• Chapter Two: "Confidentially, it Stinks" February 05 - 10:38 pm

• Chapter Three: "Ich bein ein Religious Musings visitor" July 13 - 5:57 pm

• Related Topic in Political Musings

Certainly not in the public schools. You can't force religion on someone. It just doesn't work that way.

In SoCal, there's a guy who purchased advertising space on a high school stadium fence, and wanted to post the 10 commandments. Needless to say, the school board balked (pun not intended). He lost the original suit, but is currently appealing.

Also, Certainly not in the public schools. You can't force religion on someone. It just doesn't work that way.
Aside from it being futile, it's also unconstitutional... "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Anyways, as long as there are pop quizzes there will be prayer in school, it just won't be organized.

That sentence is one of the most debated-about in the country. Well, that and "right to bear arms." I think it was supposed to mean that the government isn't allowed to say "be this religion, or else," but I do think it's generally a good idea for them to stay out of our faith. I go to a private school where there is religious instruction going on, and I always feel sorry for the kids who aren't Christian who have to sit through it just because it's a required class.

However, the advertising case is entirely different. If we can have those billboards supposedly written by God (cute, but they get old,) and bars and such sponsoring kids' sports teams, then why not pay for a space to display the Commandments? They're not porn, for crying out loud!

This is my opinion. Let's say in the cafeteria, a kid wants to pray to God/Allah/Shiva etc. He does this quietly without bothering anyone. Surely no one in their right mind would be offended by this. If a kid wants to, in his free time, deliver a quick prayer to God in class, fine. I also think it's fine to talk to friends, and witness to them, and chat about religion. This should be done, of course, in free time.

The school, if it is a public one, is required by the law to not propound a particular religion. (And in my opinion, they also shouldn't propound atheism either) They may discuss this, but there should be no mocking of religion. This, of course, doesn't mean teachers are free to state their own beliefs--I had a Christian science teacher, who stated her beliefs on several occasions. Mandatory school prayer, I think, is a silly idea, and is like ordering you to pray, which never works. I do think there's nothing wrong about reading the Pledge of Allegiance in class or listening to the Star Spangled Banner before sports. (although if you don't stand, there shouldn't be an inquisition or anything)

although if you don't stand, there shouldn't be an inquisition or anything

No there shouldn't. But out of simple courtesy and respect for others, one should remain quiet. When I was in HS many many (many!) moons ago, I didn't believe in saying the pledge either, but I stood out of courtesy to the others in the class.

Speaking of the pledge and the Star-Spangled Banner… this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing, but there is a book called Nothing but the Truththat involves a simple case of discipline that gets blown all out of proportion and finally winds up as appearing as a school forbidding acts of patriotism. A good read, if you don't mind looking in the children's/young adult's section for it.

Yes, I think there's nothing wrong in humbly standing or remaining quiet (more so for the Star Spangled Banner--at least out of respect for veterans). If you don't particulary enjoy the content or words, then you don't have to sing it or say it, just remain quiet. If I ended up at a mosque, I wouldn't pray, but I would remain quiet while others prayed.

Then, AFTER, maybe you can point out why you feel that way.

I think it's safe to say the main problem with Religion in schools is where it began. Creation and Evolution. But that's another board. other points like the one Jew attending school in Midwesttown, USA getting the prayer removed from gradulation, is a problem that does need special attention rather than a uniform court ruleing. Also the idea of Seperation of Church and state I need point out was Jeffersons idea, not the Writters of the constitution.

Jefferson was extremely interested in religious debate, but I believe he was a deist, that is he believed there was a distant god. However, some books claim pure atheist. I believe it is generally agreed that he thought Jesus was a good teacher, but not the son of God.

I think that he was a Deist over Atheist. The Declaration of Independance is based on the concept of Divine Provindence and the rights of man. Most religous politicians would not state most of things said in the DOI. Also Jefferson's renowed wars of consciencewould require some religous belief.

Thomas Paine was also a deist, and has since been incorrectly labeled an atheist because of his anti-Christian sentiments.

Going back to the religion in school thing: Out here where I am (AZ), we have seminary in school, where the Mormons can go to study their religion. It's not mandatory for students to attend, but the schools don't offer a seminary type class for people of other faiths. I and my best friend think that's totally wrong, and seminary should be eliminated all together (trying to represent every faith just isn't conceivable). And yes, I have Mormon friends, and no, I'm not and neither is Crisa.

Opinions?

I think you're right. My school is run by the Episcopal church. A lot of kids who are not Christian (Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, etc.) go to my school. We are all forced to take a certain amount of religion classes. I always feel sorry for the people who have to sit through the classes and put up with "All who believe in Jesus will be spared" and things like that. I mean, what are they supposed to say? Mazel tov?I think maybe if the school either let some kids off of it or just offered optional religion classes (which is still more than the public schools) then fewer people will be outraged. Even I get sick of the religion classes because it takes up a lot of time and we never cover anything new. (Of course, we still have chapel first thing in the morning, but we all sleep through that anyway.)

I think what your describing is release time, which is legal as long as it is not held on school grounds. Also Mormens are dominent religion in the area, so they might be sponsering this, not the government.

Uh, I they don't wish to take eligion why are they going to a religious school. One of the givens of going to a religious school is taking Religion. Also most theology teachers, I've had couldn't give a damne(obsolete word) on who they insulted.

They are going to a religious school because anyone who has any little bit of money in Louisiana sends their kids to a private school. This state has the worst public schools in the nation, and in the recent survey was 50 out of 51 places to raise children. (Only D.C. was worse.) The only way to get a decent education without fear of getting knifed in school is to go to a private school. And the only private schools are run by the churches. (The Catholic schools are downright racist in who they let in, even though they do have the right.) I find the quality of the private schools to be somewhat inferior to the public schools in Texas, so you can imagine how bad the public schools are. I have an uncle and aunt that are both teachers in the public schools. They could tell stories that would make your head spin. I'm surprised they've survived this long. In my book, Louisiana is hell. Get out while you can.

Reply on Bad schools:
See what happans when you base you entire state in making some subject Frenchmen happy:-)

The Cajuns are the least of the problems. The main one is the big argument about integration. If it weren't about that, the feds wouldn't be involved, so things would probably better. (Curiously, a school that's 50% white and 50% black is not considered integrated, while 84% black and 16% white is. Don't ask me. I just live here, and not willingly.)

On the flip side, I'm Christian and I have to listen to a certain amount of evolution preaching at my public school. Now, I enjoy public school, and have no quarrels with it. I listen to the evolution, think about it, and that's that. I don't believe I have the right to ask the science teachers to stop teaching evolution, as that is what the state requires they teach.

If I went to a public school, a Jewish one, I would not ask the teachers to stop teaching about Judaism. It is their school, I believe they have the right. I could ask, but I could not force them to do that, as then it would not be a private school.

My advice is to possibly bring this up to the faculty at the schools, and point out the possible flaws. Regarding seminary, I see no reason why it can't be there. It's non-mandatory, it's after-hours (is it?), and it doesn't affect you. If I wanted to learn about my religion, I would go to my church.

I don't have any quarrels with evolution, I think that if God wanted to, He could have created through evolution, and I really have no evidence either way, so that's what I believe.

I'm not saying that they should stop teaching Christanity, but some of them can be incredibly insensitive and just plain stup¡d. I get the feeling that we learn more about other religions in our history class than the teachers at the school ever learned in their entire lives. But at the same time, I feel weird about pointing some things out when they get their facts wrong, because it makes me sound like a non-Christian. Oh well. Don't have to take it this year, so no problem there. (Instead I have a ninety-minute hole in my schedule every other day for a semester because there weren't any classes I was interested in taking. Curse the music program at the school!)

Matt Pesti - I think what your describing is release time, which is legal as long as it is not held on school grounds. Also Mormens are dominent religion in the area, so they might be sponsering this, not the government.

No, these are happening in public schools. And while Mormons are dominant here, I know quite a few Catholics around here too. Why not offer something for them?

Mike - Regarding seminary, I see no reason why it can't be there. It's non-mandatory, it's after-hours (is it?), and it doesn't affect you. If I wanted to learn about my religion, I would go to my church.

Yes, it's nonmandatory, no it's during school hours, and it affects me only in that half the time I had to worry about getting preached at. What I want to know is why Mormons can't go to their churches to learn about their religion, and leave seminary out of the public school system totally. (And yes, I've been heavily preached at, and I'm polytheistic. Worst part is, I told those preaching people I'm polytheistic, and it got worse!) But it affects me no longer, as I now go to a public university. Just something Crisa and I were discussing a few weeks back.

