This is your President

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth_SnowDog, May 10, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Snowdog,

    There is no need for you to stoop to insulting or mocking comments, such as:

    "Welcome to God-in-a-Box, may I take your order?"

    "Yeah, I'll have a Moses Big Mac, two JesusBurgers and a Ten Commandments Kids Meal to go."

    "Thank you, drive thru."


    All I did was point out that not all faith-based charities use their funds for proselyting. I provided a specific example of one that has been very responsible in that respect.

    While your comment that I initially replied to may have been an aside, it was also part of the original topic. As such, it was on topic.

    As far as being unable to prove a negative, it is impossible for me to prove that they aren't doing something wrong. You could always throw out the accusation that I do not have all the information. I apologize if I was not clear, although I think you knew what I meant.

    I need to go, so we can continue this later.

    Kimball Kinnison
  2. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    One of my basic problems with the government giving money to "faith-based charities" (which, to me, means "church-run charities") is that the churches SHOULD NOT be asking for money from the government. The church, as a group of people, is supposed to have a concern for their community and provide charity from their OWN money. The money collected from church members should be used for whatever outreach the church decides to maintain. If a church can't raise enough money from its members for its activities, it means the members don't believe strongly enough in the church's principles to fund its ministry. If the church's own membership won't support it, why should the government?

    True "Christian" charity needs no government support.
  3. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    amen to that, womberty.

    Kimball: I'm not declaring Christian organizations guilty before proven innocent here... (although they often have the irritating habit of casting that at other faiths).

    I'm just saying I don't trust them with my money, anyway.

    If you do... write them a check out of your own pocket, not mine.

    I also don't believe airlines should get bailed out by the government.

    I also don't believe in social welfare.

    I also don't believe in socializing healthcare/medicine.

    Making everyone pay for something that not everyone benefits from makes little sense... regardless of whether the issue is secular or not.

    Whatever happened to pride in religious organizations? I don't tell people they can't pay tithes to their religious organizations... that's their choice. However, making us all pay tithes for something the Church elects to do... it can't happen without a majority consent.

    Besides... we already have enough politicians trying to screw us out of our money. I have enough telemarketers calling me with one scam or another...

    Do I trust the government to allocate my funds appropriately towards the welfare of society? Does Social Security actually work? Does a chicken have lips?
  4. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    So why don't we separate all students and put them each in white rooms with noise cancelling headphones and a dummy terminal that spoonfeeds them lectures for 12 straight years? I'm thinking A Clockwork Orange or something of the sort.

    Because they need a teacher, obviously. That, and a sterile white cubicle may not be as good a working environment as a schoolroom where other people are working.

    The problem is teachers not doing their job. Fix that.

    Believe it or not, I'm an instructor at a local Karate school, so I know something about teaching. I recognize that it is part of the teacher's job description to bring the subject matter alive and to the student's level. It's obvious that some teachers aren't capable of doing it. I probably have more freedom to discipline students than Maveric does, but I still have problems with students who are just unwilling to learn (or riding a constant sugar high). Some students just don't want to be there, and they are impossible to teach.

    Be a man and accept responsibility, instead of trying to shift the blame. Take a ritalin, get medicated for ADHD, get a tutor... but for god's sake quit blaming everyone else for your inability or unwillingness to take care of your own problems.

    I've come to believe in responsibility to an almost sacred level. But you're taking it to a macho level.
    We don't need macho--we need reasonable.

    Speaking of muddling the point... We're not talking about anyone deliberately making an action that is extraordinary, i.e. out-of-place, we're talking about boys being boys and girls being girls.

    And because it's natural we should put them in the same room?

    Well, then, quit talking and start doing... vote... write your Congressmen. I encourage you to, whatever your ideals may be... We need representation of all sides, and can't just leave it up to the elected representatives to magically know what their constituents want... nor can we trust them 100 percent to follow through. They need to be constantly reminded of who's really in charge here.

    Good advice.

    And the previous post has been enlightening. I'd prefer if the government didn't pay for a lot of the things it funds now too.
    I don't believe in government funding of charities. The amount of money lost in beauracracy is stunning. I'm just saying that I believe that seperation of Church and State means that government does not recognize the Church (in the sense that the Church does not play a role in any of its decisions).
    Discriminating against faith-based charities that have done no wrong is . . . wrong.
  5. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm just saying I don't trust them with my money, anyway.

