posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, September 29, 2005
Washington Times Newspaper Picks up On Fayetteville Library Controversy The Washington Times newspaper picked up on the Fayetteville Library story on September 22 quoting Laurie Taylor, Mike Masterson, Superintendent New, and Debbie Pelley. The article begins with this paragraph: "Objections of Arkansas parents to graphic descriptions of sexual acts in books offered to students in their school libraries have fueled a feud in the Ozarks. Some parents say the books are so shocking they 'will curl your toes.' The school superintendent compares the protests of parents to 'cancer.'" This is what the writer of the story, senior education reporter George Archibald,. quoted Taylor as saying, "'They're beyond vile,' Mrs. Taylor said of the 53 novels her group has asked the school board to sequester in parent-only sections of the school libraries. 'They're not informational, they're not sex education. They're just pandering sex to young people. It will curl your toes.' " The Washington Times article added, "The parents have appeared regularly at school board meetings all year to voice their concerns. The unfolding story has widely reported by the state's major newspapers and television stations, and has become a staple of radio talk shows." Archibald with Washington Times. had this to say about Superintendent New. "Bobby C. New, the superintendent of Fayetteville Public Schools, declined to respond to four written requests from The Washington Times for an interview or for comment. Mr. New recently told talk-show host Don Elkins of Station KFAY-AM in Fayetteville that he takes 'Mrs. Taylor's problem and challenge very seriously, but we can't stop flying the airplane because we have a parent that is not satisfied, or parents that have issues with us.' The school division has had a committee reviewing and deciding on one book at a time since the first three were flagged in January, he said, and will review the subsequent 53 books on the complaint list one at a time. The parents object that this delays resolution of the conflict. Some teachers agree. 'It took about six months for the district to deal with the first three books Taylor challenged,' said Debbie Pelley, a 27-year veteran English teacher in Jonesboro, a college town (Arkansas State University) in another part of the state. 'At that rate, it will take 11 years to process [all the] books that Laurie and other parents have identified that are even worse than the first three.' Mr. New told the radio interviewer: 'his issue is not time-sensitive; it's quality driven.' ......'I will defend our librarians to the bitter end," Mr. New said." The Washington Times article quotes one of Mike Masterson's article, saying, "Mike Masterson, a columnist for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette in Little Rock, the state's largest newspaper, calls Mrs. Taylor's cause 'selfless and noble.' She has had the gall to insist that parents of all elementary, middle and high school-age children actually be informed when their children check out one of the more-than 70 books that concern her,' he wrote in a recent column. 'These would be books that speak in grossly inappropriate terms about promiscuous romps of all imaginable shapes and forms, including incest with both parents." It is obvious that the Washington Times sees the problems in the school district's handling of this matter. To read entire article go to this link: http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050921-102415-2511rDebbie PelleyJonesboro
As a grandmother, I'd like to know if there's a list of these books anywhere, so I can check out the school libraries in my town.
Geez, it's a pity White Citizen's Council son-of-chairman Wes Pruden is upset. If his family had its way, there wouldn't be any of those 'coloureds' in the schools either. The Moonie empire could crumble w/o ol' Wes fighting for right. Then again, Morals Czar (and Highrollers Czar, Nicotine Czar, and Drug Czar)Bill Bennett has a thing or two to say about that too.
That's your arguement for keeping smut in public schools? Because slavery existed at one time in this country and Bill Bennett had a gambling problem? Try addressing the merits of this issue instead of serving up herring.You may not mind corrupting your kids with pornography, but there are other parents with enough wisdom to know what their children should and shouldn't be reading.