If I went to a public school, a Jewish one, I would not ask the teachers to stop teaching about Judaism. It is their school, I believe they have the right. I could ask, but I could not force them to do that, as then it would not be a private school.

I assume you mean "If I went to a PRIVATE school, a Jewish one...

The problem that I have with prayer/religion in public schools is that it is invariably the fundamentalist Christians who want to impose it on everyone. I, for one, don't want my little girls being told in school they will be going to hell because they are Jewish.

Besides, don't any of these people see that if you start forcing your particular religion down people's throats you wind up with Bosnia, Kosovo, or the Middle East (Christian vs. Muslim/Jews vs. Christian vs. Muslim)?

I think the whole situation in Jerusalem is weird. it's the most holy city to three major religions. Shouldn't it be protected for the good of all instead of one group trying to claim it all for themselves?

I think that if they are going to introduce religion in the public schools, they would have to introduce every religion. And that is simply impossible. You have Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, various flavors of Judaism, Shiite Islam, Sunni Islam, Wicca, and lots more that I couldn't mention. But you see that even with just the ones I mentioned, it would be all but impossible to have some sort of equal representation. And when you don't have that, you have arguments and desegregation issues, and all that… so really the best solution for religion is an "all-or-none," with none the only thing that would work in our country. (Course, then we get the fundamentalist parents complaining about teaching evolution, and complaints about teachers reading the Bible during free reading time because "it might lead the students to believe that reading the Bible was an appropriate thing to do" [That's an actual quote!], and arguments over prayers at graduation, and what sort of jewelry one may wear if it has religious significance, and… well, it would be what we have now. But it's still better than what would happen if they tried to introduce one specific religion in the public schools.)

Adding to my list, Mahayana Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto…

Public schools cannot have prayer or religion, as it is against the law. Private schools can have, and I have no quarrel with that.

Say, don't the Mormons believe in more than one god? That is, they believe the Trinity are three separate entities?

Interesting Fact: The TV show "Battlestar: Galactica" was based on Mormon religion, as its creator was a devout Mormon.

Thanks to Mpatterson for answering a question I put under the Hindu board that Hinduism is polytheistic.

Now then, getting back to posting the 10Commandments in schools... Commandment 1 or 2 (or both together), depending on your Judeo/Christian faith specifically states, "I am the Lord your G-d, you shall have no other gods before me."

Since we do have people who are not from monotheistic religions in our school system (I come from L.A., we have a much broader spectrum of population than say Lousiana, no offense intended), I would say that posting said Ten Commandments in the schools would be highly offensive to said people.

No offense taken here. I'm not actually from Louisiana, I grew up in Texas and just moved here n January. As far as I'm concerned, Louisiana deserves every insult it gets.

Actually, you'd be surprised at some of the diversity we've got around here. Not exactly a major thing, but we do have assorted Hindus, Muslims, Buddhits, atheists, etc. at my school. (Several major chemical companies have plants in Baton Rouge, and people tend to get assigend here from overseas, and vice versa.)

Open Season on LA
1. My attempts to spell the word
Louisanna, oh (BLEEP) I spelled right actually.
2. The French.
3. It was conquered about five times.
4. Napolionic code.
5. Poor excuse for a drinking age.
6. swamps
7. local words I could never spell.
8. Guilty before proven innocent.
9. Had a Mint, a mint whitch only sturct 16 coins
10. Come on think of some.

Good I spelled it wrong.
Louisosina
Loorieanna
loisanna?

The good thing (at least for unimaginative filmmakers): Mardi Gras!

Actually, that's more fun that it sounds.

And if I may go off subject just a wee bit: Where do the lines of governmental laws and religion cross? At what point should one body overrule the other? One example is the Mormon belief in polygamy, but it's illegal in the US.

This is just an ancedote relating to the tale. I remember during my school years, I brought a Bible to school, to read for my own pleasure, not really to witness or thump at people with. Teachers and faculty payed it no mind. I remember though I brought it into the cafeteria to read while eating. A group of people at the table realized I was a Christian, I guess, and from that moment on, always directed a string on anti-Christian jokes at me nearly every day. I didn't really care, it just got irritating, being that they weren't even good arguments or anything. The point of the story is that with already anti-religion appearing among young people, would forced religion in schools spread even more resentment towards religion?

Mike: I'm not really anti-religion (I'm a nonpracticing Wiccan), but I would feel resentment towards religion if it was forced on me. I don't care what religion, as I feel it is private, and nobody should make you learn it. If you want to learn it, go to church (or the equivalent). Ask the religious leaders in your area. Gather information. DON'T force it (or attempt to). You saw my story and reaction in 'Life After Death' and that wasn't even at school, and not for a whole class period!

MikeC: you probably knew this already, but your classmates were extremely rude and discourteous. And yes, their behavior DOES qualify as harrassing. (But I get the impression that if it hadn't been your religious beliefs, they would have found something else to be obnoxious about. Your clothes, your grades... something.)

Polygamy was decided in the Supreme Court as being illegal for it would be too hard for the Government to enforce anything but Monogamy. You get Full Faith and Credit problems, Divorce, Marrige, Adultury, Bigamy, Divorce. Also activityies for minors, like snake handleing, Denying medical coverage, are also illegal. Most religious practices can be banned. So the Church of the Holy Hemp leaf can't form.

The Mormons agreed to ban polygamy as part of the deal that let Utah enter the Union.

So the Church of the Holy Hemp leaf can't form.
The Supremes have ruled that religious practices involving drugs can be banned. Specifically, they ruled that the federal ban on Peyote overrides certain Native American practices.

Denying medical coverage, are also illegal.
My understanding (I could be wrong) is that parents of religions which do not believe in medical procedures do, in fact, have the right to refuse treatment for their children.

Yeah, they banned polygamy, but it's still part of their belief system. And while I personally disagree with polygamy, I really don't see where the government has the right to deny it to those who believe in it. That'd be like saying that...I don't know, Catholics are forbidden Communion wine if they're under 21. (I think it's alcoholic, anyway). But that's just me, and I think the government should stay out of a lotta things. ;)

Yes, but is it acceptable for religion to be used in church-run schools?

Yes, it is. And if it isn't, the governmnt needs to shut down the majority of private schools in the country.

Then, I believe that the situation that you described in your state is perfectly legal and okay, as those are private schools. What should be worked on is the condition of the public schools so there would be no need for non-Christians to go to a Christian private school.

Good luck. The feds are already involved in the public schools because it's seen as a segregation issue, and look where it's gotten us.

My view on this (cuz y'all knew I'd make one sooner or later here) is simply this: A kid can pray before or after school, or during any or all recesses. There doesn't need to be any classtime taken out just for that purpose. Classtime is for learning. There's plenty of free time at school to pray.

Well, ok, about the only time praying would be acceptable during classtime is when a kid is afraid of being called on for an answer he doesn't know and hates to be thought of as dumb, or that he knows a bully will be waiting for him at recess or after school.

I'm not in school, but...

I pray all the time, at work, at home, driving in my car, etc. Sometimes I do this in a manner that it is obvious that I am praying (e.g. at home, on my knees every morning and every night before bed). Sometimes I pray in a way that no one would guess that that is what I am doing. If I were a student again, I would pray in class, but I would do it silently and without making a big deal about it.

There's no problem with any kid praying any time in school. The problem is with organized prayer in the classroom... i.e. Teacher: "Ok Students, let's all pray now!".

Who shall we pray to? Adonai? Jesus? Allah? Rama? The Goddess? etc.etc.etc.

I seem to recall a teacher using words such as "Now take a few moments to use however you wish." What do you think of that? My own opinion is that prayer should not be a part of the school's organized curriculum, but if you must do something, how about the phrase above?

Cazbah - That's a good phrase to use. I also like the "moment of silence" part, though when I hear the "to pray to God for...", I balk.

Speaking of religion in schools: should the Pledge of Allegiance be rewritten? There were several schools I attended in which there was a Pledge leader, and it was mandatory. Maybe change the "Under God" part to "Under freedom"...?

Sorry, the "Under God" part is a congressional resolution adding it to the Original plegde. But you don't have to say the plege at all.

I'll be sure and inform all those old teachers of mine who threatened the class with detention if the Pledge leader refused to lead the class. Of course, I always got around that...I never said those two words. Same thing with when I went to Girls' State and we had to talk about God in our oaths to take office. I never said a word...no one noticed.