    How about other aid? Let me provide another example.

    After WW2, the LDS Church organized to send massive amounts of aid to the European countries devastated by the war. This aid was organized at the direction of the Church by Ezra T. Benson (and apostle in our Church and later the Secretary of Agriculture under Pres. Eisenhower). The Church provided food, clothing and other items. Members worked hard to help collect (and later distribute) the supplies.

    However, the Church, because of limited resources, had no way to transport the supplies to Europe. To solve this, they went to the U.S. Govenment and asked for help in transporting the supplies to Europe.

    Tell me, was the government wrong to help with that? It helped the government at a time when they were trying to establish an aid package for Europe. US tax dollars were used to transport the supplies from a religious charity to the needy people in Europe, who otherwise would not have received the supplies. Which would you have preferred to have happen?

    Making everyone pay for something that not everyone benefits from makes little sense... regardless of whether the issue is secular or not.

    Not everyone benefits from public schools, roads (some people don't have cars) or any other public services. No matter what program you implement (for the most part), you are going to find those who do not benefit from it.

    Kimball Kinnison
  6. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    StarFire:

    Because they need a teacher, obviously. That, and a sterile white cubicle may not be as good a working environment as a schoolroom where other people are working.

    Yeah but you could have the teacher on a viewscreen... and have them strapped in so they can't do anything but look at the viewscreen... then you'd have their attention, and complete command of their will... maybe through a device that shocks them if they either try to look away or talk to other students. I mean... boys can be distractions for other boys, you know... not any more or less than girls. I see guys yakking in classes more amongst themselves than with the opposite sex... same with girls. I've never seen as much distraction between the sexes as I see within each sex.

    The entire idea that opposite sexes in the same room create more distractions than a group of the same sex in the same room is absolutely ridiculous and not proven to have any statistical significance whatsoever. If someone cares to show me any numbers, I'd be glad to deconstruct the study that produced them. It used to be my job to understand, dissect and disseminate clinical studies.

    Believe it or not, I'm an instructor at a local Karate school, so I know something about teaching. I recognize that it is part of the teacher's job description to bring the subject matter alive and to the student's level. It's obvious that some teachers aren't capable of doing it. I probably have more freedom to discipline students than Maveric does, but I still have problems with students who are just unwilling to learn (or riding a constant sugar high). Some students just don't want to be there, and they are impossible to teach.

    Good point... why should my tax dollars support the bad habits children form when its their parents and teachers who are responsible for forming those habits from day one?
    '
    Discipline in the classroom shouldn't require physical contact unless the teacher is in physical danger... and that's an entirely separate issue. Of course, here the rules of engagement apply... defense is ok, being the instigator by taking the first swing, swat or touch is not.

    I've come to believe in responsibility to an almost sacred level. But you're taking it to a macho level.
    We don't need macho--we need reasonable.


    Tell that to the kid's parents. Where the hell are they in this process?

    And because it's natural we should put them in the same room?

    What do you think I meant by "boys being boys" and "girls being girls"? If I told you you had to sit in the back of the bus because some other race doesn't like you... is that fair, does it solve or just mask the problem? Even though you're still going to get to your destination, I think most people would agree it neither solves the actual problem nor is it fair... it just creates new problems to deal with.

    Even if someone coerced me, asked me, or even offered me the option... I'd still feel insulted.


    Kimball: There are two ways in which I will address this question...

    First, if at the time the American people consented to using their money to pay for the logistical expenses to transport supplies gathered at another organization's expense... it's up to them, not me. Obviously I wasn't around then, so I have no say in what happened then.

    However, if such a thing happened now... here's where I'd stand: It's a compromise... by transporting goods from one place to another, the US does not involve itself in funding the underlying dogma of the Church, nor does it shoulder the entire expense alone. By this I mean that we aren't giving our money to four walls and a strategically-placed crucifix and pamphlets... just food and supplies. As long as it's not coming from... say... the Neo-Nazis or the KKK, I think the task of transporting the food is a benevolent aim, and as long as we aren't transporting anything else or funding anything else that supports the advertisement of the Church's particular doctrine or dogma... it might be a worthw
  7. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    However, if such a thing happened now... here's where I'd stand: It's a compromise... by transporting goods from one place to another, the US does not involve itself in funding the underlying dogma of the Church, nor does it shoulder the entire expense alone. By this I mean that we aren't giving our money to four walls and a strategically-placed crucifix and pamphlets... just food and supplies. As long as it's not coming from... say... the Neo-Nazis or the KKK, I think the task of transporting the food is a benevolent aim, and as long as we aren't transporting anything else or funding anything else that supports the advertisement of the Church's particular doctrine or dogma... it might be a worthwhile endeavor.