Slavery? Brush up on your AR history. White Citizens Councils were responses to integration, long after slavery was rendered illegal and likely drove Faubus(as the awfully written Down from the Hills attempted to explain---not totally convinced) further to the right (as if he needed a push). Some of the same arguments of the debate in Fayetteville have surfaced which seem taken from the integration struggle. A school board in Marked Tree(1954) did what they felt was correct and 'Justice' Jim and his WCC band protested(oh, the lack of law and o'der--dem hippy protestas! from Crossett)and Marked Tree backed down. Smut has been defined by the Supreme Court and none of the selections in question would be determined as smut. LT was given her hearing and a resounding defeat was handed her and the school board wasn't steamrolled. High school kids have heard much worse at church camp, the halls of campus, the restroom, the locker room and should be allowed to venture into adulthood and weigh right and wrong in print before they make a dreadful mistake with their bodies. Merely describing a horrifying rape--as one of the 'offenders'-- can be a tool for high school children who have suffered the same horrible fate I remember the same kind of whining from parents over particular books on library shelves in my day. The presence of a particularly controversial book on high school library shelves is NOT tantamount to an endorsement. A free society cannot exist without differing voices. It seems much of the anger was that openly gay authors were merely present on the shelf. I read books about the Holocaust and warfare in h.s. with some gruesome photos and equally graphic descriptions and could very easily be included on the dreaded 'list'. High school is a preparation for college and teaching children the parents' values at home should steel them against whatever dreaded influences (from the parents' perspective )the child will face. If the parent can't prepare the child by the end of h.s., what hope is there? They are young adults and shielding them from the world at age 16,17,18 isn't doing them a favor. Oh, and it's funny about this parallel that Fayetteville was one of the three school districts which integrated schools in 1954---it stuck(as did Charleston)!
Must you libs work so hard to bring the race angle into every debate? Gee whiz!You can look to the 'supremes' on the Court to decide right and wrong for you if you like, but I don't. I'm not interested in the least what they consider smut. These kinds of decisions should remain the domain of local parents and taxpayers to decide, and I'm certain the vast majority oppose this kind of trash being provided to children. And local control is what is being asserted here. There just happens to be some administrators in Fayetteville who don't yet understand that they are accountable to the people of their district. Mrs. Taylor is working on that, with more and more help each day.Bobby New, I hope you're tired of your job, because you're in for a new line of work...
Talk show host Pat Lynch, defender of all things far left on a political scale, agreed with State Senator Jim Holt yesterday in an hour long interview, in which I might add Senator Holt did a great job. Lynch said it was total hyprocrisy on the Boards part to not allow the introduction of General Beebe's opinion in the matter, which not only cited the problems with the books from a legal aspect regarding obscenity laws in Arkansas, but also stated that it was a local issue. When Pat Lynch starts agreeing with Senator Jim Holt on an issue like the Fayetteville Library books, I'd say that's a pretty strong case that some considered liberals should wake up and take responsibility for their children. The issue is far from over, here in NWA or on a national level.
Fayettville, or should I say, San Fransisco West, has a higher per capita population of gays than any city in Arkansas. They stand behind this issue for one reason only, and that is the continued indoctrination of a generation of young people here and throughout America into the belief that a homosexual lifestyle is not only acceptable, but should be promoted as being "normal". God Bless all who are continuing to fight this isse, and tell your friends and neighbors it's not about censorship, it's about common sense and a parents right to have knowledge about what our tax dollars are being used for in the name of "literary merit" in our public school libraries.
I know Fayetteville is East of San Fran, so I'll correct myself before any naysayer can find a reason to make a nasty comment like the folks against this don't know directions, I just need another cup of coffee is all.
I had to inject the race issue because you are quoting the Washington Times edited by Wes Pruden,native of LR and son of WCC "chairman" there, owned by Sun Myung Moon. Moon is a dear friend of repressive totalitarians across the globe including the shameful tyrants the U.S. supported before the Cold War ended and we allowed democracy to FINALLY take root in ROK. The repressive tendency is an issue that must be raised when folks like the Washington Times are quoted in this debate. Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle kiss Moon's ass(like the despicable 'coronation' described several months ago for the "Rev." Moon reported in the press). However, the Times is a GOP rag. The particular of the Fayetteville debate is part of the same genus--invidious bias. It's easy to plunge into a dogma-too easy! There are no easy answers and children are being prepared for the rough times adulthood can muster in high school and sheltering them is NO solution. That's all I'm saying Mr. Toast. Right-wingers now catch grief with racist sentiments, but still feel safe attacking other "dif'ernt" people on talkradio and weblogs, like the homosexual girl who was attacked by the jackass in downtown Fayetteville---REAL brave man!!!!!! You guys seem to condone that behavior with your invidious attacks on these weblogs.