If there's ever anything they make us say that I don't feel comfortable with, I just mouth the words or even mouth something entirely different. I mean, how many people can read lips that well anyway and if they're watching me, then they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing either.

Of course, I see no reason why you can't just refuse to say the pledge. I don't particularly think that some of the things mentioned in it actually occur or are done well, and it sounds rather like a prayer to me. (I always have to restrain myself from saying "amen.")

*LOL* I thought it sounds more like a sing song chant. "A tisket, a tasket, a green and yellow basket..."

I also have to restrain myself from saying "I pledge allegiance to Queen Fragg, and her mighty state of hysteria…"

Doesn't anyone remember Calivn and Hobbes in this day and age?

Or the one my brother likes..."I pledge allegiance to the flag, Michael Jackson is a..."

I thought, after watching this board gorw for so very long, that I would say a little something, myself.

I am a student who attends school, and I am Atheistic. There are some things I don't mind, and some things I would. The Pledge Of Allegiance is fine, I just mouth something else when it comes up (I'll say Under Freedom or Libery, etc...). Moment of Silence, while obviously ment for prayer, is used by like 90% of us to finish homework in home room. ;-)

Some things, I would find drawing the line. Organized prayer in school is something that just shouldn't happen. People have chances to prayer before and after school, and silently do it any time they feel like it, but organization of it dis-comforts some (I know I'd get some nasty glares...) and takes time away from an already crowded school sechdule (you have no idea how much time is rushed in school, but another board for another time).

The Ten Commandments, I do not understand. The first two laws are explicity towards the beleif in one monotheistic God. However, the reason they putting them up (primarily) is to prevent possible shooters and other horrible events, from occuring at school. However, if I am some sort of pyscho who has been planning to gun down my school for a year, rock tablets posting the laws of a religion he does not follow are not going to stop him.

Of course, being an Atheist in school is about as bad as being homosexual (worse around here, as there are no homosexuals). I get the basic line of I'm going to Hell, how come I don't float pencils like other Wiccans (they believe Atheists = Wiccans = witch = magical powers).

-Drew

That's just nuts. Have these people no common sense? Where exactly do these people get the "atheist = Wiccan" argument?

Actually, I have the same argument about the Commandments, which is also the argument I have against censoring violent video games or TV shows or movies. If you're going to do something like that, something is already wrong with you and nothing in popular culture caused it or can fix it.

I see nothing wrong with the idea of the Ten Commandments being brandished around, but the idea that they're going to do your work sickens me.

My school did have the pledge for the early grades (I didn't really take the time to analyze what it meant at that age, I just said it), but there is no "moment of silence" for anything, which suits me fine--I pray at home. Oh, I pray quietly before I eat in the cafeteria, but I don't think anyone minds about that.

As for the Wiccan stuff, the people here are ignorant. Not to setro-type (there are some people not like this), but this is an upper middle class area, where nice little girls and boys are religous and make Bs in their class, and care if Sara is going out with Billy Joe (coincidently, there are no minorities around here). I have nothing at all against religion (except I'm not in it ;-)), but ignorance of others is what I am not for.

As for the video game part, Matthew, I agree with you. Censorship isn't going to stop any of this, and actually thinking that posting the Ten Commandments will help (which our goverment has offically said the reaoson is why they legalized it) is foolish. And, censorship won't matter much at all. They've already seen it, and to think the route of the problem is culture, it isn't. It is the parents and the enviroment they grow up in (most of the time, I'm not saying every time, some people really are crazy). It would be like saying banning Assault Rifles will stop these mass shootings. It won't, there is always an Alley Marekt to get them.

-Drew

Well, I still think that assault weapons should be banned. Yes, it probably won't help much, but every little bit counts. And really, why do you need to own a weapon whose express purpose is to kill as many people as fast as possible?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree in every way they should be banned. No one needs that sort of weapon, except the military. However, banning it won't help.
-Drew

Drew: Sounds like a typical WASP community. I somewhat live in one of them, and I am a minority, but I've always had a good experience.

Drew - A Wiccan and an atheist are the same thing? Gee...and here I always thought atheism and polytheism are two totally different things. Have you, by chance, told your community the difference? That atheists believe in no god (or something like that), and Wiccans believe in the Triple Goddess and the Horned God?

M. Jenkins- I don't bother, they really don't listen to what I say (at least my parents and few of the teens understand).

BTW, my parents aren't Atheisits, they are Jews, but they respect my choices.

Drew - Ohhhhh...I know how that goes.

Ok, here's an on topic post, regarding universities' immorality. According to a state rep, anyway. I'll post it as is from AzCentral.com:

--------------------------------------------------
Universities' 'immorality' slammed
End co-ed dorms, teach phonics, lawmaker says
By Beverly Medlyn
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 24, 1999

A key state legislator blasted the state's universities Thursday for fostering immorality and urged them to close co-ed dormitories and teach phonics.

Rep. Jean McGrath, R-Glendale, also said that universities should be truthful and rename Women's Studies as Lesbian Studies.

"We have a mission at universities to educate," said McGrath, chairwoman of the House Public Institutions and Universities Committee.

"We get the feeling at the Legislature there has been mission drift."

Speaking to the Arizona Board of Regents in Tempe, McGrath began her tongue-lashing by stating her philosophical commitment to reducing the size and cost of government.

"We've created disaster," McGrath said, citing heavy taxation as the reason mothers are compelled to work.

"We have no one interested in raising our children."

McGrath urged the following changes:

Close co-ed residence halls. "I find no justification whatsoever for the universities to support immorality."

Make sure course names match course content. "Some people stumble into a course on Women's Studies and find it's Lesbian Studies."

Teach education students that there is only one way to teach reading that works: phonics. "One child in four in Arizona can't read at grade level, and I lay that at the feet of the universities."

Block Internet access on university computers to pornographic Web sites.

Get out of the real estate business by closing research parks at ASU and the University of Arizona.

Don't let ASU buy the Mercado, the ill-fated project in downtown Phoenix that played a major role in Fife Symington's downfall as governor.

The board later approved ASU's request, which will cost $8.8 million. The cost will be made up in saved rent payments in 10 years, officials said, and then ASU will own the property.

Regents John Munger and Don Ulrich thanked McGrath for coming to the meeting, noting that other legislators criticize from a distance.

"I don't think many of them know what's going on here, but they're very easy about sitting back and throwing bombs at us," Munger said.

"You're absolutely right," McGrath replied.

After the meeting, McGrath said she has had calls from Christian women whose daughters have unwittingly been exposed to discussions of lesbian topics.

"If they want to teach Lesbian Studies, fine. Just label it as such," she said. Better yet, "get rid of Women's Studies," she added.

Mary Logan Rothschild, director of ASU's Women's Studies Program, said the program is appropriately named.

"Lesbianism is an issue that Women's Studies discusses, but it discusses gender, race, class, poverty, violence, sociology, popular culture....Everything that makes up femininity and masculinity is grist for our mill."

McGrath is no stranger to controversy. In 1995, she sponsored a bill to overturn an international ban on Freon supported by President Bush and the heads of 92 other nations.

Several students who heard her comments expressed mixed reactions, with several agreeing with her criticism of ASU's Mercado purchase.

Lauren Williams, a UA junior, said she was "surprised" at McGrath's views on co-ed dorms and Women's Studies.

"I think that's ultraconservative," she said.

Paul Peterson, student body president at Northern Arizona University, said abolishing co-ed dormitories wouldn't eliminate the opportunities for men and women students to get together.

"Students are adults," he said. "We have to be responsible for making our own decisions."

Peterson and Cisco Aguilar, UA student body president, said they haven't heard students complain about courses being inaccurately labeled.

Tameesha Hudson, an NAU senior, said she "loved" McGrath's speech. "She came out and said what she was thinking. She didn't think, 'Will this help my career?' or 'What will people think?' "
--------------------------------------------------

Anyone else think this woman needs to get a life? Or better yet, get out of office? Crisa and I are going to write a letter to the local paper tonight, expressing our views on this...

The woman needs to get a life. I'm not really sure if this has anything to do with religion, but it really amuses me to think that she thinks that not letting opposite genders live in the same residence hall will solve anything. People will alwaysfind ways to get together, whether or not they are living in the same hall! Duh, woman!

As for the Women's Studies, I tend to think that they really are true Woman's Studies, and not Lesbian Studies, but that sexual orientation might be discussed. Since I've never taken such a class and never ever plan to, I can't really say.

Lifting the ban on Freon? Is she serious? How could she be so ultraconservative and yet not care one whit for the environment?