    I agree with you on that, with one exception. If a group like the Neo-nazis or the KKK desire to help in a disaster-relief situation, I would say let them, as long as they meet the same standards as anyone else. I don't believe in discriminating against someone unless they refuse to meet the same standards as anyone else.

    However, I would be absolutely opposed to allowing any one truck to carry any pamphlets, "free" copies of scriptures (I'm sure I've heard about these being included in "care packages" sent by Christian relief aid.), or anything else that advertises the Church's doctrine in any way, shape or form.

    Again, I agree, with one exception. The organization providing the supplies should be allowed to (at least) identify itself. This is no more than what "non-religious" organizations like the Red Cross do. Saying "These supplies are courtesy of the LDS Church" is appropriate, while adding "If you would like to know more about aour Church..." is not. I would oppose that the same way I would oppose allowing the Red Cross to solicit donations from victims during a disaster-relief operation. It's just not right.

    If some other country's stupidity gets them into famine or war... it's their government's problem to solve. Not ours.

    In the case of WW2, many of the people we (the US) helped were either allies or family of US citizens. We had accepted immigrants from those countries for over a century before the war. In many cases, as with those invaded, the people had very little say in how the famines started. We had made committments to help Europe rebuild, and we helped fulfill them.

    And, as another person so astutely pointed out... What does it say about a religious charity if their own congregations don't care enough to take care of their own... just like other countries that don't care enough to take care of their own. If they aren't interested in funding their welfare, why on Earth should I?

    I can't speak for any other churches (or even officially for my own), but in the LDS Church we DO take care of our own. However, when we have more left over, we don't just hoard it to ourselves. We try to help others, regardless of their religious beliefs. I'll bet many other churches do the same.

    Kimball Kinnison
  8. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Kimball: So you think Jews would be very happy to take charitable donations from an organization whose sole purpose is to further ethnic hatred, particularly against the Jews?

    I agree with most of the other points you made... but this one strikes me as rather perplexing.

    Of course because you haven't walked a mile in my shoes, perhaps you have no clue where I'm coming from.

    I don't want any assistance from an organization which has dedicated itself to the assimilation of my and other cultures... Many times have Mormons knocked on our door trying to enlighten us, of all people, on the "one true path" we must follow. Many a preacher have I seen standing on his soapbox uttering slanders of other cultures... slanders so deep they border on racism.

    You have no concept of how much I don't want from your Church or any other Church mission.

    I would rather starve to death than accept handouts from people who have expressed so much misunderstanding, fear, hatred, ignorance and disrespect towards my culture. I'd rather chew off my own arm and feed it to rabid boars than be indebted to people who think I'm backwards because I don't "have a relationship with God" the way they do.

    How arrogant it must be to think we Americans can and "must" be the ones to go "help" every other country, as though they can't, or shouldn't, help themselves.
  9. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    So you think Jews would be very happy to take charitable donations from an organization whose sole purpose is to further ethnic hatred, particularly against the Jews?

    In that case, it would be up to those receiving the donations or accept or reject them, not the government. I said nothing about forcing others to accept the aid, only that those who wish to help (regarldless of their beliefs) be allowed to do so.

    If you note, I also expressed support for allowing the groups to identify where it came from. If a person knows who is donating the supplies, then they are completely free to accept or reject them. If you don't want help from my Church, you don't have to accept help from us. If you don't want help from the Catholics, you don't need to accept it. If you don't want help from the KKK, you don't need to accept it either.

    Once you start singling out ANY groups for their beliefs (as opposed to their actions), you open the door to singling out EVERY group because of its beliefs. Like I said, they would have to meet the same standards as any other group.

    Kimball Kinnison
  10. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Makes sense... so we should give arts endowments/grants regardless of viewpoints being expressed, correct?

