"Schools need to teach about orgasms" says NEA to UN"

i agree parents should have a say

Hi Lena. I had to run over to your profile to see a bigger picture of your puppy. This little picture looked almost like a finer and thumb holding a teeny tiny dog. :)

I agree with you. Parents should start taking a much bigger part in what is and what isn't taught to the children. We're the employers; we have a say.

Keeping them ignorant didn't work before. Why do you think it will work now?

POM, what do you mean, "didn't work before."? You think kids didn't masturbate before? I think the trillions of people that have passed through the doors of earth did just fine on their own.
Do you think kids are more reasonable and responsible in sexual activities now then they were 80 yrs ago? Are more responsible now? The more opportunity for outsiders to reach into our homes to express their idea's of social sexuality the worse our kids become. It takes a lot for the parents to protect kids from excessive discussion and visual displays of sex. 70 to 80 yrs ago and beyond kids had a fighting chance to grow up with a reasonable understanding of reasonable purity. Parents and teachers had relatively the same social philosophy. Today that isn't always true. We know some teachers who are as disgusted with the NEA's ideas as we are.
But the NEA has no authority over our children. Sexual activity at younger and younger ages is rampant. If you don't care, that's fine. I care. And I want the state to take back the education from the feds so that we can prevent, not only the filth, but the overall extreme liberal (not all liberals) view of the world that are being forced on our children.

jj, how die both sides come to think so differently regarding raising children?

Thanks for commenting. I agree with your post.

Perhaps you all remember the Victorian era. There were lots of strange ideas about sex in those days but they did try to hide sex from women and children. That era produced Freud with his strange ideas and he was accepted.

There's nothing evil about children learning about sex. Kids who grew up on the farm (which was the vast majority of children 150 years ago) learned about sex from the time they were toddlers. Not only were there the farm animals but there was a good chance that the house they lived in had only a couple of rooms. So whether the parents wanted it or not, their children were exposed to sex from their earliest days.

JJ,

Learning about sex does not "sexualize" children.

Glome,

Children have always masturbated. It's normal, natural, and part of growing up.

The less children know about sex, the more likely they are to have trouble with it later. If they learn early in a calm setting, they are far less likely to become victims.

Sexual activity among children has always been common. It's normal.

JIM,

You comment shows quite a lot about you.

I have never understood Larry's way of thinking.

Hi Jim. I don't think I've met you before. At least not under that icon.
I'm on your side :)

Pom "There's nothing evil about children learning about sex. Kids who grew up on the farm (which was the vast majority of children 150 years ago) learned about sex from the time they were toddlers."

Pom, I'm not saying for the parents not to talk to them. I have 6 kids and it was a big subject at our house. No one has a sense of humor like kids. We had very open and detailed chats ... group or one on one. I have a beautiful 20 yr old grandaughter that is determined to be a virgin when she gets married. Most of them have that intention :) We're pulling for them. Anyway, she told me (her grandmorther) the other day, I believe in front of a couple of others, that she would be really mad if Jesus came back before she had a chance to get married and have sex. They are not uncomfortable talking to us at all.
So don't think people that want teachers to butt out of a families private business and leave sex to the parents are somehow rigid and don't know how to bring the subject up with their own kids.

In fact, from the ones I know, I think Christians in general are pretty open with their kids on sex. But we want them taught morality along with their advanced knowledge. The world in general has pretty trashy idea's about sex.

POM "Children have always masturbated. It's normal, natural, and part of growing up."

That is just what I told you in my first response to you. I didn't understand those sentences in the last 1/2 of your last response. I couldn't tell if you were using different words to quote me or making your own statement.

Glome,

I was agreeing with you and pointing out that even children are sexual whether the adults try to hide it or keep from thinking about it. There's no point in pretending that they are not so and no point in keeping them ignorant when that ignorance can result in so much needless suffering and grief.

Inmate,

Ladies were not supposed to know about sex until marriage and were not supposed to enjoy it even then. They were supposed to act as if they knew nothing about it and were expected to have no sexual feelings.

Men were supposed to have sex only with "professional women", for money, and not expect any sexual response from their wives. Thus, they tried to hide sex from women.

Oh Yaaaaa POM old buddy :) I didn't recognize it was an agreement. Glad you stopped me jabbering away and told me. Ha ha.

Glome,

I am quite willing to agree with someone just as I am willing to disagree with that same person. I also am quite willing to admin when I am wrong (which happens all too often).

I find your jabbering to be charming. :-)

Larry, how can you think that making kids believe that they are totally incapable of NOT having sex is education? What is done in public schools is indoctrination, not education.

Marilyn,

How can you think that it is possible to make kids believe that they will have sex whether they want to or not? They have lived their whole lives without having sex (I hope) and they know that isn't the case. They should expect to want to have sex (unless they are quite unfortunate) and they need to learn techniques of deferring gratification so that they can have sex only if and when it is appropriate. That's called training, not indoctrination. But you can't teach them how to resist sexual temptation unless you are also teaching about sex. So if there is no sex education, there is no learning about how to resist that temptation. It's both or neither.

Hi 702. Glad to meet you. When are visiting hours? Evidently right now :)

Thanks for coming by and bring an opinion. There are lots of those on Gather.
That's what fills up our page :)

Hi Terry. Missed you. I think I've just talked to you once since I've let myself come back to Gather.
One thing for sure, Gather takes up a lot of time. It's addictive. :)

That's right ms Marilyn!! It's what they learn on the playground or behind the barn that's education :):)

JIM,

If you have a point, make it. If you have only insults and lies (you really can't read my mind) I'll just ignore you.

Larry M. Mar 8, 2011, 2:38pm EST
Keeping them ignorant didn't work before. Why do you think it will work now?

WTH?

Larry,

Why would you say that children were kept "ignorant" before (I am assuming you mean before sex education was introduced into the curriculum)?

It is NOT the government's job to teach my child how to satisfy himself sexually.

Where the heck do you get these thoughts of yours?

Trust me, there never was, is not now, and never will be, a lack of correct information out there about sex.

The problem has always been, trying to preserve the child's innocence through his pre-adolescent years, not to bombard him with even MORE (and detailed) information.

They grow up and become familiar with these things early enough, and a child's parent is the one who is in charge of making sure that he is brought up with a moral conscience, and a sense of living up to the responsibilities that come with knowledge.

Not some government agent babysitter.

Sex is a very personal, (and SHOULD BE) PRIVATE issue. There is nothing wrong with covering the basics of the scientific anatomy of males and females and reproduction from a VERY LIMITED standpoint. To go beyond that, is simply stepping over the line into issues the government has no business addressing with my child.

Furthermore, this subject should be covered as a SMALL part of biology (or science), not a whole separate class called Sex Education!

Larry, I have gone through and read some of your other comments above and I think you are confusing "ignorance" with "innocence." There IS a difference, especially when it comes to sex.

We, as Christian parents, try to give our children knowledge about sex, suitable to their ability to understand, and their curiosity about it. WE are the best judge of when that is.

Also, we try to keep them "innocent and pure" in that knowledge, as they learn to deal with the feelings in connection with adolescence. We not only teach the HOW but the WHY and the WHEN, with all the moral issues that go along with it.

You cannot give a child all this sexual info at school, and NOT cover the moral obligations one has AT THE SAME TIME. It doesn't work.

What you end up with, is a bunch of kids who start experimenting with all their new knowledge, without any moral compass. They won't go to their parents adn say, Hey, I learned this at school, what should I do with it? They will think they have all the info they need, and start experimenting. The earlier you do this to them at school, the earlier you will see this happening in society.

And our public schools prove this. Ever since sex education has been introduced, the promiscuity level has risen tremendously! And since schools are teaching a very OPEN homosexual agenda across the board, we are seeing more and more YOUNGER children being sexual with each other.

This is the government agenda.

There is no innocence about it. They have been CREATING this promiscuity problem in our society.

My daughter called me the other day, a friend of hers has a little girl in first grade. She had to switch schools because a little boy who sat next to her in her previous school across town, was molesting her IN CLASS! The only way the parents found out, was that she came home and was crying that he "broke up" with her and in her explanation, she said he would fondle her under the desk everyday. (That was how he claimed she was his girlfriend)

THESE ARE FIRST GRADERS! 6 and 7 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!

They are bombarded with sex from all angles! On TV shows, on Commercials, on Video games, on CARTOONS, Magazines, etc etc

THEY DON'T NEED MORE info at school.

Ah ha ha!!! Ama Arab ... great speech! Looks like you got it all covered. I'm proud of you :):)

Ama,

Parents have been trying to keep knowledge of sex from children for about 150 years in western culture. It hasn't worked well. It isn't specific to schools.

PS: The schools don't do any better job teaching about sex than they do teaching about any other subjects. But, sometimes, it's better than nothing.

Ama,

There is considerable false information out there about sex and your children are exposed to it from an early age. (The schools do that also but not on purpose. They just get the children together and can't keep them from talking about sex.)

Ama,

Do you have any idea how much of biology is about sex? Hint: it isn't a small part.

Ama,

Innocence is a good thing. Ignorance is a bad thing. Now explain that difference to the people who oppose sex education in the public schools. Eliminating ignorance does not have to destroy innocence.

Most parents are pretty bad judges of when their children need to learn about sex. What makes you think Christian parents are better than the others?

What makes you think that the school children are not experimenting with sex long before the subject is brought up in schools? In fact, what makes you think children don't experiment with sex before kindergarten? Sex and sexual feelings do not wait until puberty.

The vast majority of teachers in the public schools who teach about sex are good Christians. Just ask them if you don't believe me.

The promiscuity level in our society has not "risen tremendously" since sex education was introduced in our schools. It was already high.

"They are bombarded with sex from all angles! On TV shows, on Commercials, on Video games, on CARTOONS, Magazines, etc etc."

This is exactly why we need sex education in our schools. This bombardment makes money for people who have wealth and power. It's not going to stop. The children need education about sex in self defense.

POM ... "(The schools do that also but not on purpose. They just get the children together and can't keep them from talking about sex.)"

Ha ha ha. I like it.

POM ... "It's not going to stop. The children need education about sex in self defense."

I very much agree with that. TV & rented movies feed them a steady diet of sex. The difference is who should straighten them out? I think that is the main thing that separates most people on the page.
I'm very aware of what was taught just a few years ago and they were teaching positions. In the book. I read it. I read a lot of things I didn't like.
Jr high didn't need instruction in that area. I don't want the school teaching that kind of detail ... nor do I want them to get across a heathen picture of the morality of sex.

I do think, sad as it is, that they need to learn the necessity of using protection from disease and getting pregnant. I want boys and girls separated when it is taught. I understand they want it to appear a very normal thing and do not think that helps. That's not their decision to declare that they want to acclimate the boys and girls at a young age to the everydayish of sex and sex talk.
To teach something with privacy and honor doesn't hurt anyone and they are not, then, taking freedom with our children that belongs to parents.
That's pretty much it, except they can talk about girls periods to the girls. That's not sexual so there should not be a big difference in between what parents and teachers would say.

Glome,

Their parents should "straighten them out" but there are a lot of parents who are foolish or stupid or irresponsible or messed up in their knowledge of and attitudes toward sex or mentally ill or missing or, well, you name it. There are millions of kids whose parents will do more harm than good in dealing with sex. If we as a society depend on parents to do their job well, there will be millions of kids who will suffer as a result.

Again, I don't think the schools do very well with teaching about sex either. Many of those teachers, principals, and school board members are also unsuited to make decisions about sex education. Our culture has been pretty messed up about sex for a long time now. (The Victorians for example.)

Parents should be teaching their children sex education so they don't have to learn it on their own. If they teach it in school it will simplify the process and make it seem like something that can be done every day with no concern for the consequences. Parents have already given up control of their children to school personnel, it's time they took some of the responsibility for raising their children properly.

Patricia "Parents have already given up control of their children to school personnel, it's time they took some of the responsibility for raising their children properly"

Exactly Patricia. Plain and simple. They belong to us, not the politicians and not the unions. And not the UN yet. We are still the only country that haven't signed the UN Bill that would give them control. If President Obama signs it I'm ready to take to the streets.

Thanks for coming by.

And you're 100% right also jj :)

Hi Jim. I hope she notes the response and come back to comment. That would be interesting.

I can't imagine what kind of sex education program wouldn't<\em> teach about orgasm. As Larry pointed out, keeping children ignorant about sex hasn't worked out very well. Comprehensive sex education programs work better than abstinence-only programs, and better than simply leaving it all up to parents. Too many parents, either by choice or due to ignorance, fail to provide their children with adequate information about sexuality and sexual health.

Will. "As Larry pointed out, keeping children ignorant about sex hasn't worked out very well."
How are kids better off now that sex is taught to them in detail at such young ages? That they (some of them) see sexual content from the time they can walk on the TV? That intimate details are given to them before it should be part of their life? And all of it given without moral context?
What does "working well" mean society? That teens now know many ways to do it? That most don't feel guilty for exercising sex whenever they are interested in it?
That sexuality is so flaunted today that it's really hard for kids to stay pure even when they want to. And without desire for purity built into them, why would they want to?
Truthfully, I know many have different goals as far as teaching their children the rights and wrongs of living life. But we don't hire teachers to take over the spiritual, political and intimate purpose of life to our children. They should be touched on only as much as needed.
I know I'm being too crabby, but it really is so wrong for them to instruct our teachers to take on issues that should be handled at home.

"How are kids better off now that sex is taught to them in detail at such young ages?"

Comprehensive sex education programs have been shown to reduce behavior that puts kids at risk of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases, as well as unwanted pregnancy.

Learning about healthy and safe sexual behavior doesn't cause kids to have sex any earlier, to engage in riskier behavior, or to have more sex partners. It can and often does help create responsible and positive attitudes towards sex, sexuality, and relationships.

"That most don't feel guilty for exercising sex whenever they are interested in it?"

Yeah, I think it's best for pretty much everybody if teenagers weren't taught that having sex (or thinking about having sex, or masturbating, or having an orgasm, etc.) wasn't dirty and something they should feel guilty or ashamed of. And that choosing not to do those things wasn't something they should feel guilty or ashamed of, either.

"That sexuality is so flaunted today that it's really hard for kids to stay pure even when they want to."