You might want to reconsider, Matthew. Frankly, I would think highly of a guy who went to a WS class to learn more about the issue (as opposed to, say, meet chicks :-) ) and took that class seriously. Of course, I would recommend asking beforehand about the professor teaching the class, and what is her/his attittude toward men in a Women's Studies class.

I lived in a co-ed dorm for two years. I don't recall it being a 24-7 celebration of fornication, but maybe I was staying at the wrong residence hall. Sure, there was the occasional sighting of somebody walking from his/her room wearing nothing but a towel (and that charming accessory, the SHOWER CAP!). Somehow, I have managed to carry on.

J: You're probably right, but whenever I hear the word "Women's Studies," I think of that professor who refusd to allow men in her classes. Funny how some people will screm bloody murder when something is done to them, but think nothing of doing it themselves.

I agree with some points, and disagree on others.

1--"Women's Studies". If it truly is intended for study of homosexuality or whatever, I think most people would know. Call it whatever you want, just make sure people know what it is.

2--"Co-ed Dorms". Sure, not having co-ed dorms wouldn't remove the problem, but do we really want to make it easy? I say, okay to have co-ed dorms, but for those responsible enough to use them properly.

3--"Porn Web Sites". Yes, colleges shouldn't let students get to these sites on campus. If they want to off, fine, just I don't think that's right actually on campus.

Ok, here's what Crisa and I said regarding the damned woman:

Phonics - Hookt on foniks werkt fer uss!

Mercado - It's a useless piece of land; put it to good use!

Dorms - University students are apparently looking to further their sex lives, not their education...get real!

Women's Studies - Getting rid of it? Shall we also eliminate all other minority studies?

Phonics- Actually, this does work, and better than "whole-language." Especially if you apply it to a language other than English.

*Chuckles* I despised phonics with a passion. And the way McGrath talks, it's like that's the ONLY way we should teach English...gimme a break.

I really have no opinion, since I didn't learn how to read from the school. By the time I was in first grade, I was reading at a seventh or eighth grade level. By third grade, my reading level was off the chart. You can imagine the social awkwardness this brought.

Ahhh, so that's why you're so articulate for a 13 or 14yo, Matthew! I admit, I was starting to have my suspicions about you there.

I, too, was always a good speller and reader, but not quite at the levels you were at those ages. I was pretty good but not that good. Could you, like me, see a word and instantly memorize it, even if it was long time before you used it? I just have trouble memorizing what some words mean sometimes. That's why I used to get A Word A Day (http://www.wordsmith.org), to learn new words, but it filled my inbox so fast that I finally unsubscribed.

I know, I know, getting way off subject here. So sue me. :^)

Rodnberry- I do that a lot, especially with Spanish. It's quite scary sometimes, as after one class, I can memorize up to 80% of the vocabulary for that chapter. It's been a long time since I've seen an English word that I'm unfamiliar with, but I remember them when I do.

I was the same way, Matthew. If memory serves me correctly, I was reading when I was roughly 3 or 4 years old, and by the time I was in 2nd (?) grade, I was reading adult books. And understanding the words. In seventh grade, I took a college reading test, and ranked right up with the really literate college seniors. Of course, whenever people tried to get insulting (as they have on occasion), I simply used big words on them. If you can't fight 'em, confuse 'em...

Anyone remember that one Star Wars novel, Heir to the Empier? I read that one when I was seven… and the Reader's Digest stopped being challenging when I was six.

Can I join the club? I was researching (for my own pleasure) immunology and theoretical physics at about 8.

Matthew Patterson - I can indeed imagine the social awkwardness. Because I read so much, I have a relatively large vocabulary. I don't mean to use long words, but I often find myself having to explain what I mean to my friends. I was teased for this in Jr. High.

I always got called a nerd for having my nose constantly in a book. Even now, I have to explain what I mean sometimes because I use a word no one else understands. But I do enjoy having a large vocabulary.

Of course...what people don't seem to realise is that the better grasp of the English language a person has, the more effective of a writer they'll be. Or a speechmaker. Or whatever else...

Mr. Jenkins--

Many screens ago, you were talking about seminary in the middle of the day. Yuchh! Did they actually take time out of learning for religious purposes? And, what did you do while seminary was going on?

That having been said, I see no problem with any group using school grounds for any legal activity. As long as:

1. The school doesn't spend any tax money for religious purposes (other then providing the building)--in other words, no paying the seminary teachers for their time during seminary (for example).

2. They allow any other group that wants to use the property the same access as the Mormons.

3. They have a uniform policy for deciding issues like who gets charged, or not, and how to decide when two groups want the same building at the same time, without giving any one group preference just because they happen to be a Mormon group.

And all *that* having been said, public schools need as good a relationship with the public as they can get, and letting the public use the school grounds does wonders for building partnerships with the community.

How much of this applies to your school's seminary class?

Mark M -

Yes, there was a Mormon seminary during school. And no, I had no intent of going. I used the entire school day to learn what was on the required curriculum so I could graduate with honors.

1. I won't even mention how the school allowed a church to be built right across the street.

2. Wrong.

3. Wrong again.

My school gave preference to Mormons. This is a Mormon area, and so preference went to them. I NEVER heard of a class offered, off campus, that went towards other religions.

So I guess practically nothing applies.

Wrong? My apologies, sir; it seems as if you were in a very uncomfortable place, but still managed to come out of it with your wit and intelligence intact.

I guess what I meant to ask was, did they still teach regular class during seminary time, or did you have to learn everything on your own? I hope the former, but considering your other comments, yipes!

Of course, it's easy to throw stones from this end of the keyboard, when it's no skin off my nose to rant about the unfairness halfway across the country. I work in Special Ed, which means I work in the Oregon school system, and I hope this sort of thing doesn't rear it's ugly head here. I suppose then I'd have to put my money where my mouth is, no?

And *all that* being said, I wonder: is there a particular policy giving preference to the Mormons, and active discrimination (as in, "Your Catholic group may not use our gym, period)? Or, has another religious group just never bothered?

And, why do I think you would be an expert in this?

We have a church right across the street from one of our high schools. If it's on private property, they can put it wherever they want. But if the school, say, donated that property--yipes again!

Seems like freedom of religion is taking a real beating in your home town. I'm sorry to hear it.

We have a Sonic right across a driveway from a Baptist church in town. One of the stranger things I've seen. As long as the church doesn't own the property in question, and the property is zoned for that type of thing, they can do nothing about it.

Mark M-

(Psst! I'm a woman! *Grins*)

Yes, other classes were taught during seminary (it ran from "A" period to 6th period"), and it was up to the students to fit it into their schedule if they wanted to take the class.

As for the active discrimination - to be honest, I don't know. I've never heard of other religions hosting events at my alma mater, but I don't know if it's a matter of not trying, or not able to. I never tried to find out either, as I had no interest in attending Judeo-Christian events.

And I think it's private property, but I'm not placing any wagers. Practically everywhere I've turned, there's a Mormon church of some sort across the street from a school around here. Or next door. Or within shouting distance.

Now, don't get me wrong, I know several Mormons, and they're very nice people. I also know a few Catholics, one Jew, and a handful of Christians. But Mormonism is the primary religion in these parts, and it's the one (IMO) that's most widely publicised. I have no problem with religious institutes being built next to schools, as long as it doesn't interfere with the regular school day. I just wish they had offered a seminary for a religion other than Mormonism.

Ahem. Boy, is my typing red. Haven't made that mistake since moving back to Medford and away from all the gender-neutral people in the big city....

And they say cyberspace crosses all gender boundaries. Hey, pundits, I'm *still* embarrased!

Personally (and I'm a Buddhist) I'd rather see a Mormon church across the street from my school than the vacant lot where a girl got knifed one day. It's all filled in with little residential cubes, now, but back then it was pretty scary.

I'm still not at all comfortable with the idea that school time was taken up with a religious course other than some form of comparative religion. There are plenty of churches that could teach that, without taking up public money (in terms of using up public space during school time, if nothing else).

I'm beginning to get the impression that your school broke the spirit of the First Amendment, if not the letter. It's an ugly thing when education time is co-opted by religious groups.

The closest thing we have, that I know of, is "bible release" in grade school--and that's only during lunch recess time.

Being a non-Christian in a public school (watch Mark commit career suicide!), I am acutely aware of every inroad that Christianity makes in public schools. Except for that annoying pledge (under who?), most of it is the fact that a teacher's beliefs are going to slip out no matter what, to some degree or another. The trick is not to be hypersensitive--it's not the end of the world if the teacher refers to something as a "little miracle" or "like God planned it" on occasion.

