of these people is you.

 

This is about equal rights. This is a country about equal rights. It's clear you don't support it, we get it.

 

I just thank God every day that there aren't more people like you. Because when the second coming happens - something tells me that homosexuality won't even be in the top 1000 things that our maker would be concerned with. Something tells me that our tolerance for discrimination, disenfranchisement, and injustice ranks a lot higher on this list.

 

And to not allow the same civil rights (and a civil union/civil marriage is a set of civil rights) to adults choosing to enter a committed partnership because of their gender IS tolerance for discrimination, disenfranchisement and injustice.

 

For the last couple weeks, I've been pulling 18 hour days on a political campaign. Meeting people, listening to people, finding communities that need help but don't get it because nobody gives enough of a s*** to listen. It's affected me in ways I can't even describe. It's made me more tolerant of people, made me care more and made me decide that after November 8th, I'm going to devote a good part of my life to helping disaffected groups empower themselves. It's also made me more intolerant too.

 

I just can't seem to stand people who'd rather see people without equal rights. I have a new name for them now. Assholes.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Why does it always come back to this with you Juggs, you are completely bonkers.  Smearing ideas and opinions of liberals as a group is a disease that stifles the competition of ideas.  You may know 10000% more than me about Science, Philosophy, and Politics but you'll always be lightyears ahead of me in ignorant asshatery.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You missed the point completely. I'm not saying liberals don't have a right to voice thier opinion or for that matter even to teach their opinion. I think they do. But they should do so as an ELECTIVE & not a core course. The same applies to conservatives.

Edited October 23, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Being black, white, yellow, red, or any other variation of race does NOT make you immoral. Being male or female does NOT make you immoral. A person's actions determine whether they are moral or immoral.

 

What determines whether an action is moral or immoral? This is pretty simple. If a person is a member of a faith, creed, or organization rooted in philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by that institution. In the case of Christianity most institutions view the act of sodomy as immoral. Regardless of whether it be same-sex or between a man & a woman. Sodomy is likewise considered immoral in many non-Christian faiths. So we can safely say as a general rule of faith-borne society that sodomy is looked upon as an immoral act.

 

If a person is not a member of a faith, creed, or an organization rooted in any one philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by society. I doubt very much that state & local governments have done or said anything to encourage the act of sodomy. Furthermore given the medical risks & general consensus of practioners it can hardly be considered a healthy behavior.

 

So whether you look upon it from a faith perspective, a medical perspective, or a general societal perspective sodomy is considered immoral or unfavorable behavior for one to partake in.

Edited October 23, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Heads22]

Being black, white, yellow, red, or any other variation of race does NOT make you immoral.  Being male or female does NOT make you immoral.  A person's actions determine whether they are moral or immoral.

 

What determines whether an action is moral or immoral?  This is pretty simple.  If a person is a member of a faith, creed, or organization rooted in philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by that institution.  In the case of Christianity most institutions view the act of sodomy as immoral.  Regardless of whether it be same-sex or between a man & a woman.  Sodomy is likewise considered immoral in many non-Christian faiths.  So we can safely say as a general rule of faith-borne society that sodomy is looked upon as an immoral act.

 

If a person is not a member of a faith, creed, or an organization rooted in any one philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by society.  I doubt very much that state & local governments have done or said anything to encourage the act of sodomy.  Furthermore given the medical risks & general consensus of practioners it can hardly be considered a healthy behavior.

 

So whether you look upon it from a faith perspective, a medical perspective, or a general societal perspective sodomy is considered immoral or unfavorable behavior for one to partake in.

 

 

Should the same stand for oral sex then?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Being black, white, yellow, red, or any other variation of race does NOT make you immoral.  Being male or female does NOT make you immoral.  A person's actions determine whether they are moral or immoral.

 

What determines whether an action is moral or immoral?  This is pretty simple.  If a person is a member of a faith, creed, or organization rooted in philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by that institution.  In the case of Christianity most institutions view the act of sodomy as immoral.  Regardless of whether it be same-sex or between a man & a woman.  Sodomy is likewise considered immoral in many non-Christian faiths.  So we can safely say as a general rule of faith-borne society that sodomy is looked upon as an immoral act.

 

If a person is not a member of a faith, creed, or an organization rooted in any one philosophy then morality & immorality is defined by society.  I doubt very much that state & local governments have done or said anything to encourage the act of sodomy.  Furthermore given the medical risks & general consensus of practioners it can hardly be considered a healthy behavior.

 

So whether you look upon it from a faith perspective, a medical perspective, or a general societal perspective sodomy is considered immoral or unfavorable behavior for one to partake in.

Earth to Juggs, we're not a Christian founded nation. Treaty.of.Tripoli.1793 (written by George Washington) "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." It was unanimously passed and there was no debate or outcry from the public.

 

What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with consenting adults should not be the business of government. Big business somehow doesn't need regulations but the US government suddenly wants to be in every woman's vagina and on every guy's penis. US OUT OF ANUSES! And as we've learned before, society can choose "disturbed" concepts of morality (i.e. being staunchly in favor of Jim Crow, etc.)

 

And oh yeah...James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

[JUGGERNAUT]

Earth to LCR,

 

We've been over this before. There's an entire thread in here somewhere that has discussed this in great detail. You can look it up. Washington made many speeches supporting the notion we WERE a Christian nation. The founders rountinely attended services & even made use of parishes for political purposes.

 

The Treaty of Tripoli was designed to appease Muslims directly. To do that you have to downplay your Christian roots. The Treaty of Paris was designed to appease the French. To do that you emphasize your Christian roots.

 

Pretty basic stuff.

Edited October 23, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

Should the same stand for oral sex then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not sure. I do know the CDC has weighed in a few times on this. Statistics on this suggest a minority of people practice safe-oral-sex. The average American does not believe you can contract STD's via oral-sex. Of course not surprising when Clinton tried to convince us it's not sex.

[KipWellsFan]

You missed the point completely.  I'm not saying liberals don't have a right to voice thier opinion or for that matter even to teach their opinion.  I think they do.  But they should do so as an ELECTIVE & not a core course.  The same applies to conservatives.

 

I know you're not saying they don't have a right to say what they want but you're saying their opinions are useless and harmful. Haven't you heard the dicks pussys and assholes speech?

 

"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get f***ed by dicks. But dicks also f*** assholes: assholes that just want to s*** on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can f*** an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they f*** too much or f*** when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of s*** that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us f*** this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in s***! "

 

 

 

But they should do so as an ELECTIVE & not a core course.

 

I don't even know what that means.

 

Liberalism is a disease that stifles competition of ideas.

 

Massive generalizations stifle the competition of ideas, that was my point.