I share your distaste for 'rev' Moon, but what difference does it make here who the current WT editor is? This is an issue that WE ARKANSANS have been monitoring for months! No one but YOU has brought up anything remotely related to race. Most people in Arkansas absolutely do NOT want pornography in public schools, and it has nothing to do with race. And it IS 'that easy.' They don't want heterosexual pornography, and they don't want homosexual pornography. Those things are definitely not what the community intends the public schools to provide. You are out of touch with that sane majority.
What an imagination, Toast. The majority who bothered to appear at the meeting hosted by the Fayetteville school board have spoken. LT was in a small minority according to folks whom I know to have attended. REAL EASY to plunge into an ideology. A foreign friend of totalitarian governments who owns the WT should be an indication of what side of the liberty debate they espouse. Speaking of foreign-owned news sources whose parent companies supply REAL pornography to millions globally, NEWSCORP(among others, to be fair), owner of Fox News, official network of the "right-thinking" Americans everywhere, is owned by Rupert Murdoch of Australia. Want to talk about smut, corporations, like some of those liberally giving to GOP PACs, are in the porn distribution business and make substantial profits. Remember Phil Gramm, former GOP candidate for the Presidential nomination who loaned his brother-in-law money and didn't ask what it would be used for: Porn production. It was a rather embarassing revelation for Mr. Gramm. And on and on...adieu.
ar1836You seem to be very adept at changing the subject when you are losing the debate. People don't want their tax dollars spent providing middle school girls with advice on how to give oral sex. I don't care that the good guys were outnumbered that night, they were not on election day, when the board member who supported the ban won. Sexual libertines are extremist Pharisees who have a doctrine and the doctrine is what they care about - not people. They don't care about how many innocents get hurt when their doctrines are put into practice.
Mark, it's all part of the same debate. I haven't changed the debate at all; I've expanded it to show a broader picture of what is at stake. Much like in India, where more democracy has led to less liberty because to gain the cheap votes, a Hindu nationalist candidate will attack a Christian minority, a Muslim minority, or any group of hated and despised minorities. It's the same in this debate when you take your cues from WT hatemongers and gays are your despised group to gain cheap votes for 'conservative' politicians. Hyperbole is for the masses who don't wish to take time to explore their views and the repercussions of putting their views into action; a blog should be a place for more expansive debate. A blog doesn't need to be a place for short snippets of irreason to appeal to the basest of hyperbolic instincts in humanity. Our nation wasn't founded to be ruled by a mob; the Supreme Court didn't get much flak from conservatives when they struck down particular components of New Deal legislation for being "judicial activists". But the nation did take offense when FDR tried to pack the Court and that time the mass was frightened by the possibility of less liberty if FDR got his way. Tables turned, it's fair game. I have lost no argument here; your contributors seem to be more populist than democratic. My appeal is for voters to take the not-so-easy way of reasoned argument and respectful compromise. The whole slippery-slope argument is in effect for supporters of the Fayetteville high school library debate; give in on this issue and Eagle Forum, Pat Robertson's 'Christian' Conservative faction or any number of populist groups will totally take over the school system. It's sad that a compromise can't be effected over this issue because there may be some merit for a handful of the 70 books described as offensive.
Maybe if I type it in caps you'll get it: WE DON'T WANT PORNOGRAPHY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! The only minority group we've been attacking is the pornography industry. It doesn't matter if they find a reputable publisher to churn out their filth, and it doesn't matter if they've dressed up their bilge and marketed it to schools, those books are still pornography.There is no compromise with smut peddlers and those who want to corrupt the innocence of children.