I mean, you could go nuts.

I would be upset if the teacher so much as called for "a moment of silent reflection"--my religion has a spoken component; would it be okay if I chanted? Then why is group silent prayer okay?

Again, that seems to me to be an attempt to bend the spirit of the law, while following the letter. What *learning* could have occured during those five minutes?

But then, I'm a crackpot who can't even tell boys and girls apart. Even first graders can do that!

I used to go to a Catholic school. On Wednesdays we would be released at 12:30 so the public school kids could come for their religious instruction. My sister, who went to public school, said the Catholic kids got to leave class early to go to religion class, but the rest of the kids had to stay. The next day, everything that was learned while the Catholic kids were gone was re-taught. What a waste of time for the non-Catholic kids!

(P.S. My sis & I both started out in Catholic school, but the tuition for non-Catholics (we're United Methodists) became way too expensive, so my parents put my sis in public school. I only had 1 year left so they left me where I was.)

Margie--what a waste of time for the Catholic kids, too. That religious instruction could have take place after school hours.

And parents wonder why teachers say there's never enough time to cover basic material. Hello?

Mark -

*Chuckles* No worries. Back when I was younger, and had my famous "boy" haircut...well, people thought I was male. Even though I was an "early bloomer".

And yeah, I'd rather see a church than a hazard across the street from a school. BUT...all around my school were houses and businesses, and it was located on a busy street.

As far as I can remember, we had the Mormon seminary, and a few brief lectures on evolution in bio/anatomy classes (if we chose to take it). Nothing more. So naturally, when I took Eng102 in college, I rebelled. *LOL* I wrote a paper on why paganism is a good religion to practice.

As for the 'moment of silence' thing, I'd much prefer that than what our teachers used to make us do (you got it - pray to the Judeo-Christian god). All I did was sit quietly out of respect for other people's religion, then pray to my mother's gods while the teacher was going on about what a good religion Christianity is and such.

Of course, my parents also know that I'm pagan (my stepfather nearly had a fit), and yet, whenever I'm over for dinner, there's the traditional prayer. Again, I don't pray, don't say a word...just give thanks to the Lady.

Ain't life grand? ;)

bio/anatomy classes (if we chose to take it)

What? How fair is this? I am REQUIRED to take Biology, and right now we're deep in the midst of a chapter about DNA that I do not understand at all, so I'm having to just memorize everything, plus I have to put up with the teacher saying, "Isn't it cool how this all evolved jsut from nothing?" (NO, IT DIDN'T!) On the other hand, I get to do a project on germ warfare, and that's pretty cool, but still… How come you got to choose!!!!!!!!! Universal injustice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that's what happens when you chug a whole Sprite at once, boys and girls!

Matthew--evolution isn't a religion, so it's not valid here. I'm reluctant to say much more, as the any more comments belong in the "Creation vs. Evolution" thread.

Meet you there.

Sorry. Just kind of associating there. Although the case could be argued (but not by me) that it falls under the same category as atheism, since it is the opposite of religious beliefs.

The Pope, and the Presbyterian Church, and the many Christians who are evolutionary biologists, would disagree that evolution is the opposite of religious beliefs. I have religious beliefs--Buddhism--and I see nothing in evolution that says anything about religion.

The point could be made, and I will, that religious beliefs are not addressed by science, evolutionary or not. But I went off at that in the other area, and I won't make everyone endure it twice.

And, your teacher is still wrong. Evolution doesn't say we evolved from nothing. Bad teacher! No cookie!

On another note, MS. Jenkins (man, I hope I'm right *this* time):

I know how you feel. It's fun to go to everything from City Council meetings to Thanksgiving dinner and have to politely ignore all the praying. I don't even have an alternate Deity to subsitute--although I do chant in my head, sometimes.

As long as all the praying doesn't take time from taxpayer-provided LEARNING! Sheesh, isn't education important any more? Do we suddenly have a bunch of free time to throw around during school hours?

Matthew - *LOL* We did, however, have to take some sort of science class. I dislike chemistry and physics, though. And I happen to like learning about DNA and RNA and mitosis and meiosis and genetics!

Mark - Ms. will do...it should be Miss, though. *L*

And if you've read any of the other boards (which I can't recall at the time), my sister is violently opposed to me being Wiccan. Crisa (my best friend) isn't opposed to it, she respects it. She asks my viewpoints, and I ask hers. Of course...all she and I ever do is argue anyway...(Which is a riot in of itself...)

*Rereads Morgan's red posts with some amusement, drops a solitary pin, and is again thrown off her feet by the reverberating echo*

Owwwww....

*Gathers herself to go on to the next thread in her pindropping mission. But is leaving PAoR out - for obvious reasons*

I couldn't post anything on the other board, and I thought here was as good a place as any, since we are talking about moral education.

Peter.

A secular morality is what we have now, though. Right now, kids are basically told in all sorts of lessons that "there is no right answer" to moral questions. Is it okay to kill a dog in order to save a baby? "There is no right answer". The basis of this idea is that children should think for themselves about how valuable human life and moral values are, and develop their own moral code, which may easily involve believing that murder is right. This is wrong, and that is one of the reasons we have so much crime and so many difficulties. You interestingly include Wiccans in your list, for example. The one Wiccan I know believes that marriage is evil and that abortion and b*ggery are good. Can you imagine fitting this sort of philosophy into a religious code for schools along with Christianity?
Aaaarrrggghh!!! I asked you how YOU would make things better. I knew you could only attack my opinion without stating your own ideas. Do you even have any ideas of your own, other than "You are wrong" and "'buggery' is abnormal and immoral but I am going to mention the word every chance I get"?

Last time about the "normal" thing. Why can't you just admit you insulted us deliberately and apologize? Scott apologized when he insulted you. If you are thinking about saying, "Well, lots of people insult me and never apologize to me, so why should I?" I would like you to think about this: how do you expect to convince everybody else in the world (or even on this bulletin board) to follow the teachings of Christ if YOU can't even follow them yourself?

And get this through your head: a morality without God does not equal "no morality at all", it is a morality based on what is best for the human community as a whole and what we can all agree on, like many of the laws we have in place now. That does not include murder. I have never advocated murder, and neither has anybody on this board. Why do you insist on saying that we do, especially since YOU have a sh!tfit every time Mark N suggests you advocate murdering abortion doctors?

One last time: if you think things are so bad now, how do YOU suggest we change them? How do YOU suggest we go about choosing a state morality? Once again, please confine your reply to the real world in which not everybody is Christian and not all Christians even come close to agreeing with you, as Matthew has already emphatically stated. If you cannot answer these simple questions, I don't know what you are even doing here.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

Calm down.

I would like to ask everybody else what you think, too. Are you satisfied with the way things are? How do you think we could go about changing them?

I couldn't post anything on the other board, and I thought here was as good a place as any, since we are talking about moral education.

Peter.

A secular morality is what we have now, though. Right now, kids are basically told in all sorts of lessons that "there is no right answer" to moral questions. Is it okay to kill a dog in order to save a baby? "There is no right answer". The basis of this idea is that children should think for themselves about how valuable human life and moral values are, and develop their own moral code, which may easily involve believing that murder is right. This is wrong, and that is one of the reasons we have so much crime and so many difficulties. You interestingly include Wiccans in your list, for example. The one Wiccan I know believes that marriage is evil and that abortion and b*ggery are good. Can you imagine fitting this sort of philosophy into a religious code for schools along with Christianity?
Aaaarrrggghh!!! I asked you how YOU would make things better. I knew you could only attack my opinion without stating your own ideas. Do you even have any ideas of your own, other than "You are wrong" and "'buggery' is abnormal and immoral but I am going to mention the word every chance I get"?

I couldn't post anything on the other thread, so I thought here was as good a place as any, since we're talking about moral education. Peter said:

A secular morality is what we have now, though. Right now, kids are basically told in all sorts of lessons that "there is no right answer" to moral questions. Is it okay to kill a dog in order to save a baby? "There is no right answer". The basis of this idea is that children should think for themselves about how valuable human life and moral values are, and develop their own moral code, which may easily involve believing that murder is right. This is wrong, and that is one of the reasons we have so much crime and so many difficulties. You interestingly include Wiccans in your list, for example. The one Wiccan I know believes that marriage is evil and that abortion and b*ggery are good. Can you imagine fitting this sort of philosophy into a religious code for schools along with Christianity?