    Say... for example... a guy wants to paint a visage of Jesus and splatter dog poop on it.

    Equal and fair consideration on federal funds, right?
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Makes sense... so we should give arts endowments/grants regardless of viewpoints being expressed, correct?

    If a group meets the same standards as any other group, then they should not be denied equal protection (or consideration) under the law because of their beliefs.

    Pick any charitable group you want (religious or non) and there is probably someone out there who hates them. Should they all be denied government support (even in times of disasters) because SOMEONE might be offended?

    All I am saying is that all people (and organizations) are promised equal protection under the law. A separation of Church and State does not mean that they should have nothing to do with each other.

    For equal protection, the religious aspect should not be considered at all. The only consideration should be (at least within the bounds of discussing charities) if they will apply all government support where it was intended. That applies to religious and secular charities. If a religious charity used government money for proselyting it would be as bad as a secular charity using government money for political activism. They are both wrong.

    I just ask for the same standards applied to everyone, even those I disagree with.

    Kimball Kinnison
  12. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    Yeah but you could have the teacher on a viewscreen... and have them strapped in so they can't do anything but look at the viewscreen... then you'd have their attention, and complete command of their will... maybe through a device that shocks them if they either try to look away or talk to other students.

    I assume this is sarcastic. Har har.

    The entire idea that opposite sexes in the same room create more distractions than a group of the same sex in the same room is absolutely ridiculous and not proven to have any statistical significance whatsoever. If someone cares to show me any numbers, I'd be glad to deconstruct the study that produced them. It used to be my job to understand, dissect and disseminate clinical studies.

    I'm not going to give you any BS and tell you my opinion to date has been based on firm data. It wouldn't do any good if it were, seeing how hell-bent you are on proving me wrong. You'd attack any statistics I gave you.
    Keep in mind that preliminary data shows that single-sex classrooms are an improvement. That's why I support what the Bush administration is doing--testing this theory on a voluntary and limited basis.

    Good point... why should my tax dollars support the bad habits children form when its their parents and teachers who are responsible for forming those habits from day one?

    Well, a teacher or parent can't influence everything a child sees or does. It might even be a bad idea. Some kids respond well to authority, others don't. It's close-minded to blame derelict society solely on faulty instruction.

    Discipline in the classroom shouldn't require physical contact unless the teacher is in physical danger... and that's an entirely separate issue.

    Right. I don't hit my students. I just make them do push-ups :D

    If I told you you had to sit in the back of the bus because some other race doesn't like you... is that fair, does it solve or just mask the problem?

    Telling someone of to sit in the back of the bus, or anywhere in the bus, because of their race has everything to do with pure, unfounded bias.
    Same-sex classrooms are not based on pure, unfounded bias. See the difference?
  13. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Same-sex classrooms are not based on pure, unfounded bias. See the difference?

    Sure they are... Assuming that coeducation is a consistently detrimental factor in learning is a biased assumption, since there's no clinical data to strongly suggest it.

    A "minor improvement" in one or two cases is nowhere near enough statistical data to demonstrate this... furthermore, even antibiotics aren't responded to equally by all participants, regardless of how you segregate the demographic.

    If I were a teenager and you told me I might want to consider going into a homogenous environment to learn because I might learn better there... you might as well be telling me I can't learn as well when I'm with blacks or whites, because I'm Indian and one study showed a few Indians out of the global population learned better in homogenous environments.

    What adverse effects does this mentality have on the self esteem of adolescents-- a group who already have many self-esteem issues that are rarely being addressed in a clinically valid fashion?

    But that's not even my primary point. Segregation doesn't correct the problem at the source. When there are a zillion other ways in which we can improve the classroom with even greater success... why go here in the first place?

    Neither you nor these politicians have provided hard data that demonstrates why we should allocate tax dollars towards this.

    One of my close acquaintances is a state superintendent of public instruction. We often discuss policy and problems the districts face... and possible solutions. One year he asked for my assistance in gathering data for formulating a state school anti-weapons policy because theirs needed to be improved... again due to incidents that occurred as a result of lack of foresight.

    I'm pretty familiar with the issues they face and one of my major criticisms of the system is that administrators on the school level too often execute policies that don't fix the problem.