"Expanding the debate not changing it". Let's see, in addition to the race card you have invoked religious intolerance in India, FDR's court-packing, and Pat Robertson.None of the above are germane to the issue of should the government schools use tax dollars to provide books to twelve year old girls on how to perform oral sex? My answer is "no". Dr. New and the majority of the current Fayetteville School Board believe that the answer is "yes". Forget the wide-ranging dissertation about Hindus, FDR, and boogie-man Pat Robertson- WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE SAME QUESTION? If it is "no" then you agree with me. If it is "yes" then I submit that you are a barbarian or a secular pharisee. I have learned that some barbarians wear suits and ties and use good grammer- but they are still barbarians.
"Hyperbole is for the masses who don't wish to take time to explore their views and the repercussions of putting their views into action..... A blog doesn't need to be a place for short snippets of irreason to appeal to the basest of hyperbolic instincts in humanity"It seems to me that YOU are the one engaging in hyperbole by suggesting that getting the books out of the library is going to put us on some clatyclismic slippery-slope.You seem to object to the taxpayers who pay the bills for the library having a say-so over what goes into it. So should the librarain have sole unaccountable power to place whatever material they want in the library? Is elitist dictatorship your answer to my populism? You seem to be concerned about the "rights" of the minority. The people have rights too. I'd I trust a populist government to protect them a lot more than I would your "one enlightened liberal makes the rules for everybody" system.
Mark,I am glad that you chose to address that little rant about the literary and rhetorical use of hyperbole by Christians. Here, in the small details is where the secularist are inflicting much damage on Christians who are too tepid or intellectually lazy to challenge the culture.I would like to point out that what "ar1836" is doing is making a back-handed and a below-the-belt below at Jesus, Himself. Jesus regularly used hyperbolic comments to emphasize the graveness or seriousness of his teaching.For example:"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26Nonetheless, his post did include a statement that I believe is a more-or-less accurate description of the Constitution Party and one that you should address.[Y]our contributors seem to be more populist than democratic.What say you?
That should have read: "... below-the-belt blow" NOT "...below-the-belt below"
I just thought that was more of his meaningless misdirection. What is the difference in your mind between a "democratic" view and a "populist" one?ps- long time no see. good to have you back
Mark,Your question is a good one. Definitionally speaking, the terms are quite similar. Perhaps the better statement may have been, "Your contributors seem to be more populist than Constitutional."Populists generally promise to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics and sometimes nationalism or racism.A strict populist application of democracy leads to hegemony. In my opinion, not necessarily a terrible thing... but certainly not Constitutional. The Constitution very much was established in such a way so as to undermine hegemonic power that would have allowed the state to encroach upon God-given unalienable rights of an individual.To do otherwise would have been to create a "psuedo-Statist" Constitution. The founding fathers recognized that God delegated rights to the individual, and the government derives it's rights from the people.Here is how I see the chain of delegation from God under various views:Constitution:God --> Individual --> StatePopulist:God --> Majority --> State (certainly the majority is representative of MOST individuals, but the protection derived is for the rights of the majority, NOT the rights of the individual.)Historic Statist:God --> State/Monarch --> IndividualModern Statist: State --> Individual (notice no God)Under the populist view, it is easy to imagine a situation where Christians could lose inalienable God given rights simply because they are not the majority.The ramifications and application of the differences are clear. Perhaps a good way to understand is by answering this question: If Congress, by popular consent (populism), creates a law that violates the natural God-given right of the individual, is that law valid and must it be obeyed? Would civil disobedience be a valid response?As far as "being back", I really haven't felt much like fighting lately... mostly because I feel like I am fighting with friends when I am here. So I have just been lurking.Unfortunately, when I get all full of piss and vinegar, it seems the only place to come for a good intellectually stimulating fight is here.
The only reason I mentioned that a majority supports the removal of pornography from public schools was to debunk the myth that was asserted, the myth that most people supported the availability of the offending books as a freedom of speech issue.I wouldn't care if only five people in all of Arkansas wanted the books out, what's right is right regardless of how many people support it. This is why schools should never be run from the capitol. As far as definitions, our current government is presented to us as constitutional one, but it has long been treated as populist by the legislature and oligarchic by the courts. Labels mean little.