My opinion on this is that there should be absolutely no organized prayer in class. I go to school to learn; I don’t want to be forced to pray because to me praying has nothing to do with school.

I don’t see anything wrong with prayer groups or moments of silence. When I was a kid I used the moment of silence to thank the people who died for our country. Now, at my high school, it’s a lot shorter than at my elementary school and at my middle school; it lasts maybe five seconds here as opposed to 30 seconds in elementary. There’s not even a chance for someone to say “Amen”.

The majority of kids at my elementary school were Christian, although we did have a lot of other religions. I remember that in my fifth grade class everybody was Christian. Some kids seemed unnecessarily obsessed with religion and asked everyone during lunch, “What religion are you?”

I saw one kid who said he was Jewish being taunted by those kids, and since I was an athiest, didn’t want to be taunted like that, so I said I was Christian. Still not proud of it.

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I’ve always said “Under God”. It’s probably because saying it is so automatic I don’t even think about it and so cannot stop myself from saying it. But it doesn’t matter, although I’ve never seen the logic of putting it in there -- what’s the point?

Matt (about reading), the same pretty much goes for me; I read and write at a post-pretty-much-everything level, which is a nightmare for me because people think I’m lying when they ask what I got on Stanford 9s and I tell them.

And Rod, I do that as well. Scares my parents. Sometimes they’ll show me an obscure word and then two weeks later ask me to spell it or tell them what it means and they’re surprised when I can.

Where’s Peter? Or is it late in Britain? (Sorry. Really lousy with time zones...)

Sorry about those double posts. What is the deal with this site? More later....

"Under G-d" did not exist in the Pledge until the mid-50s.

Glad I'm not the only one having trouble posting...

Matthew, which of those words do you disagree with? They all seem to support Christian morality to me.

Mostly the divorce one. I know darn well that divorce, while never pleasant, is sometimes a necessity. You cannot tell me you wouldn't want to see someone trapped in an abusive relationship get a divorce, if it meant protecting themselves and any children (if applicable.) I don't like the growing trend of quickie divorces, but the right must be protected because there are times when it is essential.

Also, I object on principle to taking it upon oneself to speak on behalf of a large group when it's impossible to know exactly what each of the members feel about each example.

Matthew Patterson

Although I know what you mean and agree that no one should stay in abusive relationships, that doesn't mean they should get divorced in reality. There's only one biblical reason for divorce and it is only if you can't find it in your heart to forgive your spouse. That reason is adultery.

I don't think ANYBODY wants a marriage to fail.

The Bill of Rights is not the government telling us what we can do -- it is us telling the government what it cannot do.

I am pretty sure that whoever wrote it was a person in authority, and if the rights apply only to government then they make no difference to the people, my other option.

Well, then maybe you should read US history BEFORE you comment on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Also, the Bill of Rights grants no powers to Congress. It specifically denies rights to Congress. It also specifically reserves to the various states and to the people rights that are not enumerated within the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Although I know what you mean and agree that no one should stay in abusive relationships, that doesn't mean they should get divorced in reality.

Yes, it does. If a relative of mine were physically or mentally abused by their spouse, and especiallyif their kids were, I would much rather see them GET OUT as fast as possible instead of stay just because if they left, they'd be committing a sin. Nobody deserves to be permanently hurt by someone they thought they loved, and that's not what marriage was meant to be about in the first place.

Matthew Patterson

Did you ever see me say that they should stay with the person? I said they should NOT GET DIVORCED. I didn't say they should stay with the person "for the kids." The only sin would be in the divorce, not leaving.

The problem with staying legally married but leaving the person is that if the spouse still has legal rights and whatnot, he/she could wreak all sorts of havoc with bank accounts, property, etc. Not to mention the legal trouble the leaving spouse could get into, taking the kids and all.

And how is this any different from getting a divorce, when you think about it? Isn't it kinda hypocritical to say, "Well, we're living apart, and I'm not letting the kids see him because he's an abusive drunk, but we're not legally divorced, so I've not sinned any." Isn't this just a tad ridiculous?

::The problem with staying legally married but leaving the person is that if the spouse still has legal rights and whatnot, he/she could wreak all sorts of havoc with bank accounts, property, etc. Not to mention the legal trouble the leaving spouse could get into, taking the kids and all.:: Matthew Patterson

Matthew, you can have the other spouse's parental rights revoked if you can prove a good reason for it. Then you get sole custody of them.

::And how is this any different from getting a divorce, when you think about it? Isn't it kinda hypocritical to say, "Well, we're living apart, and I'm not letting the kids see him because he's an abusive drunk, but we're not legally divorced, so I've not sinned any." Isn't this just a tad ridiculous?:: Matthew Patterson

No, it's not ridiculous if you agree that there is only one biblically allowable divorce reason. I know most people don't agree, so there's no reason to tell me that. People separate all the time and don't get divorced, you know.

People separate all the time and don't get divorced, you know.

And in the vast majority of cases, they either get back together or get divorced. I know of very few permanent separations. And what difference does a piece of paper make, anyway? Again, it's like saying, "Well, we're not living together, and I have sole custody of the kids, but we're not legally divorced so I'm not sinning." Ridiculous.

Someone, please tell me I'm not crazy? And wasn't this originally about religion in schools?

It was, Matthew.

Peter, I assure you, that was not a rude statement. I knew exactly who you meant; but since you like the semantics game so much, I'll play too! Fun for the whole family!

You evil Christian sinner. Advocating the rape of children. They did that back in Nazi Germany!*

* Awaits her points in the Game.

::And in the vast majority of cases, they either get back together or get divorced. I know of very few permanent separations. And what difference does a piece of paper make, anyway? Again, it's like saying, "Well, we're not living together, and I have sole custody of the kids, but we're not legally divorced so I'm not sinning." Ridiculous.:: Matthew Patterson

It's not ridiculous because in this instance it is Biblically true.

Peter, I gave you at least half a dozen chances, but you insist on evading questions I have asked and answering questions I have not asked, so I see no point in discussing the matter with you any further.

**I don't think ANYBODY wants a marriage to fail.**
Thank you, Mike.

To everybody besides Peter, who is not interested in having an intelligent conversation with me, I would say that most non-Christians observe many of the same morals as Christians do as far as social ethics. Christians and people of other relgions believe that God handed down those rules to us because he wanted what is best for us human beings, and nonreligious people believe that human beings themselves have developed over milennia the moral system that seems to ensure happiness for as many human beings as possible.
I don't see why those two ideas have to conflict.

I'm leading up to commenting about divorce, but I'm going to have to come back and talk about that later.

It's not ridiculous because in this instance it is Biblically true.

... no, that is ridiculous. The Bible also says that we can sell our daughters into slavery and I distinctly recall some sort of punishment involving an awl and someone's ear. (Ouch!) Yet we don't do this. Use your brain for a minute, Jwb, and stop passing on to us the lines that others have fed you.

I can't recall reading a teaching about the morality of selling one's daughters into slavery. (Tho I'll be the first to admit that there are things in the Bible I've forgotten or never read.)

Might it have been a passage from the history about some one individual who did sell his daughters? Not every action reported, even an action of one of the "heroes" of the Bible, was intended to be set forth as an example of righteousness.

Consider David, Bathsheba, and Bathsheba's husband, Uriah. In this case, the adultery cover-up and murder were strongly condemned and punished. But there are other passages where actions are reported, actions that would be considered by the first readers as being as immoral as we see them today that did not get immediate punishment.

____________________


IIRC, the passage concerning the awl and the ear referred to a "slave" (actually more like what we would call an indentured servant) who at the end of his service refused his freedom. It was to pierce the ear for an earring to mark him as a permanent servant. Besides, we do pierce ears today, all the time.

Tom, it sounds to me like God doesn't have any problems with slavery (or indentured servants). If he did, he would be commanding people to release their slaves instead of just pierce their ears. What does the Bible say about slavery other than the passage you mentioned?

On the subject of divorce, Matthew, I feel exactly as you do about it.

The only sin would be in the divorce, not leaving.
Jwb, what if someone were to get a legal divorce so they didn't have to deal with all the property and legal stuff that Matthew mentioned, then they were to stay away from their abusive spouse and swear to God to remain celibate until they die? Would this still be a sin? It's my impression that the sinful part of divorce is that it allows you to have "relations" with more than one person in your lifetime. No relations, no sin. Am I mistaken?

There's only one biblical reason for divorce and it is only if you can't find it in your heart to forgive your spouse. That reason is adultery.
Can you explain why adultery is worse than beating your partner and your children to a pulp?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand. I'll save the sarcasm for later!

