2

6/20/2008 12:40:19 PM

Quote :

"since when does NC have an abstinence only policy?? I remember learning about safe sex and birth control in Flehbs. Just that they heavily emphasize and push for "abstinence as the best method" and utilize scary statistics to fulfill their goal."

I'm in the same boat. In high school and, to a lesser extent, middle school, we heard about the various birth control options, and although they didn't put a condom on a banana they gave some fairly useful instruction on how to use them. Sure, after every talk about birth control they would say, "But abstinence is best," but they still covered everything.

The only things they said they weren't allowed to discuss with us were homosexuality, abortion, and masturbation.

6/20/2008 2:09:47 PM

I bet the new GrumpyLiberal would be all for discussing that in the classrooms.

6/20/2008 2:25:23 PM

Quote :

"stantheman: Most of the times I have been in a conversation with someone who claims to have an intellectual barrier to belief in God, they really just have hatred toward God non-believers. I've found that if I refute the objections of most atheists/ agnostics fundamentalists, they eventually become angry and tell a story of a Christian an atheist who did something hurtful to them."

now how retarded doest that sound? almost as retarded as your original statement.

go on with your smug self-righteous attitude. the fact is, you've got nothing but your own faith.

all scientific evidence, empirical observation, logic ... common sense ... are aligned against you. i dont care what you believe. but when you try and force your ludicrous beliefs on the public at large, thats when any reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution will shut you down.

so that's why I pray to GOD that McCain will lose the upcoming election, and no more of these bible-thumping retards like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will be appointed to the highest court in the foreseeable future.




[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2008 3:02:53 PM

^I've never heard of anything like that in my life. I also resent the labeling of all Christians as "fundamentalists." I mean, its not like we go around committing acts of terror.

6/20/2008 3:07:19 PM

(1) i never have, and never would, label "all christians as fundamentalists"

(2) Bosnia-Herzegovinia. Oklahoma City (Christian Patriots). Ku Klux Klan. Army of God (Eric Rudolph).



[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2008 3:10:38 PM

Quote :

"I also resent the labeling of all Christians as "fundamentalists." I mean, its not like we go around committing acts of terror."

you know that's not what "fundamentalist" means in reference to christians. Fundamentalist, rightly or wrongly, is generally used interchangeably with evangelical or literalist.

6/20/2008 3:13:59 PM

i wouldnt even claim all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Billy Graham is an evangelical, but he's not a fundamentalist. Same with Robert Schuller. both are honorable men, and IMO good Christian leaders.




[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2008 3:16:11 PM

Quote :

"Billy Graham is an evangelicalanti-semite, but he's not a fundamentalist."

6/20/2008 3:28:40 PM

Quote :

"now how retarded doest that sound? almost as retarded as your original statement."

Did you look at the context I posted it in? I was speaking about my own experience based on comments made by 2 other people.

Quote :

"go on with your smug self-righteous attitude. the fact is, you've got nothing but your own faith."

Does trying to avoid insults, profanity and hateful remarks equal self-righteous? If thats how I came across to you, I honestly did not mean to. I just want to have a civil conversation without mud slinging. I still think its funny that you singled out the first point I made (conveniently ignoring the users I quoted) and did not comment on my second point about the hypocrisy of hating people who are labeled as intolerant.

Quote :

"you know that's not what "fundamentalist" means in reference to christians. Fundamentalist, rightly or wrongly, is generally used interchangeably with evangelical or literalist."

Yes, I know what it TYPICALLY means. However, it is often used in a spiteful sense.

Quote :

"all scientific evidence, empirical observation, logic ... common sense ... are aligned against you. i dont care what you believe. but when you try and force your ludicrous beliefs on the public at large, thats when any reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution will shut you down."

I tend to disagree about the evidence, but thats another discussion in itself. As far as trying to force my beliefs on the public, I could easily argue that many secularists are doing the same thing. For example, teaching teens about alternative lifestyles in public schools (see NC Governor's School & banned library books), using public funds for abortions (i think around 12 or 14 states do this, in addition to $330M in federal subsidies)... We could go tit for tat on that one. Its unfair and dishonest to claim that Christians are the only ones trying to influence the culture based on personal values.

For the constitution, we can stick to it (as McCain prefers) or interpret it loosely based on the whims of biased justices. I am glad to live in a country with a constitution that guarantees my God-given freedoms. I just hope we don't end up with a president who wishes to rewrite our rights.

skankinmonkey:

Quote :

""Billy Graham is an evangelicalanti-semite, but he's not a fundamentalist.""