You gave a very clear set of terms to work with. I see us as falling clearly under the "Constituion" label. The populist label also fits because ultimately government derives all just powers from the consent of the governed, and because RIGHT NOW AT LEAST, the common people have a better grasp of the fact that rights are God-given than the secular courts do. This means they also have a better gut-understanding of what things are legitimate rights and what things are leftists trying to impose a tyranny on the majority in the name of "rights".
As far as this being the best place for intellectual stimulation, I thank you for the compliment. Some blogs are just uncritical cheerleaders for their side and unaswerving critics of the other. I really do hope this is the best place for deep debate.
it has long been treated as populist by the legislature...at least in the sense that if they think the vast majority of Americans will let them get away with something that tramples all over our constitution, they will try it.
Mark,I want to make it clear that I agree with your thesis that parents should have the right to restrict their children from accessing ANY material they find objectional. Furthermore, I believe that a majority, hegemonically, can and should restrict the material deemed harmful to minors within the context of public education. I will elaborate more later in this post. Nonetheless, I think that perhaps you should be more careful about your presentation of the information. For example, you said:... ultimately government derives all just powers from the consent of the governedOn this point, I must respectfully disagree. It would be better said, "... ultimately government derives SOME just powers from the consent of the governed." Here is why. Mr. Toast crudely hit upon it, but I will elaborate.There are certain rights upon which the individual, regardless or majority opinion or consent of the governed, is endowed by his Creator (there is only One True Creator, regardless of what that person may believe his creator may be) with certain unalienable rights of which the Declaration of Independence named only three general categories. These rights are unalienable and are granted by God. They are not rights granted by the state by to the consent of the governed, nor are they rights that can be denied by the Constitution. Neither are they rights that can be denied by the process of Constitutional amendment, unconstitutional legislation, or judical activism.This is why the best argument in this battle is that of parental rights.On the other hand, the right of a child, anyones child, to have access to certain materials in the public school setting is not an inherent natural right. Therefore, whatever is determined by the majority to be unsuitable to expose to children "in order to promote the general welfare" is fair game for removal from the educational system. This is a two edged sword that cuts both ways. Just as we would, could, and rightfully should seek the removal of pornographic materials from our school libraries ... the secularist has the same right to seek the removal of Christian literature from the same library in order to prevent their children's exposure to it, if an only if, they are the majority in that particular LOCAL context.Applicationally, if the secularist at Fayetteville schools were seeking to remove Christian literature, they could and would be within the confines of the Constitution, since they seem to be in the majority. The state or federal government should not force them to do otherwise. This is the inherent flaw in government/public schools. The only recourse for Christians would be to somehow form a majority coalition.The implications of this are immense and get kind of convoluted. Suffice it to say, where Christians find themselves in the local minority, they would be best served to find alternative forms of education for their children. While they should be able to, within the Constitution, limit what their children are exposed to, they cannot possibly expect their children to get a comprehensive or adequate Christian education.