How can you justify locking a murderer away and forcing your view that murder is wrong onto him, without having a higher authority to back your opinion up?--Peter
Easily.

You still will not answer what I have asked about how you can possibly defend a morality based on nothing more than personal opinions that you believe are of equal value to the criminal's views.
I believe I did answer that several times, most recently on September 17 at 7:18 pm, and indirectly on September 19 at 12:02 am. Please scroll up and read.

Peter, you might be right that you are answering my questions and I am just not listening. Would someone else please tell me objectively (and frankly--don't be shy now!) whether or not that is the case? I really want to know.

I wonder if Peter is in the closet. He certainly obsesses enough about pedophilia and homosexuality!

You evil Christian sinner. Advocating the rape of children. They did that back in Nazi Germany!*

* Awaits her points in the Game. Technical foul; the Nazis were not Christians.

Untechnical foul - I called Peter an evil Christian sinner. I said that he was advocating the rape of children. 'That' referred to in the last sentence was the rape of children during Nazi Germany.

Not that I know if it happened or anything. To me, it just seems likely.

::It's not ridiculous because in this instance it is Biblically true.

... no, that is ridiculous. The Bible also says that we can sell our daughters into slavery and I distinctly recall some sort of punishment involving an awl and someone's ear. (Ouch!) Yet we don't do this. Use your brain for a minute, Jwb, and stop passing on to us the lines that others have fed you.:: Matthew Patterson

So, it is ridiculous for me to agree then? I've told you before that most things were done away with in the law of Moses as given to him by God. At least, several Christian groups believe this. I won't get into the trap Peter has with saying much about it though.

::They are too selfish to put their children first, or genuinely believe the left-wing garbage about kids being pleased about having two houses and not having to hear their parents argue.:: Peter

I agree that divorce is not a good thing. So, you think it IS good for kids to hear their parents argue? Ever hear of a thing called emotional abuse or emotional scarring because the two people you count on the most in your young life can't be civil to each other?

::Jwb, what if someone were to get a legal divorce so they didn't have to deal with all the property and legal stuff that Matthew mentioned, then they were to stay away from their abusive spouse and swear to God to remain celibate until they die?:: juli k

I didn't think anyone here would mention this, but that is the only way a divorce is not sinful is if the person is celibate till the day they die.

::Can you explain why adultery is worse than beating your partner and your children to a pulp?:: juli k

Abuse is not listed as an acceptable reason to divorce. That's the only thing I can say on it. I do NOT think that abuse is right, but I also do not think that it is a reason for divorce.

::Even this, the most liberal board I have ever seen, has disenters like me, MikeC, Matt Pesti and perhaps Jwb.:: Peter

Perhaps.......LOL :) Anyone else see why I find that funny?

::It's not ridiculous because in this instance it is Biblically true.

... no, that is ridiculous. The Bible also says that we can sell our daughters into slavery and I distinctly recall some sort of punishment involving an awl and someone's ear. (Ouch!) Yet we don't do this. Use your brain for a minute, Jwb, and stop passing on to us the lines that others have fed you.:: Matthew Patterson

So, it is ridiculous for me to agree then? I've told you before that most things were done away with in the law of Moses as given to him by God. At least, several Christian groups believe this. I won't get into the trap Peter has with saying much about it though.

::They are too selfish to put their children first, or genuinely believe the left-wing garbage about kids being pleased about having two houses and not having to hear their parents argue.:: Peter

I agree that divorce is not a good thing. So, you think it IS good for kids to hear their parents argue? Ever hear of a thing called emotional abuse or emotional scarring because the two people you count on the most in your young life can't be civil to each other?

::Jwb, what if someone were to get a legal divorce so they didn't have to deal with all the property and legal stuff that Matthew mentioned, then they were to stay away from their abusive spouse and swear to God to remain celibate until they die?:: juli k

I didn't think anyone here would mention this, but that is the only way a divorce is not sinful is if the person is celibate till the day they die.

::Can you explain why adultery is worse than beating your partner and your children to a pulp?:: juli k

Abuse is not listed as an acceptable reason to divorce. That's the only thing I can say on it. I do NOT think that abuse is right, but I also do not think that it is a reason for divorce.

::Even this, the most liberal board I have ever seen, has disenters like me, MikeC, Matt Pesti and perhaps Jwb.:: Peter

Perhaps.......LOL :) Anyone else see why I find that funny?

::It's not ridiculous because in this instance it is Biblically true.

... no, that is ridiculous. The Bible also says that we can sell our daughters into slavery and I distinctly recall some sort of punishment involving an awl and someone's ear. (Ouch!) Yet we don't do this. Use your brain for a minute, Jwb, and stop passing on to us the lines that others have fed you.:: Matthew Patterson

So, it is ridiculous for me to agree then? I've told you before that most things were done away with in the law of Moses as given to him by God. At least, several Christian groups believe this. I won't get into the trap Peter has with saying much about it though.

::They are too selfish to put their children first, or genuinely believe the left-wing garbage about kids being pleased about having two houses and not having to hear their parents argue.:: Peter

I agree that divorce is not a good thing. So, you think it IS good for kids to hear their parents argue? Ever hear of a thing called emotional abuse or emotional scarring because the two people you count on the most in your young life can't be civil to each other?

::Jwb, what if someone were to get a legal divorce so they didn't have to deal with all the property and legal stuff that Matthew mentioned, then they were to stay away from their abusive spouse and swear to God to remain celibate until they die?:: juli k

I didn't think anyone here would mention this, but that is the only way a divorce is not sinful is if the person is celibate till the day they die.

::Can you explain why adultery is worse than beating your partner and your children to a pulp?:: juli k

Abuse is not listed as an acceptable reason to divorce. That's the only thing I can say on it. I do NOT think that abuse is right, but I also do not think that it is a reason for divorce.

::Even this, the most liberal board I have ever seen, has disenters like me, MikeC, Matt Pesti and perhaps Jwb.:: Peter

Perhaps.......LOL :) Anyone else see why I find that funny?

Memo to M Jenkins: the point of the game is to associate an individual with a group and then call the group names. "Mark is an atheist, atheists ran Nazi germany, Nazis raped children, Mark likes to rape children." To get the point, you would have to write something like "Peter is a Christian, in the Crusades Christians rape children, therefore Peter likes to rape children."

Technical foul, because I keep getting darn errors trying to post to this thread! Darn cgi-based discussion boards, anyways!

Kind of funny, since how can I be a dissenter if I run the board? (chuckles, as he casually deletes two dozen of Mark Morgan's messages again)

Now, regarding divorce. I'll go on record as saying that divorce is the worst way of resolving a marriage possible (I don't think there's much debate there). The Bible states that the only applicable reason for divorce was adultery by one spouse. I agree with that, although I think separation is applicable for other reasons--abuse, personal problems that need a cooling off period.

Matthew said that the difference between divorce and separation is purely symbolic. I'll agree with that, but since marriage is a symbolic act as well, I think that divorce is basically completely doing away with the symbolism of marriage. I agree that long-term separation is just divorce anyway, and is just a bad a cop-out as annulling a marriage.

However, MJ, by invoking Godwin's Law, the thread is over and you lose.

Ruling Council Philosopher, you are countermanded. The Game exists solely to allow the thread to continue after Godwin's Law wants it to be shut down. Instead of regretting pointless flames, let's mock them! It's fun for the whole family.

Well, it's fun for me. :-P

Memo to MikeC: are you getting an Internal Configuration Error when you try to post? I sure am. Recommendation: Move most of this (except your Peter announcement uptop) to a new New Discussions thread, close the new thread, and open up still another thread and we'll go from there.

If this keeps up (I even had trouble with the "Last Day" thing this morning) we may have to contact Phil about it.

Addendum: thought I was on the front page of RM. Belay that.

PS And I'm not going to discuss the actual topic, because it has devolved into another discussion of Biblical interpretation, and I've just darn well said enough about that for one discussion board, thank you! Morally speaking, Mark is divorced and happy to be so. But since I'm an atheist the best I can shoot for is the bolgia of virtuous pagans, so what the heck.

Oh, fine. Peter is an evil Christian sinner, since Christians were known for their mutilation and rape and abuse of nonChristian children during the Crusades. Thus, Peter abuses and mutilates and rapes nonChristian children!

You evil atheist demon. You're a freakin' Nazi.

There ya go.

Oops, besides, Godwin's Law specifically states that invoking Hitler/Nazis to end the thread doesn't work. Sort of like washing your car to make it rain.