    If the problem is lack of concentration... that needs to be addressed. Let's construct a model for the hypothesis... If a person's concentration "quotient" lets say caps off at a 100... and kids today are hovering around let's say 50... and coeducation impacts maybe 1 or 2 points of that score in less than 25 percent of the population.. my question is, what the hell have the schools and parents done about the other 48 missing points?!

    Don't come to me asking for tax dollars to fix a problem you've barely attempted to begin to solve... which you should start solving at year one, day one.

    Instead, parents and educators wait until someone gets shot, until someone gets pregnant or until someone gets beaten up... and then they try to put bandaids like this on problems that have a much bigger root than the mere presence of two genders in one classroom.

    From the article I posted a link to:

    But proponents of single-sex schools say boys and girls often perform better when members of the opposite sex are not present and point to the records of the dozen or so single-sex public schools in the United States as proof the approach works.

    A dozen? Um, how many other schools in the nation are there? "often perform better"? Define often... define "better". I'm also willing to bet that these dozen or so same-sex schools have many other factors that put them at a far distance from their coed counterparts.

    Not only that... but you have not just one, but two out of control experiments going on haphazardly here. Even by showing that a group of single-sex schools function more effectively than their coed counterparts... assuming you can eliminate all other variables in the single-sex schools, you still have to prove that coeducation itself, alone is a factor: You have to identify and then isolate the coed schools from the 9 billion other factors causing those schools' performance to be worse.

    This is hardly a statistically valid conclusion when a speck of a handful of schools in the nation are the basis for the conclusion... and the
  14. CheeseyWanKenobi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    Darth_SnowDog

    You presented one-sided, biased information.
    That information has been dealt with by the clarifications of other posters, so I don't need to repeat their replies.

    I forgive you, as you obviously suffer from Democratitis. All that bias is a dead giveaway.


    You should look into getting a job working with James Carvel. hehe
  15. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    CheeseyWan:

    You presented one-sided, biased information.

    I presented the entire article at the very beginning of this post. I presented my views which obviously take a certain side... but not the side that you might think.

    That information has been dealt with by the clarifications of other posters, so I don't need to repeat their replies.

    Yes, and apparently you might have skipped some of the compromises and clarifications I have made. Had you read them, you wouldn't be saying the following:

    I forgive you, as you obviously suffer from Democratitis. All that bias is a dead giveaway.

    I dislike Democrats as much as I dislike Republicans... I dislike politicians in general in this country whose process has been mired by a two-party system and the lobbying of wealthy conglomerates which have turned this nation into a virtual oligarchy.

    You should look into getting a job working with James Carvel. hehe

    What, and destroy my credibility by doing various cameos on TV sitcoms? Not interested.

    See, I love the polarization in America... just because I often err on the side of universal optimism and am interested in eliminating middlemen I must obviously be a democrat. For your information, I had no love for Gore. I have no love for Bush. I supported Nader somewhat, but I could not vote in the last election because it took place just before I acquired Citizenship.

    However, looking back, I'm not entirely sure I support all of Nader's ideals, nor do I think he's necessarily ready to be president. The entire purpose of supporting a multi-party system for me is not so much because I take sides with one party... i.e. the Green Party... but because I want to stick it to the powers that be... who are trying as hard as they can to limit our choices.

    Forgive me for believing in democracy. Forgive me for thinking this country belongs to "We the people...".

    Forgive me for defending the U.S. Constitution and the principles it represents.

    I'm really sorry if you think I'm dumb enough to be so polarized in my thinking that I have to either believe everything the Democrats say, or believe everything the Republicans say.

    What ever happened to moderation? Do I have to agree with everything only one person says?

    There are times when I even agree with Bush's actions... Unfortunately, I think he's a patsy... being controlled like a puppet by the real powers in this country... the defense contractors, the corporate interests, and the political parties who are continuing in their effort to keep America divided and conquered.

    Where do you place your trust? In a transitory figure? Or in the more permanent ideal of democracy?
  16. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    Darth Snow-Dog
    You have to admit, quite a bit of your beliefs fall more closely in line with the democrat party than the republican, not that there is anything wrong with that.


    I do find it intriguing that you support the consitution and the principles inherent within on one hand (a representative democracy, universal suffrage) and then the desire to eliminate the "middlemen" in order to make the government more effective. This goes against what the framers had in mind.