I think living in a highly sexualized culture means young people have an even stronger need for comprehensive sex education, rather than less. I also think that trying to connect sexual behavior with "purity" can be dangerous, particularly for girls and women. A lot of violence and violating sexual and reproductive rights and health of girls and women is done in the name of "protecting" (controlling) virginity (or at least a particular concept of "virginity").

Forced child marriage, female genital mutilation, and breast ironing are the ones we sometimes here about happening in other countries and cultures, but slut-shaming and deliberately witholding vital information about reproductive and sexual health are other, more familiar, forms it can take.

While comprehensive school-based programs are better than nothing (and better than abstinence-only school-based programs), programs that involve health-care providers, parents, and communities in general are better still.

See Glome, Jim has provided some excellent examples of the kinds of attitudes I'm talking about.

"The schools want the children to be sooooo relaxed with the thought of having sex that now we see most schools with young girls walking around looking like hookers."

"All that it has given us is more young girls HAVING SEX AND GETTING pregnant!!!"

While still high when compared to many other countries (especially countries that have widespread implementation of comprehensive sex education programs), the teen birthrate in the US is lower now than it was in the 1950s (I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think teen birthrates in the US peaked in 1957).

Hi Wil,
Concerning the stats right above in your last post. They also have abortions easily available which they didn't have in the 50's.
So I don't have to rewrite, please read my response to POM at Please 1:47 EST.

I think you guys have an unrealistic idea of how Christians deal with the children about sex. All area's that they are involved in are discussed and usually laughed at. They also talk about what's to come. That is our right. The NEA, with no reason at all, has decided they know more than the parents and gave authority (Which wasn't theirs to give) to the teachers.

You guys have jumped to the conclusion we tell our kids nothing, or we are somber and warning only, and advocate the NEA taking it upon themselves to decide to assume that roll.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!! I hate the NEA organization. (Not the people. Just the union :) At least I'm working at it.

Wil "I think living in a highly sexualized culture means young people have an even stronger need for comprehensive sex education, rather than less."

Me. Of course that is true. I don't know any parents that don't know that. You guys just assume we're idiots.

Wil "I also think that trying to connect sexual behavior with "purity" can be dangerous,..."

Me That's why we don't want you teaching our children. There is an abysmal lack of purity and ethics in the young people in America. Their parents didn't put any value on those things. Wil, don't feel like we just bark orders to our kids. We know they have to have these goals for themselves. Sometimes you haven't succeeded by the time their teens and you respond differently than those kids that have an active relationship with the Lord to the point that they have taken on those desire for themselves.

Wil "Yeah, I think it's best for pretty much everybody if teenagers weren't taught that having sex (or thinking about having sex, or masturbating, or having an orgasm, etc.) wasn't dirty and something they should feel guilty or ashamed of."

You just assume we have our kids twisted in guilt. Again, please read my response to POM. Why would we do that to kids? We do have limits that you probably don't have. And it's our right to have those limits. But I can tell by what you say you have no idea how to do it in the right way.

Oh ... the problem is whether you understand or not, whether the NEA knows or not, it is still not the business of teachers to 'decide' that they will take over.

Here is my last issue :) You probably don't think God is a very present living entity that changes the one who puts their faith in Him. But He is. He is not a 'law' but a person that wants a relationship with each of us. Lot's of our kids do know Him. Some don't yet. But he changes everything. He gave us sex to enjoy. He isn't up tight about it. But He puts limits on who you have sex with. People that don't know Him personally don't need to be messing with our kids personal life.

I've been thinking Wil. I well understand that most of you think life is an pretty much of an accident and therefore we humans owe no allegiance to any authority other than society. If that were true, I would say you have a pretty good head on your shoulders over most of the subjects we've talked about.Some day, not on this post, I'd like to hear the path you've walked to arrive at your conclusion. It would just be interesting. As I've gotten to know you better, I know you have ethics, but of course not the same one's you would have if you felt there was a Creator to respond to.
I won't bring it up. But you can :)

"Concerning the stats right above in your last post. They also have abortions easily available which they didn't have in the 50's. "

That's true, and that was my first thought, too. But apparently that's not a big factor, because it turns out that teen pregnancy rates are lower, too. Apparently, one reason for that is because people tended to get married and start having babies when they were much younger (and average of about 5 or 6 years earlier for first marriage, 3 or 4 years for first pregnancy). And another reason is because sexually-active teenagers are more likely to use contraception, but even more importantly, they're using more effective forms of contraception (in particular, oral contraceptive pills and long-acting injections and implants).

"I think you guys have an unrealistic idea of how Christians deal with the children about sex."

I haven't said anything about Christians dealing with children about sex, and I wasn't aware that there was any particular way of dealing with children about sex that applies to all Christians. I don't know a lot of Christians well enough that we've spent a lot of time discussing sex and sex ed, etc., but even with my limited experience, from what I can tell, they don't all think or behave in the same ways.

But I read an interesting article I while back that said that self-described "evengelical" or "born again" teenagers are more likely to believe that they shouldn't have sex until after they're married, less likely to think that sex will be pleasurable, and are more likely to think that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. And yet they also tend to lose their virginity younger than non-evangelical Protestants or Catholics, are more likely than non-evangelical Protestants to have had three or more sexual partners by the time they're 17, and are more sexually active than non-evangelical Protestants, Mormons, or Jews. I'm not sure what the full story is there, but I've got the book on order so I can learn more about it all.

"You guys have jumped to the conclusion we tell our kids nothing, or we are somber and warning only..."

Again, I haven't said anything about what you (you personally, your family, or Christians, or whoever you mean by "we") tell your kids. I think maybe you're the one who has jumped to conclusions, Glome. Neither your article nor the C-FAM article you linked to gives much info about what was said at session, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the UN is an international organization, and Diane Schneider was speaking as a representative of not only the NEA, but also Education International, which is also an international organization.

"Of course that is true. I don't know any parents that don't know that. You guys just assume we're idiots."

I don't assume that you're an idiot, Glome. I assume that you don't know every parent in the US (nevermind the rest of the world), that you don't know what they know about sex or what they think they should teach their kids about it, or what they do or do not teach their kids about it.

"That's why we don't want you teaching our children."

You keep saying "we", Glome. Who else are you speaking for? Whoever it is, if it makes you feel any better, I'm not a teacher. But I do think that teaching young people (or anybody for that matter) that their worth as an individual is tied to somebody's notion of "purity" is seriously problematic, and potentially dangerous.

Another book I'm waiting to read (yeah, I have a very long to-do list when it comes to books) talks about abstinence-only sex ed classes "where girls are being taught that they are like a 'used lollipop' if they have sex before marriage." Personally, I think that sort of thing is a lot more problematic than teaching kids that they shouldn't feel ashamed about their sexual orientation or gender identity (which I believe was the focus of Ms. Schneider's speech.

Wil, you ask any of the 12 years old girls who now think bjs are something you have to do to every guy after saying hello about safety. They can tell you what they learned in sex ed. But do they use precautions for anything. NO. Just because they learn to put a condom on a banana does not mean that they're using them. But they are much more active much earlier now that they're being taught how in school at such an early age.

Ok Wil ... this is getting old. You are right :)
I had slipped into looking at only my family and those of our acquaintances. I should have get my subject as kids in general.

"evengelical" or "born again" teenagers are more likely to believe that they shouldn't have sex until after they're married TRUE
less likely to think that sex will be pleasurable Ah ha ha ha. Well, what age are we talking about? When I was 9 or 10, my folks had already talked to me but staying all night with my girl friend added a bit more. Her Mom came into the room after we were in bed & we told her it seemed like God could have picked a less embarrassing way to do it. She said "No, it's alright. In fact you like it." We both screamed that she liked it and put our heads under the covers. But then Lucy and Ricky were still sleeping in separate beds. You're probably too young to remember the pristine households on TV back then, I think that was an old survey you read. :)
It is not possible for todays child to grow up not realizing adults like sex. Even the 'decent' TV shows make that very clear.

and are more likely to think that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. SEMI TRUE. But so what. When we caught them lying we were unhappy with them too. Or stealing a candy bar.
Sometimes wanting the parents respect is the whole thing that gets a child through college. It can work for good. I think kids that don't have that kind of respect behind them are worse off than when your parents expect good from you.

"You keep saying "we", Glome...." Yes, yes. But I've already confessed to that :)

Good luck on your reading list. I'm in the middle of a bunch of books and never seem to finish them. If it weren't for Gather, I'd have a lot more time.

PS I am aware that there are a lot of kids whose parents don't tell them anything.

I wouldn't complain about a very moderate health class where these were touched on. But I've read one of the books the high school uses and was appalled. I'm not sure what the answer is there.

"and are more likely to think that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. SEMI TRUE. But so what. When we caught them lying we were unhappy with them too. Or stealing a candy bar. "

I don't think having sex is comparable to lying or stealing, and I don't think it's a good idea to teach kids that having sex is something they should be ashamed of, or that they're less deserving of respect because they've had sex.

And I think a lot of the discussion here helps make one of Schneider's points--that in a lot of sex ed programs (and in society in general), almost all of the focus is on "having sex", as in heterosexual "penis in vagina" intercourse.

"I think that was an old survey you read."

The book was published in 2007.

"PS I am aware that there are a lot of kids whose parents don't tell them anything."

Problematic, no doubt. In some cases I think it can be considered a form of child abuse. But I think that in a lot of cases, what the parents are telling them is as potentially harmful as not telling them anything.

"While not a big fan of yours, I will give you credit as taking the most extreme position on all the issues that I have seen you at. While 99% of people who believe as you do would be to embarrassed to state your beliefs, you stand unafraid to stating it. "

Thanks, Thomas. I think. LOL! I guess I don't really think of positions like "Sex (and sexuality) is not something to be ashamed of" and "Don't hate gay people" as extreme positions, but I guess for some people, they are. Within my various social circles (family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc.), I think my views are pretty "middle-of-the-road".

"Wil, you ask any of the 12 years old girls who now think bjs are something you have to do to every guy after saying hello about safety."

Again with the young girls? First Jim S. and now you, Marilyn. Since I can't read their minds, how will I know which 12-year-old girls to ask, Marilyn? Can I tell by the way they look, or walk, or the way they dress?

"They can tell you what they learned in sex ed. But do they use precautions for anything. NO."

And you know this how, Marilyn?

"Just because they learn to put a condom on a banana does not mean that they're using them. But they are much more active much earlier now that they're being taught how in school at such an early age. "

Well, the information I've seen says that isn't true, Marilyn. For example, Pamela Kohler's study (Journal of Adolescent Health, 2008) found that:

...abstinence-only programs had no
significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity
or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STD. In
contrast comprehensive sex education programs were significantly associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy, whether compared with no sex education or with abstinence-only sex education, and were marginally associated with decreased likelihood of a teen becoming sexually active compared with no sex education.

Of course one of the limitations of these types of studies is that they exlude anyone who reports a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and only deal with heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Which again gets back to one of the main points of Diane Schneider's presentation.

Wil "Comprehensive sex education programs have been shown to reduce behavior that puts kids at risk of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases, as well as unwanted pregnancy."

I would say this is the one thing that SE does improve on ... however it has a bad side that diminishes the good. The constant approval give by school authorities to enter into these relationships as long as they use protection. Having adult give them permission to give into their own desires without moral standards presented increases sexual activities.

Jim "Sex education is like giving a kid bomb making instructions and thinking he won't experiment with bomb making."

Agreed 100% Jim.

"Provincetown, Massachusetts making condoms available to first graders. Student requests for condoms were to be kept secret and parents’ objections ignored."

“We know that sexual experimentation is not limited to an age, so how does one put an age on it?” said Superintendent Beth Singer, who wrote the policy unanimously passed two weeks ago by the Cape Cod town's School Committee.

Seems pretty sensible to me. How does one put an age on it? At what point does a nurse tell someone "Hey, if you're planning on having sex, I'd rather you have unprotected sex, because I'm not going to provide you with a condom"?

"If the Helena school district has its way, kindergarteners will learn about “reproductive body parts”: the penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, and uterus."

Yeah, because it's horrible when kids use the correct names for body parts. That information should be kept from them until they're much older. And married.

"Ten year olds will be taught that “sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration”."

Much more sensible and inclusive than teaching them that unless it involves a penis in a vagina, it doesn't count.

"If the Helena school district has its way, kindergarteners will learn about “reproductive body parts”: the penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, and uterus."

Yeah, because it's horrible when kids use the correct names for body parts. That information should be kept from them until they're much older. And married.

I was going to comment on this part myself.
We used the correct terms with our son when he first pointed as his penis and said pee pee...I rather he understood the correct terms instead of being 20 years old and pointing down and saying Pee pee.

"We used the correct terms with our son when he first pointed as his penis and said pee pee."

I can remember that I thought it seemed a bit weird the first time I heard young children (say, three-year-olds) using the correct names, but I also remember my mom saying how she thought it was a great idea because it can be so confusing when every kid has different made-up names for their body parts.

"Looks like one of your expert teachers got in trouble because of his teaching the children you see that is fit for them."

He did something that was considered inappropriate, and he was disciplined for it. It was an AP psychology class, it was a lesson about perception and innuendo, it had nothing to do with a comprehensive sex education program, or with anything Diane Schneider talked about at the Commission on the Status of Women.

I understand the lesson he was trying to teach, but I don't think he went about it the right way. I didn't take AP Psych in high school, but my guess is there's nothing on the test about licking nuts or assisting erections.

If one of my kids had been in the class, I doubt I would've went after the teacher with a torch and a pitchfork, but I can understand why some parents would complain.

If you want the truth Thomas, I think liberal thought puts too much importance to sex. The 'freedom' of sex. It's kind of nice for a teacher to say "You need to ask your Mom or Dad about that. That's for them to teach."
They just don't have to know all the positions and possibilities for sex play. It over saturates their minds because they aren't old enough to understand the emotional and moral aspects of adult living.

Wil, you asked a few questions of me above.

How do I know what 12 year old girls are doing? Of course I don't know what they're all doing. Neither do you. :-)

But my hubby has a 14 year old and I've been around her for 6 years. I know what she and her friends have learned. And I even know what they have done (what they'll tell - which is way too much). I also know that when I was in school, the first pregnant girl that I met was a senior when I was in 10th grade. But she had gotten married to her soldier boy friend in the summer and got pregnant, and had to keep her marriage secret to stay in school. (Back then you could be pregnant and go to school, but not married.)