Populism is bad for business because the LAST people who wanted mere popular rule were our Founding Fathers. I have not engaged in hyperbole, I've expanded the debate to the real spirit of the entire discussion which includes intolerance of the past and of today. Exposing the true lineage of views espoused today is not hyperbole. We are a pluralist society and we have to govern people who don't share our Christian heritage and that includes views on traditionally and popularly despised behaviors and other religions which cannot be proved to be deleterious to society. The one commentator who advocated alternative school methods has given up on society and his/her ability to steel their childrens' beliefs applied in action. Isolating children in a particular dogma is not the answer. If you feel the need to send your children to parochial or Protestant Xian schools, fine, but you are limiting your child's exposure to the real world---not that drugs and sex are not serious concerns even in Xian and other private schools. True Christian believers shouldn't seek isolation; engage in the world and don't run from it. If you never try your beliefs, what kind of proof do you have of your level of devotion? America is a representative democracy and the early days of our nation limited popular input as much as possible. Direct election of senators was allowed in 1913, long after the deaths of our greatest citizens. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if the House were the only legislative body. They distrusted the masses and provided to allow a cooling of populist tensions which might rise and do harm to our system through checks and balances of the Senate, courts, and executive branch. Populism can do more harm than good and demagoguery is usually rife within such movements and race-baiting, commie-baiting, and now gay-baiting are historic difficulties with mere popular sentiment. The Fayetteville controversy is seen as a test by those who supported the school district. Will Eagle Forum, Christian Coalition or other grass-roots movements with their theocratic/ultranationalist tendencies, which can doom a pluralist society--see the Balkans, Iraq, C. Asia, etc., etc. for examples-- get their way in one of the best school districts in America and definitely in AR? If you want to debate directly in this matter, insight into the mindset of Fayetteville supporters of the school board is necessary. I grew up in a Christian conservative home and I know what is said in the fundamentalist churches both on-camera/radio and off. The off-camera things I hear are not of the "wink-wink" variety, the true hateful conception is revealed, like the pope is the anti-Christ, Catholic Church is the Great Whore of the Book of Revelation and I firmly rejected these beliefs and began to wonder what else are they wrong about? Free-willing humans deserve the right to live in their sin if there's no true harm to others. There can be no compromise with uncompromising beliefs and that can harm our great Constitutional experiment.
The quote of mine you take issue with is not my words, I lifted those words directly from the Declaration of Independence. Government DOES derive all JUST powers from the consent of the governed. Any powers that infringe on the God-given rights of minorities would be UNJUST powers.It CAN get complicated, but let's not be paralyzed into inaction by over-analyzing the situation. We can know that we should oppose the outrageous actions of the Fayetteville School District and we don't need to formulate a wide ranging disertation to act.I think we are largely in argeement here.
Fair enough. But we must analyze our views to those who matter in elections instead of the usual nasty, issues-less politics we've grown accustomed to. I understand LT's concerns, but I also understand what it takes to prepare to deal with the ills a free society demands. I really like Mike Masterson's, who sides with LT, columns,who declared many of Christian rightists as afflicted with judgmental arrogance, but respectfully disagree on the totality of his position. Dirty politics with little analysis and hot-buttons aplenty dates back to early times, particularly Pres. Jackson. In AR history, Jeff Davis was one of our first overpowering demagogues. We should understand the results of our actions, derived from proper analysis, prior to firing a salvo which might be irretrievable. This has been a lot of fun! Blogs should be educational, not just a whinefest or a reactionary/radical remarks venue. Thanks for the forum.
Mark,I appreciate the distinction you made, and it is appropriate. But I did not pick up that you were thinking in that manner. Generally speaking, it seemed you were holding a more populist view than Constitutional. If not, perhaps there is hope for you after all.ar1836,I really don't know where to begin addressing your twisting of the orignal intent of the founding fathers.You wrote:We are a pluralist society and we have to govern people who don't share our Christian heritage and that includes views on traditionally and popularly despised behaviors and other religions which cannot be proved to be deleterious to society.You are correct that we now live in a pluralistic society and, as adults, need to learn to function impactfully in that society. However, saying that our children need to be put in a leftist indoctrination program which isolates them to learn only the dogma of secular humanism is the stupidest statement I have ever heard. We shouldn't send our children off to fight a cultural battle before they are prepared any more than we send them off to war be summarily slaughtered by the enemy. The very suggestion is moronic.Now to the next ignorant statement in that sentence. No thinking person could truthfully say that certain behaviors "cannot be proved to be deleterious to society." For example, promiscuous sexual behavior, especially homosexual sex, is easily proven to have deleterious impact upon society ... AIDS and a multitude of sexually transmitted diseases. Or how about illicit drug usage? What about the connection of pornography with sexual assault and serial killers? Maybe broken families through divorce? Perhaps the world is better off without children learning and honoring character traits such as humility, bravery, courageousness, resourcefulness, ect.? To say that these can't be proven only demonstrates that to your relativistic mindset... nothing to be proven. Your demand that something be proven is illogical. The logical response is to ask you what would you accept as proof? What proof would you accept as valid in proving that pornographic books in the Fayetteville library is harmful to society?Why is it that the relativist claims that nothing can be proven, and yet demand proof from their adversaries? Even if such a proof were presented, they would not accept it as valid.PTL - Post Too Long, I will address more of a61836 comments later.