    The framers crafted the Congress to be limited in power as to what they could do towards the citizens, but what we have evolved into now is entirely different. The states are constantly being trampled on by the federal government.
  17. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Maveric: You're forgetting three things...

    1. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights).

    2. Article V of the US Constitution.

    3. Democracy as a concept transcends the Republic.

    However, it's our responsibility as citizens to police these checks. If we do not enforce our rights with vigilance against our government, and instead continue to elect our representatives and executives as fire-and-forget adminstrations... they will always abuse us, because we are letting them.
  18. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I am so sorry, people, but I cannot believe this is still being debated!!

    First, as to the original issue: Single-sex classrooms. I am truly flabergasted that there are people in this country who would willingly favor this concept. As SnowDog so eloquently pointed out, there has been no "controlled" study on this subject. Add to that the mere implication this one step represents. In one fell swoop, it threatens to send us back into an age of segregation.

    Let's look at the long term effects of this. It has been previously addressed that young adolescents placed into single-sex schools will learn tobe segregated. This will become part of their lives, whether you see that now or not. They will grow up in a system that not only believes in, but advocates, gender segregation as a means of "improving productivity". These children will learn that it is not good to associate with members of the opposite sex. These children will be naive to the other gender's place in that world. You're essentially talking about advocating the induction of gender bias. And you're wanting our government to do it.

    Now let's take this to a personal level. I have a daughter, thankfully too young right now to attend any of these "Experimental" schools. I want her to grow up knowing about boys. I want her to grow up knowing exactly what they are capable of. She is going to acquire boyfriends in her academic life, both platonic and romantic (much to my chagrin). She will come to know heartache, and she will hopefully find the man of her dreams... eventually. I do NOT want her to step out of school and into the real world not knowing how to interact with the opposite sex. That is, simply put, stupid.

    Now, yes, my opinion is just that, and very one-sided. For those of you who still believe in articulating (as opposed to ranting), please provide us within some specific research that tells me, "Yes, your daughter's life and education will improved dramatically by implementing this (18th century) ideal." Show me that I am wrong.


    Now, as to the Mormon crusade that seems to have sprouted from within this topic, I shant comment. Many in my family are Mormon. I am not. This has been a great source of conflict for as long as I've been able to voice my opinion. Suffice to say, there is such a thing as Seperation of Church and State, despite what you and our President seem to think. And yes, that DOES mean that the two cannot mingle. There is a reason why the big guys in the white wigs wrote that.

  19. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Cheveyo:

    Now let's take this to a personal level. I have a daughter, thankfully too young right now to attend any of these "Experimental" schools. I want her to grow up knowing about boys. I want her to grow up knowing exactly what they are capable of. She is going to acquire boyfriends in her academic life, both platonic and romantic (much to my chagrin). She will come to know heartache, and she will hopefully find the man of her dreams... eventually. I do NOT want her to step out of school and into the real world not knowing how to interact with the opposite sex. That is, simply put, stupid.

    This is the essence of human reality at which I have been trying to arrive. Thank you for bringing in the perspective of a parent who understands the difference between the fantasy world of prohibition and the reality of proactive preparation.

    Our kids need to learn how to think, far more than they need to be spoonfed what to think. If they are forced into the latter, and not the former... they will never know how to make decisions when they do, inevitably, encounter both the wonderful and not-so-wonderful realities of life.

    I shudder to think that there are still minds stuck in the 18th century, perceiving love as a threat, marriage as a burden, and knowledge as lack of faith.

    Of course it doesn't surprise me that the majority of the people in the TFN threads who have been supporting these false impressions of reality have been themselves shielded and spoonfed far too long to understand or conceive of anything else.

    Ah, it must really be something to look at the world through a blindfold.

    Ignorance certainly is bliss... but only for those who don't know any better.

    If I were a parent, I would rather my child know the disgusting and wonderful truth... than be blinded by stupidly wishful thinking.

    I knew one such individual who, when I told her just how big a problem teen pregnancy was in the state, had responded by saying, "My goodness, I would like to think that we don't have those problems here."

    And I was about to turn to her and say, "That kind of thinking is precisely why you do."

    Of course I know better than to reveal the truth to someone whose entire world, built upon a foundation of ignorance and lies, would be shattered by the acceptance of reality.
  20. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Now, as to the Mormon crusade that seems to have sprouted from within this topic, I shant comment.