My son is 27. When he was in middle school and high school, the kids he hung out with were like him - not sexually active. But we know that they certainly were lots of them who were. How? Because every 8th grade class had at least 3-4 pregnant girls. And the numbers went up with the grades. In the sr. class there were probably 12. And that means there were probably dozens that had abortions as well.

Today, it's even worse. For one thing, girls are maturing earlier. (Some think it's the estrogen-like quality of soy we give our kids starting with formula.)

One teacher I spoke with about what was being taught and how the kids react to it said that their bodies may be maturing earlier, but their minds are not. She said that any sex ed shows the boys sitting there with the expression that says, "I'm gonna do that, I'm gonna do that, I'm gonna do that - soon!" And girls that are are embarrassed and giggle a lot, just like they do about everything. The point? None of them are really listening. And you can figure that out when you talk to them and they're surprised that you can get disease in your mouth. None of them remember anyone talking about how you might protect that part of you. They do remember what is said about protecting private parts, but none of them want to use condoms.

I was coming down the line trying to find your post and they were talking about using kiddy words to talk about private parts. I think it's cute!
Nobody become wiser or more sexually mature just because they use the adult terms.
It still makes me smile to hear little kids say they have to poo poo. That is not a sign that they are going to be naive when there in the upper (or even lower) grade school. Somehow they all transitioned before school.
I may have said we didn't use those words... but if I did, I was wrong. There were some of them they used. Now, I would let them use them all. It's like a part of toddler life :):)

Parents do need to be involved and should be able to voice things.

I agree Sandy. When education in controlled from Washington, our effectiveness is nil. We need it back to the state and even more at the school districts.

Thanks for commenting.

Jim, just go to Wikipedia & type in NEA then click on budget. There is usually a list of the subjects covered regarding the thing you are looking up. It will be a little below the subject line on the left hand side.

Great post. Interesting comments...

Thanks Major :)

It's just flat wrong!

I'm glad we're starting to take our country back!

The Feds will fight hard to keep education even though they weren't given that right in the constitution.

I think if they new how good it could be they would be doing it alot more then they already are which is not what we want. We want them to do less.

I agree that it would be wonderful if they voluntarily gave our responsibilities back to us :):) I don't imagine they will. We'll have to fight for them.

Thanks for coming by and commenting Pamela.

I have often wondered why some people have kids at all.. I mean why, have kids when you wont let them be kids.. Society wants to push them out of school now at a much earlier age, in the name of education... Sorry, but I dont agree with this.. To me, its the same as taking a puppy away from its mother to soon.. I think half of the reason that they want the kids in school at an earlier age is so the school system can be the parents babysitter and its cheaper than paying for daycare.. People in this area just have a cow when these kids get off for snowdays.. They whine and complain because they have to work and it makes it harder on them because they have to now take time out of their busy schedules to find sitters... Now, my way of thinking is, I would rather go out of my way to make sure the child and bus driver is safe... The less traffic on the road during bad weather the safer it is and easier for the road crews to clean up... A good parent always has a back up plan if they live in a state that has snow... Another reason for having a back up is when the child gets sick... THe daycare or the school doesnt want them there. YOu would be surprised the number of parents who still send their sick kids out the door to let someone else deal with them and all the time they are exposing others to their sickness..
NOw, to get back to the point of this article... We need to kick the government OUT of our lives along with these nut cases who want to expose our children sooner to something that should be more discreet.. We dont need to push anything else on these kids... They have enough stress in their lives with all the shootings done in school now, all the violence , drugs, porn, perverts , broken homes, etc. to deal with... This is none of the teachers business, its the parents and the parents need to take on some responsibilty for these kids that they chose to bring into the world...

Hi Vickey. Good post. You're right, it is really hard with Mom's working now to work out the problem of sick kids. Especially if she's the only parent around.

I know the government sees problems with the increased crime at earlier ages and wants to help. It would be like one of us looking up and down our street and seeing that some of the kids were a mess. Some of the parents were a mess. So we decide we'll get together as a block family and make rules and regs that will control the situation and try to turn things around so that it would be better for everyone.

Sounds good but who are we to make the decision that we are going to start changing things in the lives of the families that aren't living up to our standards.

The Constitution doesn't allow for people to play god over others. The government is all geared up to decide public and private ways to change our children. That is not constitutional. They are to keep our country safe for invasion. Handle possible discord between the states and that's the bulk of their responsibility.
If the UN charter on the child goes through, which Obama is in favor of it ... a couple of area's of authority they take from us, this foreign body reaching into the domain of USA with our gov'ts blessing are 1. The childs intellectual process belongs to him and not the parents. 2. The child cannot be forced to attend religious meetings. SO...THE UN IS GIVING THOSE RIGHTS TO THE CHILDREN. Well, how is it that the UN is holding those rights in their hands & has decided they will give them to my child. The UN does not have control or possession of the rights of my child. I HOLD THOSE RIGHTS. Given to me by God and reinforced by the government. The UN intends to overpower me and take the right that is mine unto it's self, then fake it like it is given to the child. We're not blind. We all know the game they are playing.

Therefore, there is a petition going around (please sign it) to submit the bill through congress that is called, THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS. That way it will supersede The UN's bill. That will give us protection.
That's really every parents dream, having every vile nation in the world grasping jpower of our children. Many with their child brothels etc.

You'll see some of these remarks/arguments about not teaching religion in schools, not based on constitutionality, but just on the basis that it should be a private issue. Sex isn't, though? Their reasoning is so flippin' sloppy.

Getting back to the constitutionaliy issue, though, if a parent is raising a child in a faith where abstinence is a part of that religion, it's not unconstitutional that they can't have their children opt out of this so called education? What kind of freedom to practice religion is that?

This is "education" that has emotional impact. It isn't the kind of thing that is right for all kids to know at the same time. They're in different places of emotional development with different personal situations and circumstances from which they come. It's just not the kind of learning for which you can develop a chronological age-appropriate curriculum because the readiness for such learning is very different for each child.

Hi SueB,

Para 1. Good comparison Sue.

Para 2 Read last two paragraphs on my response right over your head. That's the fear at the moment. If all intellectual property of the child's mind belongs to the child, then THEY can choose what they do and do not want to participate in of the special seminars and classes at school. The teachers don't even have to notify parents as they have no rights to the child's intellectual decisions. (They know just what they're doing ... the NEA and many school authorities are evil. If UN treaty is signed by Obama, (USA is the only one that hasn't signed) we are not allowed to force our children to go to church or listen to our spiritual teaching if they don't want to.
Great, huh?

Sure, the UN stand is very damaging to the family unit and to society in general. With rights come responsibility so, in essence, it teaches kids at the earliest age that rights don't come with responsibility because if children were capable of responsibilities that come with those rights, they wouldn't need parents.

It's got to be a very rare kid who doesn't think he knows what his best interests are over his parents. So let's say this goes through. In my house, we'd get this straight really fast. "The UN says I don't have to go to church on Sunday, Mom." "You know that bike you want for your birthday, Johnny? Is the UN going to buy it for you? If not, and you do want the bike, you're going to church. And if after you get the bike you think you're going to stop going, I'll take it away from you. Otherwise, go live at the UN."

Seriously, though, the problem is that if they get this much control, I doubt home-schooling will even be an option anymore. It's a very horrible thought, but it will happen because to have that kind of control, they need to usurp all the power they can over the child. The only thing the parents will be doing is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the children.

You're so right, Sue. Public schools have become factories in every sense. They treat all kids the same, as if they're supposed to be clones.

And, yes, the more control - and more UN input - into public schools, the less chance of home schooling. Right now, there are estimated to be about 2 million kids home schooled. (Estimated because some states don't require that you register if you are.) If they're using any kind of home school material or using the library as the basis of education, these kids, at least, are learning the truth about our country and its foundation. Once they've outlawed home schools, they can re-write history entirely.

SueB "In my house, we'd get this straight really fast." Ha ha. Loved your example :)

The last part of your comment is bone chilling, but I know you're probably right. That is one think I've prayed for for years. Let us keep control of our children till Christ returns. I know we're supposed to willing to go through a lot but I hope that's not part of it.

You're right Marilyn. One thing that helps us keep those rights is that colleges are very ready to take home schooled kids. As a whole they are better educated and acclimated to life.
It is a lot of work but worth it.

I was wondering whether they separate boys from girls when they "teach" sex.

I know they did when I went to school...but then again, tht was many years back.
Then again, without sex ed. I wouldn't have known about my period either since I didn't have a parent to explain what was going on with my body.

I was looking for answer to what they are doing today, of course.

Nell, that's what my Mom said. She had no idea what was wrong with her :(

No, I don't think they usually do any more. I'm sure they just want the kids to 'not be ashamed' or 'feel comfortable talking about it whenever necessary.' But the truth is, I like some bashfullness. I like the room for of unrelated boys and girls to feel a little distant from each other.I think it's a great part of growing up.

Hi I generally am quiet and shy away from topics such as this, but......
I'm sitting here shaking my head. Here in Florida, they are having a debate about not allowing the kids to wear the droopy pants that expose their underwear,(which i think looks horrible anyway) That's fine, but when it comes to discussing a private matter such as this, they should ONLY do it with permission from the child's parent/guardian.It seems like the schools want to make it as ordinary as taking a math class! Could you hear little Suzy walking in the door after school yelling out " We learned about fractions today, and I got an A on my oral sex exam!" While your in laws where over visiting?
I imagine there are cases where a child could not discuss a personal matter such as this with some of their parents, or in some cases they may be brought up by a grandparent etc.. Maybe uncomfortable.
Now before you jump all over me saying it shouldn't be uncomfortable to discuss this with your child, I'm thinking back to when i was a kid. If something had happened to my mom, it would have just been my stepfather & me. If we where watching a movie , I would walk out of the living room if a sexy scene came on t.v. I just didn't feel comfortable. I could never have had a "talk" with him. Maybe I'm just not with "the times" anymore. I just don't think the schools should have the final say, and some things should not be so out in the open.

Hi Debbie. Thanks for coming by and deciding to speak out.
You're talking about real life. And kids have grown up just fine under those conditions. It doesn't hurt, it fact I like it when kids get a little embarassed when private stuff comes up :):)
Problem is now, they're going to get it from NEA teachers if we don't beat them to the punch. I don't know if my Mom was shy or ornery, I asked how the see got into the woman at 5yrs old. She was in the kitchen. She said, "I don't have time to talk right now honey, your Daddy's on the porch, go ask him." She was still laughing at it after I was married :) People used to be able to just be themselves, but parenting needs more vigilance today. We used to be afraid some older kid would spill the beans before we did, now we have to worry about crafty adults.

One thing that is important is that kids know about sexual diseases. It is wise to for schools to have a time of warning kids. But high school gym glass should be sufficient for something like that.

Ah ha ha. That does point out the truth that kids are satisfied with simple answers at first. They don't want the whole lesson. It's boring since there is no innate curiosity beyond filling in the current info the child needs to round out his understanding of the problem as he sees it.

Does it make sense to expose these young children to sex education but on the other we are trying to teach them that refraining, from sex is the best policy... These people seem to try and undermine what the parents think is best for their kids.... Keyword here: Their kids, not the schools, not the states, not the governments kid.... Dont they think it will make the kids curious and start having sex at an earlier age? More diseases, more pregnancies... What a world we live in....

"These people seem to try and undermine what the parents think is best for their kids."

Sometimes what parents think is best for their kids is wrong, and needs to be undermined. Maybe you think that a parent can do whatever they want to their children and it's nobody else's business. I don't. And yes, I'm a parent.

"Dont they think it will make the kids curious and start having sex at an earlier age?"

Probably not, since study after study indicates that that isn't the case.

"...study after study..." You've got that party right, buddy. So instead of murdering their kids in the womb, they can keep them and use their own kids for their experiments. (and, of course, the kids of wllling and trusting parents like you) That should be more than enough to keep them studies a comin'.

Study this.

Sue, thanks so much for that graph... I had been wondering about the results of taking the prayer out of the classroom... I knew that crime , divorces, etc . had to of gone up... A country without morals is what we have become.. The amazing thing about this is, that after Madeline Ohare campaigned to get the prayer taken out of the classrooms, her one son became a preacher..

That must have done her in. It's like when a family is racist and one of their kids marries outside the race. Poetic justice is so just.

Wil, there you go putting words into my mouth.. Please, dont try to get your crystal ball out and read my mind, cause it AINT GONNA WORK...
I still give credit to parents that they arent going to beat their kids to death.. Those that do, are not parents, they are monsters and monsters is a different story all together..
As far as your study goes.. BS.... Kids are curious and they think they know more than the parent, so now that they are taught how to have safe sex and run down to the planned parenthood clinic and get their free contraceptives, I would say they are ready to grow up.. Let the hormones start raging and its anyone guess what happens next, throw a little peer pressure, drinking , drugs in there, I would think it safe to say that one little harmless kiss can evolve into something a lot more explosive...Because now they are knowledgeable and they dont think they will get caught..

I could be wrong, vickey, but if Wil were talking about parents who need to be undermined as parents committing crimes like beating their kids, there wouldn't be a problem. He's talking about a politically correct and incorrect way to raise kids, though he would NEVER admit to that. We'll have to buffer that to saying that Wil means that if you think it's in the better interests of your child to educate your children in a way that is not according to the authority of a secular consensus, then it doesn't matter whether you are raising a competent child who will benefit society or not, if your means to do so are different from what "their studies" show raise the most competent clones that benefit society. Suddenly, and without any need of explanation, the means DO justify the ends. Let's not forget, they are "their studies." Do you think the government is going to fund studies to find out what are the consequences of taking prayer out of school? Their studies always start out with a premise that is a bias against anything that is not secular to prove what they want to and expect they will prove. They're so darned clever, aren't they?

"Wil, there you go putting words into my mouth."

Actually, I didn't.

"I still give credit to parents that they arent going to beat their kids to death."

There are other ways to abuse children besides beating them to death.

"Those that do, are not parents, they are monsters and monsters is a different story all together."

I don't believe in monsters. Or goblins. Or angels. I do, however, believe that there are parents who abuse their children, and that many of them feel that, for whatever reasons, they are justified in doing so.

Thanks for the link Sue. If Vickey likes it I will too. I'm going over there as soon I I write one more comment.