AIDS is a terrible problem in the heterosexual community as well. Yes, pre-marital sex is troublesome, yet it is MORE troublesome when children are not given alternatives if they are going to engage in sexual behavior like sex education provides. Many women who have been matriculated through public school systems I've experienced were woefully ignorant about birth control methods, HIV infection prevention--yes, the 100% tried and true method for not getting pregnant or infected is abstinence. Hell, church youth groups fail to promote that concept successfully with their charges despite pledges of abstinence and adjurations not to 'do it'. But, for those who fail to heed such adjurations, what is the educational sector to do--sit on their hands and let the churches fail in what might work for a small percentage? Like a program I viewed about the Lubbock school board and a teenage activist who was tired of having one of the highest pregnancy and infection rates in America, the Lubbock schools were run by religious conservatives who would rather blame than act. Their abstinence-only approach FAILED their CHILDREN. Sex is NOT a crime and is not deleterious to society, Coward, yet some perversions if it, like stat rape,etc., etc. ARE--thankfully we don't allow families to give away a 12 year old girl in marriage any more. Sex is how we procreate and continue the human race. It is as natural as any number of natural bodily processes and those who eschew it entirely are usually declared "strange" by society as a whole, much like Protestant Christians who believe Catholic monks are to be feared for their celibacy. Don't be so disingenuous. You have proved nothing more than how backward, callous, and ignorant you are about the world and you want to spread your ignorance to others. The educational system should try to save lives by promoting all the options; in sex ed class in high school, one of the most devout Christians I've EVER known promoted abstinence AND provided information to prevent sex from killing kids and forcing regretful consequences. LT wants to force ALL sex ed out of the schools in Fayetteville and she is promoting a religious viewpoint on the schools and Fayetteville parents and concerned citizens saw her actions for what they were--a Christian conservative agenda designed to take sex ed out of the schools so she can teach her kids nothing about alternatives if they are active when they leave her home. Sex ed is NOT an endorsement of pre-marital sex. It is an attempt to save lives. Also, fictional accounts of horrible acts are hardly promotions of sex, like the book Push. Who would promote incest and rape except a bunch of sick bastards like NAMBLA? Their sexual behavior is MOST certainly deleterious to society, Coward. The Founding Fathers wanted a secular society which could allow a plurality of the various branches of Christianity(and later Jews, as in Maryland where tolerance had existed for them in Colonial days, and now Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, etc), totally aware of the religious strife of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ever heard of the Wars of Reformation? Some of the most destructive wars of their day, until the nationalist bug bit Europe. Historical context of the Founding Fathers desire for a secular society should be included in this debate. We don't favor a particular religion in our government, the courts, or the schools because there can be such violent disagreements over a single verse, or even a word in the Bible, so whose conception should be THE OFFICIAL Xian conception of right and wrong? There is good reason for secularity in government to protect America from Christian division and strife. Many Christians in America today spend their time declaring what other denominations are going to hell. I've experienced that posturing with my own eyes having been raised Southern Baptist in E. AR. I've heard many discussions there about how Catholics are going to hell, United Pentecostals, Catholics, Chruch of Christ, etc., etc. and I heard some of the same talk from Church of Christ people too, as well as otehrs sects of Protestant Christianity. I have twisted NOTHING of the views of the Founding Fathers, the true greatest generation.
ar1836,Nice rant filled with circular reasoning, strawman fallacies, and ad hominem attacks.But the same question still remains to be answered...What proof (for each of your rants) would be sufficient for you?What would you consider sufficient proof that abstinence programs work better than liberal sex encouragement programs in reducing AIDS and STDs?What proof would you consider sufficient to demonstrate that the religions of secular humanism has been instituted in out schools rather than the Constitutional mandate for free exercise as intended by the founding fathers?If you can't tell me what would prove anything to you. The reason is because there is no proof you would accept. Your mind is closed to the possibility that conservative evangelical Chrisitians could be right.That is right, the liberal left has closed it's mind and devolving into the very thing they held in intellectual contempt 100 years ago.Open your mind, answer one question: What proof is sufficient?