    I'm sorry you seem to think I was on some kind of "crusade". I was simply providing an example of a faith-based charity (in keeping with one of the original topics) that had received government aid before without using government funding to support proselyting. I used my own church as an example because that is what I am familiar with and could provide the most facts about.

    Suffice to say, there is such a thing as Seperation of Church and State, despite what you and our President seem to think. And yes, that DOES mean that the two cannot mingle. There is a reason why the big guys in the white wigs wrote that.

    That's funny, the Constitution only mentions religion in one place: the first amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No where does it state that they cannot mingle nor work together towards a common goal. What separation of Church and State means is that 1) there is no state-sposored church (as in one, official, state-sponsored/controlled church), 2) The government cannot limit religious expression and 3) A person's religious beliefs are considered irrelevant before the law (all other things being equal).

    Separation of Church and State does not mean it is OK to discriminate against a person (or organization) because of its beliefs. All other things being equal, the government should be blind to the religious beliefs of any organization. If they follow the same rules as anyone else, they should not be discriminated against.

    Kimball Kinnison
  21. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Your words maybe a bit harsh to sensitive ears, Snowdog, but you're absolutely right. Naivete is not the way to live and survive in this world. And by that I mean "Live" in both contexts... The Webster's definition and "Live" as in "Experience Life"!

    When you think about it, I believe it all comes down to Sin, and what today's Government-funded (ok yeah, that was a minor jab at Christianity... sorry) religions think is sinful. After all, why are the opposite sex (oh no, I said the S word!) so distracting, right?

  22. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    The next thing Darth_Snowdog and his companions will be saying is that mothers should not feed there newborn children, saying 'These kids need to find food for themselves, we can't trap them in our way of doing things'.

    Wake up people. Seperating males from females in the classroom will not make one sex supperior to the other. Nor will it isolate them from one another completely. They can always go to dances, form interscholastic clubs, and the like. What it might accomplish is to take sex out of school.

    Now, you need to understand that I am not for mandating every school be changed to single sex. I think it would be nice if there could be a choice where each family can choose wether to send their kid to a coed or single sex school

    Also, a few other things.

    I would only start this single sex thing when middle-school began. They should still be able to intermix until that time.

    All the anti-single-sexers keep asking for data to support single sex schools. While I am not dedicated enough to go and find those numbers, I can tell you a few things about coed public schools. Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated. With all this in mind, I think there is also a burden on you to come up with some data supporting coed public schools and what they are accomplishing



    P.S. I think now would be a good time to change the title of this thread.
  23. Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 5
    "What it might accomplish is to take sex out of school."

    Yeah I know I'm tired of seeing stundents banging eachother's brains out in the middle of class.

    Oh wait, no I'm not, because people don't have sex in school! Aside from the occasional over-hyped bj, sex doesn't take place in school buildings. It's where students meet people, and some have sex with some people they meet, but that's a part of dating for alot of people. And making schools single-sex ain't gonna take sexual tension out of schools anymore than it takes sex out of prisons.
  24. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    All the anti-single-sexers keep asking for data to support single sex schools.

    Of course... after all, it's our tax dollars you're wanting to waste, too.

    While I am not dedicated enough to go and find those numbers, I can tell you a few things about coed public schools.

    Funny how fundamentalists always use this same, tired retraction as a means of having to sidestep proof... of Creationism, of the Bible's exclusivity with God, of segregation being conducive to productivity... we have to do all the research for them, and then when we do, they constantly misinterpret it...

    Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated.

    PPOR on your assumption that coeducation has anything to do with teen sex. Generally, teens aren't having sex on school grounds last I checked. Matter of fact, the "morally superior" North Dakotans I grew up with have the distinction of not only being Republican, conservative Christian fundamentalists, and staunch supporters of "moral policing" of society, but they also bear the distinction of having the lowest per capita expenditure on public education, not to mention the fastest growing teen pregnancy rate in the nation (Data from U.S. Dept. of Education supports this... any doubts, call Wayne G. Sanstead, Supt. of Public Instruction at the North Dakota State Capitol).

    With all this in mind, I think there is also a burden on you to come up with some data supporting coed public schools and what they are accomplishing

    Burden on me? I'm not the one asking to plunge us back into segregation at the expense of all the taxpayers.