Thanks both of you, for what all you have contributed to the discussion.

Wil; "Sometimes what parents think is best for their kids is wrong, and needs to be undermined. Maybe you think that a parent can do whatever they want to their children and it's nobody else's business. I don't. And yes, I'm a parent."

Well, I don't think you are wise in your choices regarding raising children. You know, you can't do whatever you want and decide it isn't our business to judge you but we have every right to undermine what you've taught them. I must come get a teaching job at your school.

Fair enough?

"I must come get a teaching job at your school."

Are you by any chance a qualified teacher, or do you just play one on the Internet?

I've never thought that I could do whatever I want to my kids. Neither can you.

"Study this."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, more like ipso facto, Wil.

Come on Wil ... There were two paragraphs. The first was yours ... the 2nd was yours being used against you word for word, and your children. You surely saw that.
And you can't say you wouldn't mind if others set about to undermine what you've taught your children in personal life philosophy and family morals.

You never admit leaning anything from all our discussions. Surely it makes you rankle that the teacher YOU hired to teach your children academics . not turn your children into the type of person she wants them to be, deliberately trying to alter their attitude toward the respect and authortiy that was given to you by God. You are accountable to Him for how you raise your children. Not the teacher.

You're OK with them changing my kids ... but are you OK with her usurping you children s allegiance from you?

If you don't stand up and act like the employer and not just an inept parent that kowtows to your superior, the child's teacher, has successfully taken what is yours, the mind and heart of your child.
I think this is one of the biggest crises in attacks on the family, and the parents as the legal and lawful leaders.

"No, more like ipso facto, Wil."

Now let's see. In 1962, just a few months after the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, James Meredith became the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi.

So ipso facto, ending illegal mandatory prayer in public schools also put an end to segregation.

Hang on a minute. In the 1950s, thousands of people died from polio in the United States. Polio wasn't officially eradicated in the US until after 1962, soipso facto, ending illegal mandatory prayer in public schools eradicated polio in the U.S.

Unless of course it turns out that neither of those things are related to ending illegal mandatory prayer in public schools, and were in fact caused by the Pope's excommunication of Fidel Castro. Or by the tragic and untimely death of Marilyn Monroe. Or by Johnny Carson taking over the hosting of the Tonight show.

David Barton is a proven liar and a fraud.

"Now let's see. In 1962, just a few months after the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, James Meredith became the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi." Yeah, it could very well be that all the years of prayer in school that preceded this event did help end segregation. It would certainly NOT be ended because only a few months after was the declaration that prayer in public school was unconstitutional. These things that affect the moral fabric of society don't happen over a few weeks or months, or even over just a few years.

Polio is a physical disease and it has nothing to do with the moral breakdown of society, so forget that one. It doesn't work here in the least.

"David Barton is a proven liar and a fraud." Who says? Chris Rodda, the non-historian historian of left-wing truth?

"the 2nd was yours being used against you word for word, and your children. You surely saw that."

I'm guess it didn't work out the way you'd hoped.

"Surely it makes you rankle that the teacher YOU hired to teach your children academics . not turn your children into the type of person she wants them to be"

But I didn't just hire teachers to teach my children academics. The school (a public school) our children attend is guided by a set of values (including respect, acceptance, inclusion, etc.) that has an impact on pretty much everything they do, and how they do it. We understand that when our kids interact with other people (teachers, friends, friends' parents, etc.), they're going to learn about other ways of doing and thinking about things. If we have issues with something a teacher (or anybody else) is telling our kids, we deal with those issues directly, specifically, and rationally.

"You are accountable to Him for how you raise your children."

When you say things like this, it's the same to me as if you said I should feel accountable to the Easter Bunny.

"...the child's teacher, has successfully taken what is yours, the mind and heart of your child.

My childrens' hearts and minds don't belong to me, Glome. They belong to them.

"I think this is one of the biggest crises in attacks on the family, and the parents as the legal and lawful leaders."

Really? Because when I listened to her speech, the main thing she seemed to be saying was that she wanted to provide a safe, nurturing environment for all students, regardless of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identities. She said that "[h]ate and violence are preceded first by ignornace, which results in fear and then a sense of anger. Education [including lessons that deal with discrimination, prejudice and stereotypes] is the only way to combat the so-called "phobias" [specifically, homophobia and transphobia] that bring us here today."

That doesn't seem like an attack on families (or on parents) to me.

"It doesn't work here in the least."

It works just as well as any of the nonsense spouted by David Barton. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"Who says?"

Reality. Something Mr. Barton doesn't appear to be very familiar with.

And there is something else to note. It isn't just that prayer itself was taken out of schools that caused the breadkdown of society, but what it symbolized. It was borne of nothing but bigotry, intolerance and hatred. It's not that anyone was forcing anyone else to do anything against his own belief or non-belief, but just that some people wanted a law that would justify their intolerance, bigotry and hatred, and it begot exactly what they sowed. Had it really been unconstitutional, it wouldn't have been immediately accepted in schools of this nation upon the inception of the Constitution. It wouldn't have taken 173 years for someone to think her rights were being violated by a simple recitation of prayer. If it were not for bigotry, hatred, and intolerance, the idea of not even being allowed a moment of silence would be considered ab absurdo.

"It isn't just that prayer itself was taken out of schools..."

Prayer itself wasn't taken out of schools. People pray at public schools all the time. Mandatory prayer was declared unconstitutional. If you want public schools to force kids to pray, too bad.

"It wouldn't have taken 173 years for someone to think her rights were being violated by a simple recitation of prayer."

Yeah, like the way the "anti-miscegenation" laws had been around since the late 1600s, but it wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional.

Somebody check with David Barton and see where he thinks that fits into the breakdown of American society.

It may have been the ruling that mandatory prayer was banned, but the implemenation of that ruling has been that the only thing that is mandatory is NOT saying prayer in public schools and other public instituions in this country. As I already said, no one is forcing anyone to say a prayer against his belief or non-belief, but it is being forced that those who do want to pray are refused that right. It's getting even worse because now we see that even moments of silence are now being refused.

I'm not talking about the constitutionality or not of something that happpened in some places, at some times, by some people. I am talking about an activity that was an integral part of every single day in schools around the country both before and from the ratification of the Constitution of this USA..

"It may have been the ruling that mandatory prayer was banned, but the implemenation of that ruling has been that the only thing that is mandatory is NOT saying prayer in public schools and other public instituions in this country. As I already said, no one is forcing anyone to say a prayer against his belief or non-belief, but it is being forced that those who do want to pray are refused that right.

Not true. Kids pray at school (yes, public schools) every day. Many of them do it individually (some even manage to do it silently, I'm told), and others do it as members of non-curricular clubs.

"It's getting even worse because now we see that even moments of silence are now being refused."

Only when it's being done as an attempt to endorse prayer by stealth. Which is of course illegal, as it should be.

"I am talking about an activity that was an integral part of every single day in schools around the country both before and from the ratification of the Constitution of this USA."

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't done by everyone in every school, every day in the United States. But even if it was, it was illegal.

"It isn't just that prayer itself was taken out of schools that caused the breadkdown of society, but what it symbolized. It was borne of nothing but bigotry, intolerance and hatred. It's not that anyone was forcing anyone else to do anything against his own belief or non-belief, but just that some people wanted a law that would justify their intolerance, bigotry and hatred, and it begot exactly what they sowed."

Engel v Vitate, the case that resulted in the Court ruling that government-directed prayer was unconstitutional, was brought by five families. Two were Jewish, one was Unitarian, one was Ethical Culture Society members, and one was atheist.

In Abington School District v. Schempp. the case that resulted in the Court ruling that school-sponsored Bible-readings in public schools was unconstitutional, Schempp was a Unitarian Universalist.

Schempp's complaint was that the Bible readings "were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching". Yeah, that sounds real intolerant, bigoted and hateful.

Religious instruction in public schools was found to be unconstitutional in 1948 (McCollum v. Board of Education). How does that fit in with all of Barton's graphs? LMAO!

But to try to get back to the topic of the discussion, I'm confident that stopping public schools from illegally forcing students to pray, read the Bible, etc. hasn't stopped many of them from praying to their deity-of-choice for a little divine guidance and/or assistance when it comes to issues regarding sex.

I don't have much to do with public schools and never did, except for the 9 years my child attended. I saw very clearly what their agenda was then, not with the prayer issue though. I am just basing what I say here on what I saw in public school education during that relatively short period and the reports I see on various blogs and stories of people who have kids in public schools. I've noted many stories where kids were not allowed to pray or even have a Bible on them, as if it were some zero tolerance weapon.

I don't see how Engel v. Vitale was a constitutional ruling. This was a voluntary prayer. No one was being coerced to say it. How is that a ruling against mandatory prayer?

Abington School District v. Schempp seems a reasonable ruling because there was required reading from the Bible.

McCollum v. Board of Education is another ruling that I think is unconstitutional. In this case, the classes offered, like the prayer in Engel v. Vitale were voluntary. I don't care that they were using school property to hold the classes. I pay taxes too.

I agree that the cases have nothing to do with why the moral fabric of society has eroded as some of Barton's graphs show, but you were the one who brought up the court cases.


"I'm confident that stopping public schools from illegally forcing students to pray, read the Bible, etc. hasn't stopped many of them from praying to their deity-of-choice for a little divine guidance and/or assistance when it comes to issues regarding sex."

What? Students seeking Divine Guidance for having sex? Timothy Leary lives.

"I am just basing what I say here on what I saw in public school education during that relatively short period and the reports I see on various blogs and stories of people who have kids in public schools. I've noted many stories where kids were not allowed to pray or even have a Bible on them, as if it were some zero tolerance weapon."

In some cases, I suspect that the stories on those blogs might not be entirely truthful and/or accurate. In others, it seems clear that the schools are violating the rights of the children. A recent example involves the display of the Ten Commandments at Giles High School. The school district had copies of the TCs hung in each school building, which was unconstitutional, so they had to remove them. Some of the students protested by putting copies of the TCs on their lockers, and school officials took them down, which ws also unconstitutional. The ACLU was involved in both instances, and explains the differences between government-imposed religious expression and personal religious expression.

Where it might get interesting is if some Westboro Baptist types were putting up "God Hates Fags" signs on their lockers expressing their religious views.

"What? Students seeking Divine Guidance for having sex?"

Aparently some people even try to communication with their deity-of-choice during sex.

I'll have to get back to you on the particulars of those cases, Sue. I'm about to be busy for a little while.

I'm sure they're not all accurate, but I'm also sure that not every violation is made public either, so even if there are some that are valid, you've got to know there are most likely many more valid infringements of rights that go unreported.

The ACLU in the instance you reference was correct in that students are allowed to post personal messages on their lockers, and any religious nature of those messages should be treated the same.

God Hates Fags would have to be considered more a hate message than a religious message, so it can only be as interesting as someone would want to make religion seem to be considered hateful. That is where the problem might occur. These fringe cults that are so far from the practice of the tenets of Christianity are just as, if not more, detrimental to our freedoms of religion as any who are anti-Christian. I can only hope that rationality would prevail, and that no one would see such a scathing message as religious, but just what it is, hateful.

"Aparently some people even try to communication with their deity-of-choice during sex."

Well, you said you were trying to get back to the point of the post when you made that comment about students seeking Divine Guidance, and if students of sex education were going to be doing this as a result, all the more reason not to have it.

"...you've got to know there are most likely many more valid infringements of rights that go unreported."

No doubt. And I'm sure the same is true for the other kind of infringement. Hopefully there will be fewer of each type of violation in the future.

"God Hates Fags would have to be considered more a hate message than a religious message..."

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Religious messages can be hateful, and vice versa. Also, the First Amendment protects "hate speech" even when it doesn't involve an expression of religious belief. Another example involves children wearing t-shirts that said "Islam is of the Devil" to school. The ACLU is involved in that lawsuit too, and I think it's scheduled to go to court in a couple of months.

No, not mutually exclusive, but I said that God Hates Fags would have to be considered more a hate message than a religious message. You are correct that hate speech is protected, and that is the part that makes it unfair, not to the religious in this instance as much as to society. There would not be any Christians, except for those cultist types as in WBC and other fringe elements of Christianity who would post something like that. The majority of Christians would consider that sinful. That means that if they decided to ban all kinds of religious messages just because they consider that a religious message, and religion is not protected as much as hate speech is then far worse will ensue.


Just blaming the religious for a sign that doesn't have anything to do with most of them doesn't make the hate go away. The people who do hate gays will continue to see homosexuals that way and continue to hate them. Their speech will be protected, but any message a Christian may have to counter that with the Word of God would be silenced if we continue to silence religion just because it is religion.

As far as this Dove Outreach case, from what I read, seems that the ACLU is determined to stand for 1st amendment rights of free speech as they should. However, this is the kind of thing that would not be happening at all if we had not taken God out of the schools in the first place. We have all these false ideas of what personal freedom is. If God were still in charge, there may be some hateful people whose speech would be guaranteed, but they would be such a minority that few would dare to wear something so hateful. We have no morality, no ethics, no values. This has caused a decadence that we are bound to honor because we must to maintain freedom, but freedom run amok. This is the very kind of thing that John Adams meant when he said, "“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

It should be in trial right now.

"No, not mutually exclusive, but I said that God Hates Fags would have to be considered more a hate message than a religious message."

Hate speech is protected, religious expression is protected, and hateful religious expression is protected. I think the question is, is it protected in public schools when balanced against the school's duty to provide a safe, nurturing, etc. environment for all students in their care.

"That means that if they decided to ban all kinds of religious messages just because they consider that a religious message, and religion is not protected as much as hate speech is then far worse will ensue. "

Personal religious expression is protected, even when it's hateful.

"However, this is the kind of thing that would not be happening at all if we had not taken God out of the schools in the first place."

I don't think that's true. The U.S. has a long history of that sort of thing. Back in the early colonial days, there was the persecution of Quakers by the Puritans back in the 1600s, and the Salem witch trials. Then there's the history of tensions between various Protestant groups and Catholics ( including the Bible Wars in Philadelphia back in the 1840s and the Bloody Monday riot in Louisville, Kentucky in the 1850s) that still continues today. Not to mention the issues involving various Christian sects and Jews, Hindus (remember when Operation Save America and the American Family Association freaked out when the U.S. Senate opened with a Hindu prayer?), Muslims, and various other religions. Oh, and Mormons. And Jehovah's Witnesses. And Scientologists. And all the various other religious groups that get labelled as "cultist types".