Why do you think that? Also, did you see my reply to your last post?

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 3:34:18 PM

^^ that was 30 years ago. he's since apologized, and his entire career has been one of reconciliation between jews and christians.



[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2008 3:35:58 PM

Quote :

"I could easily argue that many secularists are doing the same thing."

"Secularism" isn't a religion. It is 'the state of being separate from religion' which exactly is what our government is, if you want a government that bows to non-secular rights then I suggest moving to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other number of Islamic countries. Government actions are supposed to be for the general welfare of the people - regardless of religious objections.

Quote :

"Why do you think that?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversy

Read the whole section - especially the part where he confers with Nixon on the jew-controlled media.

And as far as your response to my post -

Quote :

"If its not okay for a "religious" person to disrespect your beliefs, why do you believe it is moral/ acceptable to disrespect their beliefs?"

Because I don't follow a religious dogma that says I can't be a hypocrite whereas you do - which makes it doubly entertaining when you go against your religion in almost every fathomable way to defend small subsets of a book which are being taken out of context for political purposes.

But we all know you're conflicted with the bible - you should either be not judging gays, turning the other cheek to them, or stoning them to death. Whatever you do - don't forgive them though.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 3:44:03 PM

Quote :

"I just hope we don't end up with a president who wishes to rewrite our rights."

oh, like Habeas Corpus? or that Fourth Amendment right to not be spied upon by warrantless wiretaps?

6/20/2008 4:47:39 PM

Quote :

""Secularism" isn't a religion. It is 'the state of being separate from religion' which exactly is what our government is, if you want a government that bows to non-secular rights then I suggest moving to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other number of Islamic countries. "

I never said I wanted a theocracy. I don't want to force my beliefs on others.

Quote :

"Government actions are supposed to be for the general welfare of the people - regardless of religious objections."

Yes, I agree. The thing is, how do you determine what the general welfare is? I don't see how you can claim an ability to do this objectively, especially in light of this statement:

Quote :

"Because I don't follow a religious dogma that says I can't be a hypocrite whereas you do"

Quote :

"which makes it doubly entertaining when you go against your religion in almost every fathomable way to defend small subsets of a book which are being taken out of context for political purposes. But we all know you're conflicted with the bible - you should either be not judging gays, turning the other cheek to them, or stoning them to death. Whatever you do - don't forgive them though."

Wow. Do you know me? There are a lot of assumptions in there and a lot of serious misunderstandings. I'll PM you my response to this (when I get a chance). We've already sent this thread off on enough tangents.

On the Billy Graham thing, I'm going to read up on it sometime this weekend. Its not that applicable to the discussion here (what was the original topic?), but does look interesting.

Before I'm done on here for a while, I must say -to everyone here- this conversation has been fun and informative. Thanks for the interesting discussion. I'm outta here for now.


e:

Quote :

"oh, like Habeas Corpus? or that Fourth Amendment right to not be spied upon by warrantless wiretaps?"

Yeah, I'm pretty upset about those myself.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 4:50:39 PM

hey guys just wanted to let you all know that premarital sex, drugs, and gambling are bad; ummm k....

6/20/2008 4:57:50 PM

Quote :

"What is your problem with abstinence? I see plenty of well-documented reasons for supporting it. You can't just call people stupid and say you're right. Why do you think your opinion is more valid than theirs?"

I don't have a problem with abstinence. I have a problem with abstinence only education. I had sex ed before NC instituted abstinence only education. I also had a very liberal sex ed program at my church that taught you exactly what sex is, what it can lead to, what you can do to protect yourself while having it, and that you should wait to have sex until you feel emotionally ready, not when society tells you you should wait.

And you know what, that program has one of the highest success rates as far as teens waiting to have sex, not getting pregnant, not getting STDs, etc.

What's wrong with giving kids the tools to know what exactly is going on with sex and how to do it responsibly?

6/21/2008 2:30:50 AM

am i the only one who thinks that sex-ed has little if anything to do with what happened here?

6/21/2008 2:35:35 AM

I think it has nothing to do with what happened here. These girls are obviously lacking in the sense department.

I know the one thing my parents did that pretty much made me want to have a baby NEVER was babysitting babies. Not kids, babies. After dealing with screaming, stinking, gross babies as a pre-teen it convinced me that babies suck.

6/21/2008 2:38:39 AM

Quote :

"am i the only one who thinks that sex-ed has little if anything to do with what happened here?"

These douchebags shitted all in my thread.

6/21/2008 4:40:25 PM