Lubbock Texas is in the heart of the "open-minded" Bible belt and their pregnancy and infection rate is among the highest in America. They espouse an abstinence-only program and it has FAILED. I grew up with church kids who have been preached to and would say openly that they believe in saving their bodies for marriage and 90%, even some of the most devout, FAILED in their pledge. I have experience to guide me and experience tempered with knowledge is WISDOM. If you present an argument, I'll carefully consider it. The ad hominems are rife on many of these types of blogs. I've refrained from them until you called me ignorant. You didn't address my concerns against theocratic leanings because my facts are both true and relevant. Many sects of Protestant Christianity declare often that other sects are bound for the flames. Which theocratic ideal wins? The most powerful? The most popular? Speaking of populism, it has a glaring example of failure in the 20th Century in Prohibition--the most important event in the history of the rise of organized crime in America. Prohibitions usually fail because they deny the repercussions of foolishly trying to control aspects of human nature which should be controlled, not banned. Considering that trying to persuade young folks to abstain is a worthy endeavor, trying to promote it as the ONLY option and treating other options with silence is a foolish, reckless endeavor. Please tell me where I'm wrong there. What argument do you have to persuade me beyond any doubt that my way is reckless and foolish? Drug courts have arisen because they realistically deal with human nature instead of locking them up and throwing away the key and telling them merely to abstain---these people are hooked and state intervention is required if their lives mean anything to us. Abstaining from drug use in the first place would have been nice, but it didn't happen and people are going to experiment with alcohol or drugs and some will become hooked. Sex ed and books talking about horrible events in the lives of young people should not be banned because they realistically portray human behavior. There were more whorehouses in London during Victorian times than any period in English history according to sources I've read. Winston Churchill's(Randolph, former Chancellor of the Exchequer---really important office in UK) father may have contracted syphillis in one of those places. Fear of discussing sex or acknowledging sex in Victorian society was a rousing success, Coward. And everything I've said is relevant to the topic at hand. Where's your argument?
ar1836,Please start using paragraphs. I would like to jump in the debate, but it is tiresome trying to wade through your posts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
http://www.sicab.org/sicab/foro/generic-phentermine.html generic phentermine [url=http://www.sicab.org/sicab/foro/generic-phentermine.html]generic phentermine[/url]
http://www.sicab.org/sicab/foro/cheap-phentermine-online.html cheap phentermine online [url=http://www.sicab.org/sicab/foro/cheap-phentermine-online.html]cheap phentermine online[/url]
best regards, nice info Link+http+fluoxetine+hcl.discount+pills.biz Medical malpractice oakland Chisago city appliances buy vicodin online guaranteed Jane iradal mineral cosmetic Alfa romeo brera 2006 Celexa rash http://www.hair-loss-products-9.info/facecreamforrosacea.html children acne rosacea Animal derived pain relievers 42 lcd tv flat panel Bmail bulk email in opt software paris hilton paris latsis
Looking for information and found it at this great site... » » »
best regards, nice info film editing schools
Best of the Web world[url=http://czsoeps.demonstrativ.de/61/map.html]setting up imap4 map 185[/url][url=http://ctajhmx.xn--gewhnt-yxa.de/index.html]bblog by 3 p[/url][url=http://cuukvcj.troesten.de/76/map.html]fax server software map 356[/url][url=http://czsoeps.demonstrativ.de/52/map.html]rcsi email intranet m[/url][url=http://cuegeom.clandomain.org/46/map.html]law elder email map B[/url][url=http://cuoagcs.ohne-euch.de/33/index.html]law elder email L[/url][url=http://cuegeom.clandomain.org/41/map.html]dial hispeed email i[/url]We will be glad to see you
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Thank you for visitingArkansas Watch