"We have no morality, no ethics, no values. "

Speak for yourself, Sue.

"This is the very kind of thing that John Adams meant when he said, "'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.'"

If that's what he believed, I guess he and the other "Founding Fathers" should've worked a little harder and created a Constitution that was made for a moral people, religious or not.

I’m not referring to wars between and among religions. That will always be and has always been as you note ones even over a century before the Constitution was ratified. People constantly conflate the Fundamentalist movement within Christianity as being fundamentalist to Christianity. Dove Outreach is a good example of the Fundamentalist movement within Christianity, but not what is fundamental to the faith. People use religion in the same nefarious ways they use everything else. It doesn’t mean that the religion is bad, and it doesn’t mean that many people, if not most, belonging to a religion are not sincere adherents to the morals, values and ethics of the religion.

When I used “we,” it was we as a nation, not personally, but I would venture a small wager that you know that. You can shout and scream and kick all you’d like that this nation was not founded on Christian principles, but the evidence of that is everywhere. (Of course, the idea of principle is a stumbling block for many, but these write-bytes must truncate elaboration.) We must tolerate other faiths and so it is written in the law of the land. There is no established religion, but there are established principles based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. There were no Scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, nor Muslims that framed the Constitution. Not all who call themselves religious are moral and not all who are moral are religious. That doesn’t say anything to negate the virtue of religion, but only says something about the frailty and shortcomings of human nature. So when you have millions of people with their own senses of what is moral when it is amoral, you have millions of people protected under the Constitution to be amoral. That is what we’re doing now. This is why it must be a moral AND a religious people. He knew what he meant when he said, "'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.'"

“If that's what he believed, I guess he and the other 'Founding Fathers' should've worked a little harder and created a Constitution that was made for a moral people, religious or not.”

Adams said it so unless he was a liar, I guess that is what he believed. Since you were not there to set him and the rest of the founders straight, the only thing you have left to do is attempt to re-write history the way you wish it were instead of the way it was.

"I’m not referring to wars between and among religions. That will always be and has always been as you note ones even over a century before the Constitution was ratified."

Another good reason for public schools not to involve themselves by illegally promoting one religion over others, or promoting religion in general.

"When I used “we,” it was we as a nation, not personally, but I would venture a small wager that you know that."

In which case I still disagree. I don't think the United States, as a nation, is significantly any more immoral or unethical than it has been in the past.

"You can shout and scream and kick all you’d like that this nation was not founded on Christian principles, but the evidence of that is everywhere."

Not only was the United States not founded on "Christian principles", there are not Christian principles on which it could've been founded on.

"So when you have millions of people with their own senses of what is moral when it is amoral, you have millions of people protected under the Constitution to be amoral. That is what we’re doing now. This is why it must be a moral AND a religious people."

If they're a moral people then they can't be amoral. No religion required.

"Adams said it so unless he was a liar, I guess that is what he believed."

Yeah, because no politician ever said anything he didn't sincerely believe. But if he did believe it, then as I've already said, it just illustrates one of the flaws in the Constitution he helped create.

"If they're a moral people then they can't be amoral. No religion required."

The operative word is IF.

Morality is subjective unless it has a common base upon which it is determined. You don't necessarily have to have religion as a base. You can base it on the Code of Hammurabi if you want to, but if it doesn't have a common base, morality will always be personally subjective.

That proclamation about Islam is moral to Dove Outreach, but it's immoral. Among other things, it incriminates an entire group of people with no substantiation, and that is bigotry. So you can say that bigotry is immoral with or without religion, but without a base upon which to build, bigotry is also subjective. If it were not, the pastor of Dove Outreach would not be propagating that slogan. If you asked him if he thought that the slogan were borne of bigotry, I'm sure he would tell you it isn't because he has rationalized what he wishes to propagate as moral. He certainly doesn't, as a pastor, see himself as immoral or without morals. Because he calls his church a Christian church doesn't make it a church that is one that was founded on what is fundamental to Christianity.

Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. These principles are not the same as the fundamentals of the religion to which followers of the religion adhere.

You can say that the Supreme Court's Roman Numerals are a symbol of the first ten amendments instead of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, Snopes had to finally change their definitive statement that they were not symbolic of the Ten Commandments, only to say that they don't necessarily have to be because their initial FALSE to the Ten Commandment symbolism was sufficiently challenged.

The history of this country is rife with references to Christianity. There ARE Christian principles. One of them is that there is to be acknowledgement of God in all things. That is a principle, an ethical standard. Once again, it's different from a fundamental belief that people in a common religion share.

We can go as far back as the Mayflower Compact in 1620 to see the principle of acknowledging God in all things as an ethical standard upon which this country was built. "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia;"



Here's a quote from "the Deist," Thomas Jefferson, once again, showing you the Christian principle of the importance of acknowledgment of God. "...ascribing to Himself every human excellence..."

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He wished any one to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to Himself every human excellence; and believing He never claimed any other." (in a correspondence to Sam Adams in 1801)
"...ascribing to Himself every human excellence..." There is nothing we do that is good or righteous or just without ascribing that to the Creator.


There are not hundreds, but thousands, of examples of acknowledgement of God in quotes and documents right from colonial days. So if you think the Consititution is flawed because the people who founded this country were religious people, then you're in the wrong country. You can't change history.
These are the roots of this country, and you can prune that plant any way you'd like, but the roots cannot be moved.

Excellent reasoning SueB. Very interesting.
It is so easy to get caught up in a religion and miss the relationship with Christ. They knew that. I don't believe they were Deists in the same type of belief that Deism is today.
Today, I believe they think God created then went his way.

But the founding Fathers, though not interested in particular 'religions' did believe in a God that was present and deserved their allegiance.

I thought your entire comment was filled with truths. Thanks.

You're right, Glome. Deism, like any other sect, has an origin that is different today from the way it was upon inception. If you look at the eastern philosophy of Buddhism just for a quick example, and compare that to today's American Buddhism, there are lots of differences.

Yes, the Founding Fathers, (politically correct to call them Framers these days) were religious men. Thomas Jefferson was a very complex man. When we look at some of the things he said and quote them out of context, they appear to be contradictory to other things he said, but that's not because he was illogical or contradictory; it's because to understand what he meant you have to study him as well as his statements. Unfortunately, you almost have to be an historian yourself to have the right handle on his implications since there are so many slants to what he has written by historians with their own agenda. Before he went on to read law, he studied Greek and Latin at William and Mary, and I'm sure he read the Old and New Testaments that way. However, he was not a theologian either, and we have to remember that too. Because he did have disdain for many false interpretations of the Bible by preachers of the day just as we see today, he attempted on his own to maintain the purity of the doctrine as he thought it was intended. What is important is not that his interpretations took the Divinity away from Christ, but that he was devout enough to give religion such a vital place in his study and in his life.

This is from where we can clearly see that attributing his ideas of the wall of separation to the establishment clause of the Constitution was and continues to be merely an elaboration of what they inferred from his words according to how they wished to interpret them, and not at all what he meant. When religion is so deeply ingrained in an individual as it was with him and so many of the other founders, the wall of separation is merely a boundary so that one's own personal belief system or religion is not able to preclude the freedom and
practice of any other. To say, however, that it means that someone whose life is centered around his religion, whose thoughts and philosophy about the world and the country he serves is suddenly going to be separated into a different dimension in the political arena is wishful thinking on the part of secularists. But, ironically, for all their fits over the wall of separation, they really know this, and that's what bothers them about Christians in politics and about Christianity anywhere but in church.

Well spoken ms SueB. Really, you have a great ability to get it into words and sum it up. A gift.
Are you still in school? I was thinking that when I was here before you'd gone back to school. Right or wrong?

Thanks, Glome. No, haven't been to school in more than three decades.

"Because he calls his church a Christian church doesn't make it a church that is one that was founded on what is fundamental to Christianity. "

Yeah, I'm not really interested in debating personal opinions about which churches are real Christian churches and which ones aren't, or which people are real Christians and which ones aren't. I've noticed that whenever somebody's doing something some other Christian doesn't approve of, it turns out that they're not real Christians.

"Whether you like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles."

Whether you like it or not, it wasn't. And repeating it over and over again won't make it true.

"You can say that the Supreme Court's Roman Numerals are a symbol of the first ten amendments instead of the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't make it so."

I haven't said anything about the Supreme Court's Roman Numerals, but I guess when you're grasping at straws, you've got to go for whatever you hope will work, right?

"The history of this country is rife with references to Christianity."

Of course. And I've never suggested otherwise. The history of the United States is rife with references to a lot of things.

"There ARE Christian principles. One of them is that there is to be acknowledgement of God in all things."

Oh give me a break. That's not a Christian principle, the United States wasn't founded on it, and it doesn't even work as a very good ethical standard. Acknowledge God in all things? Sorry, but I don't see how acknowledging God as you hang somebody for being a witch (or a Quaker) serves as much of an ethical standard. I don't see how a priest acknowledging God as he rapes a child, or a husband using scripture as a justification for abusing his wife, serves as much of an ethical standard. Unless maybe your concept of god involves a jealous, pathological sort of deity.

"We can go as far back as the Mayflower Compact in 1620 to see the principle of acknowledging God in all things as an ethical standard upon which this country was built."

Not really, since the Mayflower Compact involved the governing of Plymouth Colony, not the United States. While many of the "Pilgrim" colonists on the Mayflower were religious zealots (I don't say all because many of the adult passengers (women and servants) weren't invited to sign the Compact), their theocratic leanings and religious intolerance and bigotry didn't have much of a role to play in the establishment of the secular federal government a century after the colony ceased to exist.

"There are not hundreds, but thousands, of examples of acknowledgement of God in quotes and documents right from colonial days."

Again, of course. But that doesn't make the United States a Christian nation, or a Judeo-Christian nation, or founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In many of the colonies, and later the states, religion was used as a form of social and political control, just as it had been used in England and Europe. Many of the colonies/states had their own official churches (and taxed their citizens to fund them), had religious tests for holding public office and for voting, etc. Though attempts were made during the Constitutional Convention to make Christianity the official religion of the United States, and to remove the prohibition against religious tests for public office, they failed.

"So if you think the Consititution is flawed because the people who founded this country were religious people, then you're in the wrong country."

I didn't say anything about the Constitution being flawed because the Founders were religious people. Maybe you're in the wrong discussion.

"You can't change history."

And yet people like you and David Barton keep trying.

I only even mentioned that the pastor does not subscribe to Christian fundamentals in this case so that you wouldn't confuse the idea of Christian principles (that you said do not exist) with a subjective morality that he is espousing, not that he's not a real Christian, whatever that means to you, anyway.

I brought up the Ten Commandments inscription as one of the thousands of examples of the Christian principle of acknowledging God. Everything I say doesn't revolve around everything you say. Instead of accusing me of just repeating something over and over again with no substantiation, it would help a lot if you would follow along and understand the examples I am citing so you would see that the statement that the country was founded on Christian principles was merely a summation after giving those examples.

Oh, you don't want to count the first settlers that paved the way for the country that was to be formed, the reasons they came here, and all that led up to the creation of the United States. I see. Okay, we'll make believe they didn't exist, or we'll pretend they were heathens so you will want to include them, which ever suits you better.

If you want to start arguing that acknowledgement of God in all things is not a Christian principle upon which this country was founded, I can at least understand that much. If I were you, and I saw all the ways God was acknowledged in so many speeches, documents, quotes, and inscriptions, I wouldn't want to accept that either. It does make the United States founded on that principle of acknowledgement, and other principles like trust and hope in God to preserve the nation. Once again, I can see how you want to deny that, but the inscription, In God We Trust, has been on coins since 1864, just for one example.

I never said that Christianity was supposed to be the official religion of the United States, but only that it was founded on those principles. I think you're the one in the wrong discussion.

You may not have exactly stated that the Constitution was flawed because it was founded by a religious people, but you did say that if Adams believed that the Constitution was meant only for a moral and a religious people, "it just illustrates one of the flaws in the Constitution he helped create."

He obviously believed he was moral and religious, or he wouldn't have helped create a Constitution that he didn't think was going to fit him. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that you think the Constitution should not have been made for a moral and religious people by moral and religious people.

"And yet people like you and David Barton keep trying."

Still trying to get "In God We Trust" off the coins, Wil? At least you can't any longer point us to the definitive FALSE on the "Snopes FACTS" that the Roman Numerals on the Supreme Court are symbolic of the Ten Commandments.

"I only even mentioned that the pastor does not subscribe to Christian fundamentals in this case so that you wouldn't confuse the idea of Christian principles (that you said do not exist) with a subjective morality that he is espousing, not that he's not a real Christian, whatever that means to you, anyway."

What you said was: "Because he calls his church a Christian church doesn't make it a church that is one that was founded on what is fundamental to Christianity."

If there's an easy way to tell which churches are called Christian churches and which ones really are Christian churches, feel free to share it. Otherwise, as I said, I'm not interested in trying to work out which ones are real and which ones aren't, based on somebody's opinion.

"I brought up the Ten Commandments inscription as one of the thousands of examples of the Christian principle of acknowledging God."

Meh. Doesn't really work out too well, given that the Supreme Court building also has images of Muhammad, Confucius, Napoleon, Solon, etc.

"Oh, you don't want to count the first settlers that paved the way for the country that was to be formed, the reasons they came here, and all that led up to the creation of the United States. I see. Okay, we'll make believe they didn't exist, or we'll pretend they were heathens so you will want to include them, which ever suits you better. "

Or we could acknowledge that many of them were bigoted religious zealots who would've probably been horrified to know that their little colony would eventually become part of a nation governed by a secular Constitution.

"If you want to start arguing that acknowledgement of God in all things is not a Christian principle upon which this country was founded, I can at least understand that much."

Yeah, because it isn't.

"If I were you, and I saw all the ways God was acknowledged in so many speeches, documents, quotes, and inscriptions, I wouldn't want to accept that either."

