sex ed.

[bapmom]

Johnv,

we didn't say they ruled.....at least I didn't. I THINK every time I posted I wrote it as they SAID it.

And we need to start making more mountains out of things like this. YOu all are going to think Im crazy, but we are gradually slipping towards a Nazi state in this country. At this rate it will take quite a few years, but its going there my friends, unless we wake up and start climbing those mountains and doing some levelling off.

 

[Johnv]

I think it's a far stretch to use this case to support your view, bapmom.

What ever happenned to being credible and accurate in our Christian witness? We whine and moan when others aren't accurate or honest, yet it seems that we have no problem permitting ourselves to eschew honesty, credibility, and accuracy whenever it involves a case like this.

 

[bapmom]

John,

Im not basing my viewpoint on this case, certainly not on this case alone. There are all sorts of evidences of what Im saying.

Our country's willingness to perform abortion on demand.

The huge debates going on over "mercy killings", "Doctor-assissted suicide", and euthenasia.

The talk about "quality of life", would someone really want to live that way.....etc.

The 9th Circuit COurt is only one player out of many in the whole drama, and thankfully they are still seen as a "kook fringe" even among the liberals.

 

[Johnv]

This case actually seems to dispel what you're saying, rather than support it.

 

[bapmom]

Like I said, John,

Im not looking at the entire case. Perhaps thats why we are having a problem communicating over this.

Im also not "marching on Washington, DC" over it.

 

[Brother Ian]

That's why they're activist judges.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Like I said, John, Im not looking at the entire case.

No disrespect towards you, bapmom (I think you know I respect you very much), but you brought it up in regards to this topic, as though this case supported your view. But in fact, the case affirms states rights over federal rights (by deferring the state issues to the state), and by affirming parental consent (had there been no parental consent, it is likely the parents might have prevailed). Also pertinent was the fact that children whose parents did not consent did not partake in the survey, and not a party to the case.

The only reason I addressed the issue you brought up was because it was brought up in regards to this topic.

 

[bapmom]

ok Johnv,

I understand now. Thank you.

 

[Bunyon]

If I sent a flyer home and told the parents that we are going to visit a vulcano and it was later learned that we went right up to the edge of the flow where there is a chance of breaking through to the red hot lava below, I would expect some trouble. I would have a duty to speak specifically to the danger of the outing.

In the letter the parents recieved, It gave no indication that the kids would be probed about sexual issues, In fact it appears to me that the wording was purposely vague on this point. I think the parents have a ligetamate gripe. While the particualre legal aregument they used may or may not have been the best one does not matter to me. The fact that the court said that the parents have no rights to question the content of studies and curriculum in the school is poposterous. Even if it affirms states rights it afferms some other very negative things also, and we should all be concerned.

To characterize the parents as folks who gave fully informed consent and then had remorse later and decided to cause a petty stink in court is, I think, presumptious. Probably as presumptious as any chrisitan media blowing the courts words out of proportion.

 

[El_Guero]

John

In your haste to write what you wrote above, you must have missed my previous posts.

The other post had a LINK TO THE 9TH COURT DOCUMENT that you are ATTEMPTING to discuss.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
John

However, I do feel shocked at what you published verses what the court published.

link to the court web page document

[ November 09, 2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: El_Guero ]

 

[Bunyon]

"We hold the the parents have no due process...."
- Judge Rhinhart
This is the judges opinion. I think it can be used as precedent by other lower courts. Why would this not concern people. The Judge has stated that parents have no "due process". That means, in his opinion, their is no ability of parents to even question the types of information students are exposed to by legal means.

 

[DeeJay]

Someone PMed me to inform me that the court had actually said that "parents do not have EXCLUSIVE rights over their children's education."

Since its a difference that makes no difference, Id object just as strenuously either way.

I agree with Bapmom. No difference, I am offended that a goverment thinks they may have a right or at least equal say in what my kids learn. I feel good about every penny I spend to send my kids to private Christian school. Every time I read an artical or discussion about this kind of thing it makes it that much less painfull to write out the check.

Kids who go to a private Christian school will be better educated and parents do not have to worry about the content being fed into their young minds. It is very hard to tell your kid to listen to the teacher about somethings but not others. We teach our kids that their teachers have the knowlege and answers that they should learn. Then the teachers use that athority to undermine the morals we teach them at home.

It seems the attitude of schools is this. The teachers know what kids should learn and if the parents do not agree then those kids are the ones that need to learn the most. For example; teachers want to teach tolerance. The lesson is that it is alright to be homosexual. And if little Johneys bigoted homophobic parents disagree with that lesson then little Johney needs the message most of all. To brake the cycle and make the world a more tolerant place in the future. And little Johneys parents should be kept in the dark about what little Johney is learning so they will not undo what the school is teaching him for his own good.

By the way sex-ed is not like it was even a short time ago. I learned what the parts were called and what did what to make a baby. Now sex-ed is code for tolerance education, kid learn that gay is ok, how to put on condoms and about oral sex.

Think hard about investing money in your kids education and look at a private Christian school.

 

[Glory-to-God]

I am very thankful my kids have been in private school all their life. God knows I am not into home schooling...... for myself anyway.

Even some private schools won't even teach sex ed. They feel it is best left to the parents. I disagree....done right I think private schools should teach it along with biology. They can include not only what happens physically ( within reason ) but what happens emotionally too....relationships.

 

[Bunyon]

"For example; teachers want to teach tolerance. The lesson is that it is alright to be homosexual. And if little Johneys bigoted homophobic parents disagree with that lesson then little Johney needs the message most of all."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the Nature of the 9th circuit, I suspect this is why the Judg wanted to assert what he did. He wants the school to be an autonimus indoctrinator who can push his world view unchallanged.

 

[TexasSky]

GB - My apologies.

--------

Straight and Narrow - What do you mean when you say the Protestant Lord's prayer is different from the Catholic's Lord's prayer? the Catholics that I know say the same biblical prayer when asked about the Lord's prayer?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Glory-to-God:
Even some private schools won't even teach sex ed.

This topic isn't about sex ed at all. That's the name of the thread, but nothing in the topic even addresses it.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
GB - My apologies.

--------

Straight and Narrow - What do you mean when you say the Protestant Lord's prayer is different from the Catholic's Lord's prayer? the Catholics that I know say the same biblical prayer when asked about the Lord's prayer?

This is the Lord's Prayer in the Catholic New American Bible:

9
"This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.

This is a new version as is the NIV a newer version than the King James. The biggest difference is they have never included the phrase:

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

This has always been the case. It is not a change in this new version. My mother, who taught elementary and high school deaf students for over 30 years, got a complaint from a Catholic parent over this 25 years ago.

Many (Protestant) scholars think that the Catholic version (which came from the Vulgate Bible) is closer to the original than the King James and subsequent Protestant Bibles. While we're on the topic, the 1611 Authorized King James Bible included the Apocrypha which was removed from later translations. This of course is the major difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles today. (The Catholic bibles still contain it.)

 

[Johnv]

It's a good thing you didn't cite the Lord's prayer as it appears in Luke

Father, may your name be hallowed. May your kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Johnv:
It's a good thing you didn't cite the Lord's prayer as it appears in Luke

Father, may your name be hallowed. May your kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.

I don't understand your point. That doesn't contain the last line either.

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

 

[Johnv]

No disrespect was intended. I was just joshing a bit. Luke's account of the Lord's prayer differs from the traditional rendering. As we know, the line "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever" is not in the source texts.