    First of all, I do think our schools are lacking numerous qualities that would improve education... but of all the factors that could be improved upon, I think that coeducation is mainly a political red herring... one that blind devotees of socioreligious conservativism have eaten up hook, line and sinker. All a politician has to do is utter the word "moral" and the tails go a-wagging.. without ever bothering to ask precisely what data supports these cockamamie conclusions.

    But hey, why question authority? I mean, after all... questioning authority is just wrong! It's wrong!

    It's better to live on your knees than to die on your feet, right?

    The point I'm trying to get you all to think about is... It's not wrong to doubt your transitory executive. If we were all supposed to rally behind him, even when his administration insists on engaging in filibustering that leads society nowhere except maybe backwards into the 18th century... We must ask why. We must ask for proof that these actions are anything but political fodder. We must question why they even thought of this, instead of addressing the issues which Mr. Bush, in particular, has demonstrated a pretty horrible record.

    Texas, if I recall correctly, ranked amongst the last three of the fifty states, under Bush's governorship, in its educational standards.

    Wow, Mr. Bush... so your answer to our problems is, not improving tools and resources, not increasing arts and humanities funding, not in making efforts to raise the bar for teachers, not one iota of the American people's time has been taken by the politicians to address these issues... but instead now we are engaged in thinking about promoting an ideal that is absolutely contrary to the vast majority of psychological studies of the 20th century which reveal a consistently favorable outcome for diversity in schools, in the workplace, or any place else where learning and progress are critical.

    I'm not meaning to paint myself as a democrat, I am talking about the current administration because it's the current administration... not because I love Clinton or Gore or anybody. CheeseyWan suggested I suffer from "democratitis" and Maveric suggested I do lean heavily towards the democrats ideals. So, I'm then to assume you guys are members of the Fascist and/or Nazi parties
  25. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Kimball: What separation of Church and State means is that 1) there is no state-sposored church (as in one, official, state-sponsored/controlled church)...

    My point exactly. The key word here is sponsored. When an athlete is "sponsored", what happens? Their expenses are paid, id est, the athlete is funded. Sponsorship is synonymous with funding. That leads most people to agree that government-FUNDED programs for some religious groups violates the very premise of the first amendment.

    That leads into another Constitutional quote you cite in that paragraph: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Are you suggesting that, while it is notably unconstitutional to create or advocate laws which openly back an established religion, it is okay for the government to openly back said religion through presidential programs? I believe that's called hypocrisy.

    There is no religious discrimination when the government realizes its true role as a governing body and remains outside the (Christian-based--I say this because you never hear the President seeking to aid funding to other religions) theological arena. It and it's funding do not belong there.


    Jediflyer: The next thing Darth_Snowdog and his companions will be saying is that mothers should not feed there newborn children, saying 'These kids need to find food for themselves, we can't trap them in our way of doing things'.

    What?? I would expect such an irrational response from someone like Pat Buchannan.

    I would only start this single sex thing when middle-school began. They should still be able to intermix until that time.

    I don't know which elementary school(s) you went to, but the first time I kissed a girl was in first grade, and had a girlfriend in 5th grade. Grade 2-6 was a veritable Dating Game at my school. Granted, no one was having sex then, but we were "goin' out", and we were quite aware of our hormones and gender differences.

    Teenage pregnancies are out of control, more than 50% of students who have graduated from highschool have had sex, and the graduates are overwhemingly stupid/illeducated.

    Are you suggesting there is a parallel between sexual experiences and academic stupidity?? What exactly do those "statistics" prove? I believe a better answer to the latter of your points is the education system, parent/child involvement, and resources. It's funny to think that when, a)your parents are involved in how/what you are doing, b)you go to school in a decent neighborhood where the school is adequately funded, and c)you are not reading from outdated textbooks that still say Columbus discovered America, chances are good that you will walk away with an above average education. All this despite your sexual proclivity.

    Now some may openly argue that the above paragraph is an unattainable utopia. Is it really? It all boils down to 2 issues. Schools need better funding and parents need to play a more active role in their child's life. Don't back ludicrous, ineffective experiments like "single-sex" schools that will eat up desperately needed funding. Put the money back in the schools. Teach the teachers. Pay them better, for the love of all that's holy! Look at the real problems, people. Stop grasping for scapegoats!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.