Oh, I accept that God was acknowledged in a whole heap of speeches, documents, quotes, etc. No doubt it was good for getting votes. Especially back in the days when you couldn't vote or run for public office unless you passed the necessary religious tests. And even today without those sorts of officially-sanctioned tests, there's still plenty of political mileage to be gained out from publicly acknowledging God. Although I suppose it depends on how you go about it--I'm thinking JFK, Romney, Ellison, Lieberman, etc. as well as incidents like the previously-mentioned Hindu prayer in the Senate.

"I never said that Christianity was supposed to be the official religion of the United States, but only that it was founded on those principles. I think you're the one in the wrong discussion."

I didn't say that you did say that. I think you're definitely in the wrong discussion.

"You may not have exactly stated that the Constitution was flawed because it was founded by a religious people, but you did say that if Adams believed that the Constitution was meant only for a moral and a religious people, "it just illustrates one of the flaws in the Constitution he helped create.""

Yes, that's what I said. Which is something very different from what you claimed I said. Congratulations on finally getting something right.

"I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that you think the Constitution should not have been made for a moral and religious people by moral and religious people."

What I think is the same as what I said. If Adams believed that the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, then that illustrates one of the flaws in the Constitution he helped create.

"Still trying to get "In God We Trust" off the coins, Wil?"

It would be nice, but it's not a priority.

"At least you can't any longer point us to the FALSE on the "Snopes FACTS" that the Roman Numerals on the Supreme Court are definitely not symbolic of the Ten Commandments."

I don't believe I ever have. But in any case, if they got something wrong on their website, it's good that they've corrected it. That sort of thing can happen when the authenticity of a document (in this case, the Weinman letter) is questioned. That shows integrity. I think they did a good job of pointing all the outright falsehoods and BS in that email, and I think it's ridiculous that people point to these images in the Supreme Court Building as evidence that the US was founded as a Christian nation, on Christian principles, etc. given that the building wasn't constructed until the 1930s.

"That shows integrity."

Unlike Mr. Barton's denial that he'd claimed that Thomas Jefferson had meant for the wall of separation between church and state to be "one directional". His denial was proven to be a flat-out lie when a copy of the DVD was found where he'd said exactly that, and it was discovered that he'd changed it in later versions. Ouch.

What you said was: "Because he calls his church a Christian church doesn't make it a church that is one that was founded on what is fundamental to Christianity."

That’s right; that’s what I said. This is what you interpreted from that, but not what I said. “Yeah, I'm not really interested in debating personal opinions about which churches are real Christian churches and which ones aren't, or which people are real Christians and which ones aren't. I've noticed that whenever somebody's doing something some other Christian doesn't approve of, it turns out that they're not real Christians." You've noticed wrong here, at least, and I am sure you have noticed wrong in other places too.

Just because a Catholic priest who is a pastor of a parish is a pedophile, doesn’t mean that the church he is leading is not a real Catholic church. It also doesn’t mean that he is not a real Catholic, but that he is human and falls short of the Christian ideal of a follower of Christ, basing his own life’s morality and possibly what he is teaching on what is not fundamentally ideal to the Christian faith. The only reason I even cited Dove Outreach in that frame was to emphasize the ideal and common, moral base upon which this country was founded, and that Dove Outreach falls short of that base of morality. Because you have a false notion of what a Christian is supposed to be instead of a human with frailties of humans, and you think Christianity is supposed to be some kind of magical panacea that makes everyone who calls himself a Christian impervious to sin, doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t make it any point I was making.

“Doesn't really work out too well, given that the Supreme Court building also has images of Muhammad, Confucius, Napoleon, Solon, etc.”

I am not saying that Christian symbolism, quotes, documents acknowleging the Creator, and all the things that are evidenced Christian principles upon which this country was founded are exclusive references only to God, but that there are so many of them. If you can show me even half as many references to Muhammad, Confucious, Nandeon, and Solon, then you might have a case.

“Or we could acknowledge that many of them were bigoted religious zealots who would've probably been horrified to know that their little colony would eventually become part of a nation governed by a secular Constitution.”

Once again, Christianity is a practice that has an ideal based on common morality. That every single Christian falls short of what that ideal is, does not mean that the ideal does not exist and that it is not what the country was meant to follow.

“Oh, I accept that God was acknowledged in a whole heap of speeches, documents, quotes, etc. No doubt it was good for getting votes. Especially back in the days when you couldn't vote or run for public office unless you passed the necessary religious tests.”

Thank you. Thank you very much. That is the point and the only point, that God was acknowledged in “a whole heap” of those things because the country WAS founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

And you said that John Adams’ quote might have been political in nature too. So what you’re saying is that it was politically correct to feign being religious even if you were not religious to get votes from the religious people who comprised the population of the religious nation. So the Founding Fathers were not religious people, but conspirators who were just pretending to be religious so they could get votes from the overwhelming religious constituency. I thought that the reason they were changing the politically correct nomenclature to Framers from Founding Fathers was because of some kind of discriminatory gender problem you people dreamed up. Apparently, though, Framers is a politically correct way to describe the Constitution Conspirators. Now that is what I call an interesting conspiracy theory. Has one of your intellectual historians written a book to tarnish history with that idea yet?

Can you just imagine the title? The United States of America Framed by the Framers.

"The only reason I even cited Dove Outreach in that frame was to emphasize the ideal and common, moral base upon which this country was founded, and that Dove Outreach falls short of that base of morality."

And again, I'm not interested in trying to figure out which churches "fall short" and which ones don't, based on your (or anybody else's) opinion. I see no way to easily tell the Christians and the churches that operate according to "Christian ideals" from the ones that don't. I'm under no illusion that Christians (or followers of any other religion) are any less frail than other people, or that they're any more impervious to immoral behaviour. I think the religious intolerance shown by the people at Dove Outreach does have a connection with the kinds of religious intolerance that existed in the US since the early Colonial days, but I don't agree that the country was founded on any religious ideals.

"That every single Christian falls short of what that ideal is, does not mean that the ideal does not exist and that it is not what the country was meant to follow."

It also doesn't mean that the country, founded as a secular nation, was meant to follow any Christian ideal.

"Thank you. Thank you very much. That is the point and the only point, that God was acknowledged in “a whole heap” of those things because the country WAS founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. "

No, God was acknowledged in a whole heap of speeches, documents, quotes, etc. because religion was an important part of many peoples' lives.

"So what you’re saying is that it was politically correct to feign being religious even if you were not religious to get votes from the religious people who comprised the population of the religious nation."

To get votes from the people who comprised the voting population of a secular nation. Because remember, in many states you not only had to be a member of a church to have the right to vote, you had to be a member of a particular church to have the right to vote. If you weren't religious, or you were the wrong religion or the wrong denomination, you didn't get to participate in public life.

No doubt that idea appeals to some folks in the US today. Some would no doubt be happy with a full-blown theocracy, but for those who feel that might be a bit too much, they'd at least like to see a more solid, official connection between their religious beliefs and their government policies. And if that means denying the rights of citizenship to those who don't share their beliefs, they seem to be pretty cool with that.

"So the Founding Fathers were not religious people, but conspirators who were just pretending to be religious so they could get votes from the overwhelming religious constituency."

Again, I make no claims about how religious their constituencies may or may not have been. But the simple fact is that in many states, you had to be a member of a church if you wanted the right to vote. I don't think church membership is necessarily a very good way to measure religiosity.

"I thought that the reason they were changing the politically correct nomenclature to Framers from Founding Fathers was because of some kind of discriminatory gender problem you people dreamed up."

I wouldn't know, Sue. I also don't know who you're referring to when you say "you people".

"Apparently, though, Framers is a politically correct way to describe the Constitution Conspirators. Now that is what I call an interesting conspiracy theory."

Religious bigotry has played a role in the nations political history as well as its social history. No conspiracy theory necessary.

Churches are comprised of people and all Christians fall short of the ideal. You miss this point entirely, but we'll move on because there's far more interesting material here.

Wil: Oh, I accept that God was acknowledged in a whole heap of speeches, documents, quotes, etc, No doubt it was good for getting votes....To get votes from the people who comprised the voting population of a secular nation."

Sue: That is the point and the only point, that God was acknowledged in “a whole heap” of those things because the country WAS founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. "

Wil: No, God was acknowledged in a whole heap of speeches, documents, quotes, etc. because religion was an important part of many peoples' lives.

Conclusion: Religion was an important part of many people's lives in the secular nation founded with the "whole heap" of quotes, speeches, documents, and inscriptions referring to God. These were not references to the Judeo-Christian God, though. Uh huh...I think I've got that part down.

Wil: To get votes from the people who comprised the voting population of a secular nation. Because remember, in many states you not only had to be a member of a church to have the right to vote, you had to be a member of a particular church to have the right to vote. If you weren't religious, or you were the wrong religion or the wrong denomination, you didn't get to participate in public life.

Sue quotes Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

Wil: Yeah, because no politician ever said anything he didn't sincerely believe. ..No doubt it was good for getting votes.

Sue: And you said that John Adams’ quote might have been political in nature too. So what you’re saying is that it was politically correct to feign being religious even if you were not religious to get votes from the religious people who comprised the population of the religious nation.

Wil:To get votes from the people who comprised the voting population of a secular nation.

Conclusion: So, in many of these secular states of the secular nation, you had to be a member of a church to get the right to vote. (I always thought it had to do with property ownership, but we'll go with this.) The secular nation of people belonged to churches only so they could vote for secular candidates who were feigning being religious so they could get votes from secular people. Uh huh

But I do think I see how this could have happened. Have you ever done something only because you thought someone else wanted to do it and then later found out that they were only doing it because they thought you wanted to do it?

It's the same principle that caused this huge mess of God being acknowledged everywhere in this secular nation. Everyone thought everyone else was religious and they pretended to be religious so they could be like everyone else when they really were all secularists. By the time they realized what happened, it was too late.

We'll have to change that title of that history book to A Nation Duped by God.

I had to look a long time to find your last comment Wil. The email was yesterday or day before.

Wil "they'd at least like to see a more solid, official connection between their religious beliefs and their government policies."

I hear what you are saying and it is hard to respond accurately since our beliefs cause us to assume some truths you would disagree with.

We do see a solid connection between ourselves and the hearts and minds of the men that wrote the constitution and early writings regarding our country. People at that time tended to hold the general 10 commandments as embodying the correct moral code even if they weren't actually born into the family of Christ. Those men held that morality as a necessary component for a free people to be able to run the country correctly.
Another thing that we count on is a fact stated in the Bible. "He has put His law in our hearts." The standard is in all hearts although more and more, as the years go by, have made an intellectual decision to reject the law and the God that put it in their heart.
We know we had a good beginning because those laws in the hearts of those men guided them in what they were doing.

You would see this as subjective. But IF you know Him, IF He is actually in you, you know that those are the facts because it is a truth deducted from His Word.

I think that is about as valiant an effort as anyone could make to explain something as esoteric, Glome. Thank you.

“Churches are comprised of people and all Christians fall short of the ideal. You miss this point entirely, but we'll move on because there's far more interesting material here.

I don’t miss the point, Sue. I totally understand that, like everybody else, Christians aren’t perfect. And since I haven’t seen any evidence of any Christian “ideal”, I don’t see anything for them to achieve or fall short of. But in any case, I don’t use that as an excuse to let them slide when they engage in abhorrent behavior, no matter how Christian they claim to be.

Religion was an important part of many peoples’ lives in the secular nation founded with the “whole heap” of quotes, speeches, documents and inscriptions referring to God. These were not references to the Judeo-Christian God, though.

Well, first of all, the nation wasn’t founded with that “whole heap” of quotes, speeches, etc. It was founded with the Constitution of the United States, which didn’t bother referencing any gods. And any quotes, speeches, documents, etc. from the time of the founding of the nation would be unlikely to refer to any “Judeo-Christian” God since that term hadn’t been invented at the time. And while I don’t claim to understand much about the various beliefs of either religion, I’m not really sure what a “Judeo-Christian God” is supposed to be if Christians believe that Jesus is God and Jews don’t.

So my best guess would be that while religion was an important part of many peoples’ lives, the nation was founded as a secular one, and the existence of a whole heap of quotes, speeches, documents, etc. that referred to various Christian notions of their god doesn’t change that. Apparently a lot of religious people were not only happy with the idea of creating secular government, they fought hard to make it happen.

For example, as expressed in a petition to the colonial government of Virginia by the Presbytery of Hanover:[T]here is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but what may be pleaded with equal propriety for establishing the tenets of Mohamet.”quote>Wow, don’t let all the folks freaking out about sharia law to find out about that. They’ll really go off their rockers! Can you believe people were allowed to say things like that back in 1776?

“So, in many of these secular states of the secular nation, you had to be a member of a church to get the right to vote. (I always thought it had to do with property ownership, but we'll go with this.)”

Well, I don’t really see how you can call them secular states if they had established state religions, forced people to pay taxes to support those established religions, etc. but luckily the lack of religious freedom at the state level didn’t stop the establishment of a secular government at the federal level. And the property ownership thing went both ways. It was often used by the state governments as a way to deny the vote to many (usually most) of the people, and it was also used by many churches to maintain control of their internal congregational leadership. In many cases, if you didn’t own enough land (or other assets), you couldn’t vote or be a member of a church. In a lot of ways, it ,kind of sucked if you weren’t a relatively-wealthy, white male in early America. What a shocker, huh?

“The secular nation of people belonged to churches only so they could vote for secular candidates who were feigning being religious so they could get votes from secular people.”

I would imagine that then, as now, people went to churches (whether they were allowed to belong as members or not) for lots of different reasons.

“It's the same principle that caused this huge mess of God being acknowledged everywhere in this secular nation.

Not everywhere, Sue. Not now. Not ever. No matter how much you try to rewrite history, that simply isn’t true.

"People at that time tended to hold the general 10 commandments as embodying the correct moral code even if they weren't actually born into the family of Christ. Those men held that morality as a necessary component for a free people to be able to run the country correctly."

I'm sure that some people did think the 10 Commandments served as an excellent moral code that should be codified into law, and that the full force of government should be used to enforce those laws. I had no doubt that some people today share that view. I'm not one of them.

For one thing, I don't think the Ten Commandments serves as a particularly good moral code. Nearly half of them have nothing to do with morality, and those that do (the ones that deal with killing, stealing, lying, etc.) aren't uniquely Christian.

"Those men held that morality as a necessary component for a free people to be able to run the country correctly."

I'm sure some of those men did. Luckily, not enough of them to stop the creation of a secular federal government based on a Constitution that guaranteed religious freedom, and protected "a free people" from the establishment of a state religion, and from "laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another" (Justice Hugo Black, Everson v Board of Education).

"You would see this as subjective."

Yes I do. I also see it as dangerous.

I don't want the United States to become a Christian theocracy. I don't think America would be better off if there were some kind of Christian Taliban in charge, trying to force everyone in the country (and the world?) to live according to their interpretation of "His law". No thanks.

I don't think the Bible provides a very good moral code. I mean, to be fair, at least it provides some rules governing the conditions in which a father may sell his daughter as a sex-slave. I mean, there's got to be some kind of order to that kind of thing, right? But being the irreligious "immoral" heathen that I am, I think it's best to just skip the whole "selling your kids into slavery" thing.

And I think it's good that it makes it clear that beating your slaves to death with a rod is wrong, but I'm not clear on where the Bible stands on beating your children to death with a rod. I know that beating children with a rod is encouraged, so I guess as long as you don't mean to kill them, then it's okay and you shouldn't be punished if you accidentally beat them to death. Or something like that. It seems to me that there's some pretty crazy stuff in that book. I'm not interested in being forced to follow a "moral code" that not only fails to decrease human suffering, but actually increases it.

Will "I'm sure that some people did think the 10 Commandments served as an excellent moral code that should be codified into law, and that the full force of government should be used to enforce those laws. I had no doubt that some people today share that view. I'm not one of them."

I can't imagine anyone wanted that. That's why we left England.
That's not what I'm saying Wil. I'm saying that the Christian ethic had such an influence in the west that it seeped into their general social customs and had a big influence on the general public's view of right and wrong. Read novels of the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds and you will see how different their morals were from today. that continued pretty strongly in the beginning of the 1900s.

Our founding Fathers had no intention of putting religion into the Constitution. They made no secret of that. What I'm saying is that the Bible had influenced the moral standards of society. Even those that didn't know Christ still had moral standards influenced by scriptures whether they knew it or not.
The founding Fathers assumed that moral standard would continue to guide society. The 20 century made a drastic change in that. People began to reject the old standards and accepted each, their own opinions as to right and wrong.

It has caused more problems, which isn't to say it is right or wrong, just more problematic, which some of the fore Fathers had foreseen.
Some dress in a way others don't want their children exposed to.
Some teach stuff in schools others of us don't want taught.
Immoral movies, and even every day TV pour into our living rooms unless we turn off the TV.
We have a huge part of society that create many social problems due to their lack of a higher code of conduct.

It does make it more difficult to function as a nation but we're doing it, with a lot of dissension :)

Most people were sick of living under a pseudo christian government. The majority of people, I assume, didn't want any religion running the government.

And by the way, the parts of the Bible you keep talking about, (Some of it ISN'T in the Bible :) is in the Old Testament. They were under law and God told them how to run their households. The Old Testament taught us how holy God is and how unholy we are. His focus on sin dominated. That oneness with Him is impossible.

The New Testament begins when the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for finally came to earth. The Jews thought the Messiah was coming as a King to set up the kingdom. (And He will one day when He returns.)
But the NT reveals that God came down and payed the price of our sins as the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Anyone who wants Him can be born into Him and and actually became one with Him. And no law can ever separate us if we're in Christ.
Most Jews rejected Him. Many of the Jews that believe in Jesus today call themselves Messianic Jews.
Those that know Christ are not under any law.

Now your smarter :) AND DON'T TELL ME NO YOU'RE NOT. Ok, you can if you want.

I can't imagine anyone wanted that. That's why we left England.

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say "we", Glome. But if you're referring to people who left England to settle the colonies that would eventually become the United States, I'm pretty sure they left for a lot of different reasons. And when you look back, it looks like that's why some of them left England and headed for the American colonies. Not because they were interested in religious freedom for everybody, but because they wanted the freedom to practice their own religion and persecute others as they saw fit (as mentioned in numerous previous comments). And not only is that what some of them wanted back then, that's what some people want today. If you want to find out more about them, try Googling "dominionism" or "subjectionism" or "Christian Reconstructionism" and there's plenty of info out there.

"I'm saying that the Christian ethic had such an influence in the west that it seeped into their general social customs and had a big influence on the general public's view of right and wrong."

Christian ethic? I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to mean, but I don't have a problem with accepting the idea that whatever people might've thought of as "Christian ethics" had a big influence on how they viewed right and wrong. But I wouldn't agree that it was necessarily a good influence. To quote Sam Harris "The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the book."

"Read novels of the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds and you will see how different their morals were from today. that continued pretty strongly in the beginning of the 1900s."

Do you have any suggestions for my reading list? Generally speaking, I think I'm familiar enough with history to see that "different" isn't the same as "better".

"Our founding Fathers had no intention of putting religion into the Constitution. They made no secret of that."

Except for the ones who did, but were outvoted. Like Luther Martin, who wanted the No Religious Test Clause to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism".

"What I'm saying is that the Bible had influenced the moral standards of society. Even those that didn't know Christ still had moral standards influenced by scriptures whether they knew it or not."

Yeah, maybe. But I'm still waiting for somebody (you, maybe?) to tell me about these morals or ethics or principles or whatever you want to call them that can be considered universally and uniquely Christian. Because so far, I haven't seen hide nor hair of 'em.

"The founding Fathers assumed that moral standard would continue to guide society. The 20 century made a drastic change in that. People began to reject the old standards and accepted each, their own opinions as to right and wrong."

Um, no. Sorry, but I'm not buying any of that. If you've got some evidence, feel free to provide it, but that's just way too much to accept just because you say so.

"It has caused more problems, which isn't to say it is right or wrong, just more problematic, which some of the fore Fathers had foreseen."

Such as?

"We have a huge part of society that create many social problems due to their lack of a higher code of conduct."

Hmmm...let me guess. When you say higher moral code, you mean some sort of Christian moral code? Sorry Glome, but I'm having trouble thinking of an immoral way to dress. Unless by "immoral" you mean "in a way I don't approve of", or maybe "in a way that violates the rules of my religion" or whatever.

"And by the way, the parts of the Bible you keep talking about, (Some of it ISN'T in the Bible :) is in the Old Testament."

Really? Some of it isn't in the Bible? Which thing that I said do you think isn't in the Bible?

"The Old Testament taught us how holy God is and how unholy we are."

Hmmm...maybe we're reading different Bibles (not just different versions, but completely different books) because I wouldn't describe the God I read about in the Old Testament as "holy". More like (to borrow from Dawkins) a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomanical, sadomasochistic bully.

"The New Testament begins when the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for finally came to earth."

Yeah, there's some pretty crazy stuff in that part of the book, too. And can you believe that I turned on my TV the other day and there were people reading from that book right there, pouring that stuff into my bedroom? And I'm not talking about cable here. Shocking, isn't it? ;-)

Wil: And since I haven’t seen any evidence of any Christian "ideal", I don’t see anything for them to achieve or fall short of.

Jesus Christ, the Christian ideal, was really a secularist too? I didn’t realize how far back in history we were going with this religious “Pretender Syndrome.”

Wil: But in any case, I don’t use that as an excuse to let them slide…

I’m sure you don’t, “Your Honor.” You could have been a prime incriminating Roman soldier, I’m very sure.

Wil: Well, first of all, the nation wasn’t founded with that "whole heap" of quotes, speeches, etc. It was founded with the Constitution of the United States, which didn’t bother referencing any gods.

Of course, it didn’t reference any particular god because it was its purpose not to specifically reference any particular god. It doesn’t also mean that the prevailing beliefs in God did not exist.

Wil: …any quotes, speeches, documents, etc. from the time of the founding of the nation would be unlikely to refer to any "Judeo-Christian" God since that term hadn’t been invented at the time.

They didn’t start using the term Founding Fathers to refer to them until around 1912, so since the term “hadn’t been invented at the time” Founding Fathers didn’t exist either? Uh huh

Wil: And while I don’t claim to understand much about the various beliefs of either religion, I’m not really sure what a "Judeo-Christian God" is supposed to be if Christians believe that Jesus is God and Jews don’t.. So my best guess would be that while religion was an important part of many peoples’ lives, the nation was founded as a secular one, and the existence of a whole heap of quotes, speeches, documents, etc. that referred to various Christian notions of their god doesn’t change that.

I never said they referred to him as the Judeo-Christian God, but that is the God they worshipped, the Yahweh of the Jewish Old Testament, and Jesus Christ of the New Testament. It’s the same God we as Christians worship today, even though we do not often refer to Him as such. So even though you didn’t/don’t understand this and were not/aren’t really sure, you’re going to guess to conclude that it was a secular nation despite the evidence in the plethora of speeches, quotes, documents, and inscriptions that prove otherwise. But this is not just any old guess; it’s your best guess. (There’s the hurdle).

Wil: For example, as expressed in a petition to the colonial government of Virginia by the Presbytery of Hanover:[T]here is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but what may be pleaded with equal propriety for establishing the tenets of Mohamet.

Jamestown, VA was a particularly religious settlement that was likened to be symbolic of the land of Canaan in Exodus, and they thought it was their mission to establish a religion. Certainly, the petition you cite had to be denied. The allusion to Mohammad was just an example to impress upon them that it couldn’t be as they wished. Muslims were not using this example because there were no Muslims in Virginia so just a reference to Mohammad has nothing to do with how it was received then and would be received today.

Sue: So, in many of these secular states of the secular nation, you had to be a member of a church to get the right to vote. (I always thought it had to do with property ownership, but we'll go with this.).

No, this was my sarcastic conclusion of what you contended to be so, not my conclusion . That’s the reason for the parenthetical of what really was the case, but I humored you to say we’d go with your contention instead to make the point that your contention is ludicrous. You want to say that secular people feigned being religious so they could vote for leaders who were secular, and that the leaders were secular and feigned being religious so they could get votes from a secular constituency which makes no sense unless everyone thought everyone else was religious, the only reason they pretended to be so, and they all made complete fools of themselves.

Sue: It's the same principle that caused this huge mess of God being acknowledged everywhere in this secular nation. (also sarcastic, concluding from what you said)

Wil: Not everywhere, Sue. Not now. Not ever. No matter how much you try to rewrite history, that simply isn’t true.

Oh, it was just in Jamestown, just in some places of the nation? God was acknowledged everywhere, in speeches by leaders throughout the country, in quotes from speeches, letters, and announcements that were for the whole country. They're there, and they're a documented part of history, the undeniable and true history of this country. The acknowledgement of God, the Judeo-Christian God, was pervasive, and you can say it wasn’t all you would like, but that simply is not true no matter how you try to rewrite history.

"Jesus Christ, the Christian ideal, was really a secularist too?"

I didn't say anything about Jesus being a secularist, Sue. My understanding is that he also wasn't a Christian.

"I’m sure you don’t, “Your Honor.” You could have been a prime incriminating Roman soldier, I’m very sure."

And you could've made a prime witch-burner, no doubt. Or Spanish Inquisitor. All of whom were no doubt, just like you, working sooooo hard to live up to the "Christian ideal" as exemplified by teh Jeezus.

"Of course, it didn’t reference any particular god because it was its purpose not to specifically reference any particular god. It doesn’t also mean that the prevailing beliefs in God did not exist."

I didn't say it meant that. Many people in the early US claimed to believe in God. No argument from me. But the federal government those people created was secular.

"I never said they referred to him as the Judeo-Christian God, but that is the God they worshipped, the Yahweh of the Jewish Old Testament, and Jesus Christ of the New Testament."

Sounds like two different gods to me that somebody has attempted to sandwich together (I'm guessing a lot of Jewish folks mightn't be too happy about that) like some sort of divine peanut butter cup ("Hey, you got your Yahweh in my Jeeezus!").

But in any case, I'm not sure that all of those folks who are now referred to as Christians worshiped the same God that folks who call themselves Christians worship today. The historian and Methodist minister Edward Eggleston described the Puritan congregationalists of Massachusetts by saying:

Their God was the God of the Old Testament, their laws were the laws of the Old Testament, their guides to conduct were the characters of the Old Testament.

Apparently they were more into the "Judeo" version of that "Judeo-Christian" god you mentioned. Apparently not all that into the teachings of teh Jeezus, or trying to live according to any "Christian ideal" that he may or may not have represented.

Do you think those "particularly religious" people in Jamestown were trying to live up to their notion of a "Christian ideal" when they killed hundreds of indians by poisoning the wine they drank to toast a "peace agreement" in 1623?

"So even though you didn’t/don’t understand this and were not/aren’t really sure, you’re going to guess to conclude that it was a secular nation despite the evidence in the plethora of speeches, quotes, documents, and inscriptions that prove otherwise."

The "plethora" doesn't prove anything of the sort.

"Jamestown, VA was a particularly religious settlement that was likened to be symbolic of the land of Canaan in Exodus, and they thought it was their mission to establish a religion."

Yeah? Who says? And particularly religious when compared to what, exactly? This isn't another Glenn Beck/David Barton fake history lesson, is it?

"You want to say that secular people..."

No, it's not what I want to say or what I have said. Would you find it easier to make up stuff and pretend I said it (or wanted to say it, or meant to say it, or whatever) if I just stopped bothering to respond to your comments?

"Oh, it was just in Jamestown, just in some places of the nation? "

Yeah, it was just in some places, Sue. It was even just in some places in Jamestown. The United States has never been exclusively inhabited by Christians. There have always been non-Christians, and non-believers in the United States. The United States has never been a Christian theocracy. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic, and has never been ruled by a king. And that includes INRI.

That's right, he was Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. (INRI) He is also the Christian ideal. You said, "And since I haven’t seen any evidence of any Christian 'ideal', I don’t see anything for them to achieve or fall short of."
Christ is the ideal Christians fall short of, so apparently you don't understand that. (The secularist part was just sarcasm from the ongoing theory of yours I derived from your previous statements.)

"Sounds like two different gods to me that somebody has attempted to sandwich together..." That's because you don't know diddly-squat about Christianity. You already said, "And while I don’t claim to understand much about the various beliefs of either religion, I’m not really sure what a 'Judeo-Christian God' is supposed to be if Christians believe that Jesus is God and Jews don’t." Now you're trying to tell me that because it sounds a certain way to you, that's the way it must be.

"Do you think those 'particularly religious' people in Jamestown were trying to live up to their notion of a "Christian ideal" when they killed hundreds of indians by poisoning the wine they drank to toast a 'peace agreement' in 1623?"

I'd have to know the particulars of that anecdote, and the dynamics behind it and even then, I don't know that there would be enough information for me to form an opinion, and I certainly would not be as bold as to make a judgment.

You said, "Their God was the God of the Old Testament, their laws were the laws of the Old Testament, their guides to conduct were the characters of the Old Testament." Well, that was the God of the Jews and, as I already told you, it is the same God we worship today, the God who always was, is now, and forever shall be. (Glome tried to explain too, but to no avail.)


Sue: So even though you didn’t/don’t understand this and were not/aren’t really sure, you’re going to guess to conclude that it was a secular nation despite the evidence in the plethora of speeches, quotes, documents, and inscriptions that prove otherwise.

Wil: The 'plethora' doesn't prove anything of the sort.

To you it doesn't because you seem to think that people can just magically put aside that which is so much a part of their persona, and not base all aspects of their lives on the faith that they live by. You cannot take a major component of something or someone out of the result, whether or not you yourself can evidence that it's there. Unless you make a pretty lousy loaf of bread, you can't taste the flour, but it's very much in there, and so is the yeast that makes it rise.

Wil: Would you find it easier to make up stuff and pretend I said it (or wanted to say it, or meant to say it, or whatever) if I just stopped bothering to respond to your comments?

I'm not making up anything. It's all right here. You can stop responding to my comments anytime you wish, but it would be a first that I ever witnessed if you didn't have the last word. Ready for a first, Wil?

"The United States has never been exclusively inhabited by Christians....The United States has never been a Christian theocracy."

Speaking of making up things and pretending I said them though, I never said any such things.

"Now you're trying to tell me that because it sounds a certain way to you, that's the way it must be."

No, I'm telling you how it sounds to me.

"Well, that was the God of the Jews and, as I already told you, it is the same God we worship today..."

And as I've already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case, since the "God of the Jews" doesn't include Jesus, and from what I understand Christians tend to worship Jesus Christ.

"To you it doesn't because you seem to think that people can just magically put aside that which is so much a part of their persona, and not base all aspects of their lives on the faith that they live by."

I don't bother trying to figure out how big a part of their "persona" somebody's religion takes up. Maybe you think you do, but I know I don't have psychic powers.

"I'm not making up anything."

Sure you are. You said "You want to say that secular people feigned being religious so they could vote for leaders who were secular, and that the leaders were secular and feigned being religious so they could get votes from a secular constituency which makes no sense unless everyone thought everyone else was religious, the only reason they pretended to be so, and they all made complete fools of themselves." I don't want to say that. You just made it up.

"Speaking of making up things and pretending I said them though, I never said any such things. "

I didn't say that you said them. I didn't pretend that you said them. You're making stuff up again.

Wil quoting me: Well, that was the God of the Jews and, as I already told you, it is the same God we worship today..."

Wil: And as I've already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case, since the 'God of the Jews' doesn't include Jesus, and from what I understand Christians tend to worship Jesus Christ."

So now, let me make sure I get this straight. Is that just how it sounds to you or are you now telling me what God I worship?

"I don't bother trying to figure out how big a part of their "persona" somebody's religion takes up. Maybe you think you do, but I know I don't have psychic powers."

Has nothing to do with psychic powers to say that someone's religion does have an impact on everything else they say, think, and do. You cannot separate your faith from the rest of your life, especially if you are a Christian. It is a living faith.

Wil: I don't want to say that. You just made it up.

You may not have wanted to express that, but you did, and I showed you with your own words above what you said that when put together is exactly what you said. All anyone needs to do is read your words.

"I didn't say that you said them. I didn't pretend that you said them. You're making stuff up again."

If you weren't trying to make it look as if I had said those things, there would have been no reason for you to mention them at all, now would there have been?

"So now, let me make sure I get this straight. Is that just how it sounds to you or are you now telling me what God I worship?"

For the third time, that's how it sounds to me. I have no idea what god or gods you do or do not worship, Sue.

"Has nothing to do with psychic powers to say that someone's religion does have an impact on everything else they say, think, and do. You cannot separate your faith from the rest of your life, especially if you are a Christian."

Sure sounds like psychic powers to me, Sue. I freely admit that I have no idea how much somebody's religion does or does not impact the things they think, say or do. I don't think you do either, but apparently you like to pretend that you do.

"You may not have wanted to express that, but you did, and I showed you with your own words above what you said that when put together is exactly what you said."

I didn't want to say it, and I didn't say it.

"All anyone needs to do is read your words. "

I suggest that they do, instead of reading your words when you make stuff up about what you think I want to say.

"If you weren't trying to make it look as if I had said those things, there would have been no reason for you to mention them at all, now would there have been?"

I have mentioned lots of things throughout this discussion, and in direct response to your comments, that I do not claim and have not claimed to be things you've said, Sue. And yet I still have reasons for mentioning them. It wouldn't make much sense for me to only mention things that you've said, since you've already said them. When I want to mention things you've already said, I use your exact words, and put them in quotation marks (or at least I try to). I don't claim you've said things that you haven't. I don't claim to know what you want to say. I don't make up stuff you didn't say and then claim that you did.

"For the third time, that's how it sounds to me. I have no idea what god or gods you do or do not worship, Sue."

Well then, maybe you ought to express that it just sounds that way instead of saying, "And as I've already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case..."

"Sure sounds like psychic powers to me, Sue. I freely admit that I have no idea how much somebody's religion does or does not impact the things they think, say or do. I don't think you do either, but apparently you like to pretend that you do."

Seems like a lot of things sound a lot of ways to you that aren't the case, Wil. Maybe you ought to get your hearing checked.

"I didn't want to say it, and I didn't say it."

Some people can read, though. That kind of puts the screws to what you did say that you didn't want to say.

"I have mentioned lots of things throughout this discussion, and in direct response to your comments, that I do not claim and have not claimed to be things you've said, Sue. And yet I still have reasons for mentioning them."

So what was the reason you felt it necessary to mention that "The United States has never been exclusively inhabited by Christians....The United States has never been a Christian theocracy?" The only reason you said those things is to make it look as if you were refuting something I had said because otherwise, it makes no sense to have said those things in that context of the Jamestown comment I made which is to what you were referring. Of course, I suppose I should benefit you with the doubt that you were just not making sense... again.

And someone emailed me this link.

"During the one-day surprise attack, the Powhatan tribes attacked many of the smaller communities, including Henricus and its fledgling college for children of Indians and settlers alike. At Martin's Hundred, they killed more than half the population of Wolstenholme Towne, where only two houses and a part of a church were left standing. In all, the Powhatan killed about four hundred colonists (a third of the white population) and took 20 women captive. They lived and worked as Powhatan Indians until their deaths or ransom. The settlers abandoned the Falling Creek Ironworks, Henricus and Smith's Hundred."

As she pointed out, this is the other side of the story. (No, it wasn't Marilyn even if it sounds like it might have been to you.)

"Well then, maybe you ought to express that it just sounds that way instead of saying, "And as I've already pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case...""

I did say that it just sounds that way. Three times. I could've expressed the same thing if I'd said that it seems that way. My understanding is that the Christian religion involves worshiping Jesus as a god, and that Judaism does not involve worshiping Jesus as a god, so it seems to me that those religions don't worship a single Judeo-Christian god.

"Seems like a lot of things sound a lot of ways to you that aren't the case, Wil. Maybe you ought to get your hearing checked. "

I have. A couple of months ago. Checked out ok for my age. And I don't think you or anybody else can determine much somebody's religion does or does not impact the things they think, say or do.

"Some people can read, though. That kind of puts the screws to what you did say that you didn't want to say."

If they can read, then they should read what I said. If they think they're psychic, they might think they can read what I did or didn't want to day, but they'd be wrong.

"So what was the reason you felt it necessary to mention that "The United States has never been exclusively inhabited by Christians....The United States has never been a Christian theocracy?""

Because it's true, and it seems to me that some people seem to think otherwise. I think you might be one of those people because you say things like "It's the same principle that caused this huge mess of God being acknowledged everywhere in this secular nation" and "God was acknowledged everywhere..." and "The acknowledgement of God, the Judeo-Christian God, was pervasive...". The reason I felt it was necessary to mention those things is because it's not true that the acknowledgement of the Judeo-Christian God was everywhere, and I would think that anybody who understands that the United States has never been exclusively occupied by Christians wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.

"My understanding is that the Christian religion involves worshiping Jesus as a god, and that Judaism does not involve worshiping Jesus as a god, so it seems to me that those religions don't worship a single Judeo-Christian god."

Jews do not worship Jesus as God, but Christians have a Triune God, two of the Persons in that Trinity being the God of the Jews, and Jesus Christ.

"I don't think you or anybody else can determine much somebody's religion does or does not impact the things they think, say or do."

That's because you are not religious and it appears, since so many things sound to you so different from what they actually are, that you have a dfficult time understanding that which is not of your own personal experience.

"If they can read, then they should read what I said." I'm sure they will, but that's your problem.

So you said those things because "it seems to me that some people seem to think otherwise. I think you might be one of those people..." So you admit I didn't say any such things, but now you tell me you just think I do think those things. So now we can see what is of Wil's personal experience. He's the one who's psychic.

"It's the same principle that caused this huge mess of God being acknowledged everywhere in this secular nation" and "God was acknowledged everywhere..."

You're taking that out of context. That was what I was saying about what you had said, sarcastically. Do you honestly think that if I were not being sarcastic that I would have called acknowledging God "a huge mess?" Yes, people can read, Wil.

When I said that the acknwowlegment was pervasive, that was in a different context, in the context of speaking of all those quotes and speeches, etc., and it was pervasive.

"As she pointed out, this is the other side of the story."

So based on your understanding of the "Christian ideal", was calling for a truce and then poisoning hundreds of people justified because of the events described in this "other side of the story"?

Again, I don't pretend to know much about all this stuff, but it seems that involves lying and killing. Aren't there some commandments against that sort of thing? Or is this sort of slaughter justified based on that Old Testament notion of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"?

If that's how it's justifed, that doesn't seem to jibe too well with "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

You're not one of those people like Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association who says that "the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played [a roll] in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil", are you Sue?

Yes, God WAS acknowledged everywhere. That doesn't mean that I think the nation was a theocracy or that it was only inhabited by Christians, though.

That is not what I meant when I said it in the quote you took out of context with God was acknowledged everywhere being a huge mess, though.

"Colonists who survived the attacks raided the tribes and particularly their corn crops in the summer and fall of 1622 so successfully that Chief Opechancanough decided to negotiate."

Like I said above, I am not going to make any judgments. Although not officially declared, it was obviously a war. I don't like war, but I wouldn't have wanted to live in fear that they might do the same thing again. Turning the other cheek does not apply in war and it does not apply in defense.

I don't know anything about Brian Fischer, and his name means nothing to me.

"Jews do not worship Jesus as God, but Christians have a Triune God, two of the Persons in that Trinity being the God of the Jews, and Jesus Christ."

Hmmm...sounds pretty freaky (not to mention schizophrenic), and it definitely doesn't sound like the same god to me. Maybe that's why Jews were officially discriminated against and denied their political rights in some states back in the days before the 1st Amendment applied to them as well.

"That's because you are not religious and it appears, since so many things sound to you so different from what they actually are, that you have a dfficult time understanding that which is not of your own personal experience."

You believe that because you're religious, you can determine how much somebody's religion does or does not impact the things they think, say or do? Really? Wow, I know that many religious people claim to believe some weird stuff, but that's one I haven't heard before.

"So you admit I didn't say any such things, but now you tell me you just think I do think those things."

You accused me of pretending that you'd said them. I didn't. I never said that you had said those things. Yes, I think you might think those things, and I've explained why I think so.

"He's the one who's psychic."

No, if I thought I was psychic, I wouldn't say what I think you might think or believe. If I thought I was psychic, then I'd believe that I could use my psychic powers to determine exactly what you think or believe and then tell you what it is. And if I thought I was psychic, I might then tell you what you want to say and silly things like that. But I know I'm not psychic.

"You're taking that out of context. That was what I was saying about what you had said, sarcastically. Do you honestly think that if I were not being sarcastic that I would have called acknowledging God "a huge mess?""

Whether you think it's a huge mess or not, your insistence that the acknowledgement of God was everywhere is the part I was addressing. That's nonsense, Sue. Your "Judeo-Christian God" isn't acknowledge everywhere now, and hasn't been acknowledge everywhere at any point in the history of the United States. There have always been non-Christians and unbelievers in many places throughout the United States who did not and have not acknowledged your "Judeo-Christian god".

"That doesn't mean that I think the nation was a theocracy or that it was only inhabited by Christians, though."

Thanks for clearing that up, Sue. But if you understand that the US has never been inhabited entirely by Christians, why would you keep insisting that the acknowledgement of the Christian God (or the Judeo-Christian God or whatever deity or deities you're referring to) was everywhere?

Oh, I've been informed (I'm not telling you if it was Marilyn or not) that not all Christian sects accept the doctrine of the trinity. I'm told there are binitarians, unitarians, modalists, Christian Scientists, Mormons with their Godhead concept (and magic underwear, apparently), Jehova's Witnesses, etc. and various other sects that don't teach acknowledge this "Triune God" you mentioned earlier.

My compliments, Sue. Beautifully done.

"Turning the other cheek does not apply in war and it does not apply in defense."

No? Let me check the quote again.

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I don't see a "war and/or defense" exemption, but maybe I'm in the wrong testament or something. Got a link or a reference to the part that justifies lying and poisoning people if you're at war and your strategy involves just pretending to make a peace agreement?

"I don't know anything about Brian Fischer, and his name means nothing to me."

No? I thought most people pushing the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation were familiar with Mr. Fischer and the AFA. If you're not, maybe you should check him out. Maybe somebody who isn't Marilyn will send you a link.

It's just like reading anything else. You have to know who is talking, who they are talking to, what the subject matter is etc to get the point.
There are other places in NT Scripture where God gives instruction to Gov't. Most places are giving instructions to the individual and to relationships.
This portion speaks to individuals regarding God's purpose for government & the individual responsibility to gov't. Then it goes back to telling the individual how they are to treat other people.

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "You shall not commit adultry, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, " and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NASU