I am ignoring your nasty comments, Peter, and I am not going to make any more toward you. I have indulged in trading insults with you for far too long, and I never feel very good about it afterwards. I would rather just stick to the issues, because I think they are important. How you choose to proceed is up to you.

How are you going to get all to agree on the laws, even the ones who break them?
You are asking the wrong questions. I would not ask everyone, "Is it okay for you to murder/rob/steal from people?" I would ask, "Would you want yourself of your loved ones to be murdered/raped/robbed?" Even a would-be criminal would say "no" to that. (I am not such a moral relativist that I would ask murderers and rapists their opinion in the first place, by the way. I guess that is one valid question you posed to me that I did not answer properly. My opinion is that those people have forfeited their right to an opinion. This may be circular and hypocritical reasoning, but I stand by it.)

I have a lot more to say, but the •••••• site won't let me post it. More coming.

In other words, I would choose "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" as a basis for deciding our laws, as I have already chosen it as a basis for my own morals (well, at least I try). As divergent as our opinions are, even you and I can agree on the wisdom of the Golden Rule, can't we, Peter? I think that some derivation of the Rule (whether religious or secular I don't know) is the basis of the majority of the laws we now have in place in the public arena. I see no reason for changing those laws.

To be continued....

Actually, juli, it's "what is hateful to yourself, do not do unto your neighbor".

Where we probably disagree the most is in the private arena. Here, I would argue that the best basis for any morality concerning the private lives of adults would be "Do not bring harm to others" and the related question, "Is the person hurting anybody else by their thoughts or actions?" If not, then leave them alone. This is just another version of the Golden Rule, when I think about it. As far as I know, it is also the basis of our American constitutional protection of freedom of religion, speech, etc.

Here's how it works. Do you want someone telling you that you can't study the Bible in the privacy of your own home or church? Well, some people don't want you telling them that they can't perform certain acts with a consenting adult partner of their choice in the privacy of their own home. I think this is not only legally and morally valid, it is just plain common courtesy. Of course, if you still believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you have the freedom to not engage in it and even strictly condemn it among members of your church congregation.

You might have a somewhat stronger case for protesting abortion and gay adoption in the general community, since both issues involve a non-adult third party, ie. a child/potential child. These are complicated issues and I would be happy to discuss them individually some other time.

Stay tuned....

Thanks, Scott. What are you still doing awake, you naughty boy? I forget, are you one of those west-coasters?

Continued....

You may be right if you think that life was probably simpler in the days when most everybody in a given geographic area observed the same religion and rarely thought to question the local minister/priest's moral authority. (I would question whether life was actually better in those days, but that is another issue and one neither of us can prove one way or another.)

The point I have been trying to make, and I guess I haven't been doing a very good job of it, is that those days are in the past, at least in your country and mine. We may wish for the "good old days," but wishing is not going to make them come back in the near future or perhaps even ever. This is the "real world" that I was talking about, as opposed to what I rather rudely called your "fantasy world." You are not going to give up your faith in God, I am not going to give up my secular beliefs, and nobody else here is going to give up their value system either, without us all having machine guns pointed at our heads under some kind of martial law (possibly not even then). I think we can agree that none of us wants that. So what are we supposed to do about it?

Anwswer coming soon to a theater near you....

Actually, Scott, there is no one single correct version of the Golden Rule. In both it's positive ("Do unto others....") and negative ("...do not unto your neighbor.") aspects, it appears in the literature and/or oral traditions of almost every known human culture.

Oops! I think I just gave the "liberals" a new, valid, argument. (How am I supposed to win against them when I make their case for them?) ;) <G>

The only thing I can think of is to come up with a minimal (but iron-clad) framework of moral precepts that we can all agree on (see above), teach them exhaustively in the schools, and then make sure that we preserve the freedom of all parents to supplement that framework with their own beliefs in the privacy of their own homes.

Example: in school, we would teach children that murder is wrong, and they would study the historical, philosophical, legal, and religious reasons why most people in the world believe it is wrong. Then your kids could go home and you would tell them that the religious reason is the most important because God commanded it (or however you would explain it), and I would tell my kids that life is precious and we must always treat other people as we want to be treated or whatever, and other parents would discuss the matter with their children as they see fit.

Experiencing technical difficulties. Please stand by....

Hey! Tom's awake too!

Murder is only an example. Other topics of moral education off the top of my head would be rape and theft. I am too tired to think of any more right now. I think it would be enough to teach the basics. At any rate, it would be better than what we have now.

Sexual education is too complicated a topic for me to cover it here right now. Suffice it to say I think sexual morals are needed, but I don't have all the answers there.

Anyway, these are my ideas about moral education. If anybody has any better ideas, I would like to hear them.

The end. (For now.)

Almost forgot about this. I read about it in Friday's Dallas Morning News. In the Dallas suburb of Duncanville (went to a Four Square Church there) one of the high schools - a public school mind you - has a Bible class. There's also one or two at Mesquite High, (Mesquite's another Dallas suburb). According to the article, Texas laws are such that religions can be taught, if taught from a historical and literary perspective and not a religious one. The class in Duncanville is taught by a former pastor, who, judging by the article, walks the line of separation of Church and State. That is, he manages to teach it as history and not present it as the "Word of God". Mesquite seems to be a little more dicier. For one thing, the classes are not taught at Mesquite High, but at one of the local churches by the youth pastor, I believe. For another, the class is taught that the various races are descended from the sons of Noah (as per the Bible), pretty much violating the Church and State separation issue. The pastor in Duncanville touches on this, and then moves on. He apparently does not teach it as fact.

The only time I ever attended a Bible class was when I went to Tyler Street Christian academy in Oak Cliff, TX (kinda a suburb of Dallas. Almost a part of Dallas, really) Mr. Brown was the teacher. About the only I remember is getting in trouble over something long forgotten and having to write some Bible verse something like 500 times. (Having written it that many times, you'd think I'd remember it. I don't.) That, and Mr. Brown wearing a W.I.N. button to school once. (W.I.N. stood for "Whip Inflation Now". It was President Jerry Ford's empty attempt at curbing the cost of living.) Actually, the only other teaches I have any clear memory of from Tyler Street are the music teacher, Mrs. Hudson (her husband was the principal and her daughter, Laura, was one of my classmates), Mr. Nix, the history teacher, who was a bit of a prick. I remember him hitting kids on the heads with his big ol' class ring when they did wrong. Then there was the science teacher, Mrs. Ballard. She took all us fifth-graders down to Glenn Rose, where the dinosaur tracks are. It was pretty cool. But she got into trouble with the school's administration. Some of the others kids complained to their parents about her. She was teaching the kids how to meditate. Oooo.

Incidentally, I did attend Mesquite High for maybe two weeks. My parents pulled us out of the school and placed us into a private school (Macedonia Baptist) after my sister received offers of drugs and was sexually propositioned. Nobody did that to me. ;)

IANAL, but My Humble Opinion® is that the Duncanville class is fine. I seem to recall that 20 years ago, my high school had a class on "the Bible as Literature", though it was not taught by a clergyperson. I see nothing wrong with that, and the way you have described the Duncanville class, it sounds like the pastor teaching it is doing it right.

The Mesquite class sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

My opinion is:

Bible in schools? Personal Bible study--fine. Group Bible study done before or after school (or doing any non-school time, like lunch)--fine. Other than that, school is for learning, not Bible study (unless you go to a Christian school, of course). True Bible study should be personal commitment done at home, on free time, or at church Bible study.

I do group Bible study before school, and find it very helpful, in fact.

I think there's a difference between your Bible study, Mike, and these schools' Bible classes. Yours is meant, obviously, for spiritual purposes. The ones at the high schools are obstensibly meant for academic purposes.

I do get the feeling, however, that the classes are sort of bones being tossed out to appease Christians in the state of Texas. I think there are other such classes statewide.

I think it's okay to teach the Bible from a historical or literary perspective. Face it, a lot of our cultural perspective is based on the Bible. But I'd prefer that other major world religious texts were taught along with it, and it shouldn't be taught as hard fact.

What Mike says about not teaching the Bible in a spiritual way in public schools makes sense to me. It violates the separation of church and state, and besides, you just can't force spirituality on people. It doesn't work that way.

I just realized I practically quoted Matthew word for word. From his post at the top of this thread: You can't force religion on someone. It just doesn't work that way. Ooops.

::I think it's okay to teach the Bible from a historical or literary perspective. Face it, a lot of our cultural perspective is based on the Bible. But I'd prefer that other major world religious texts were taught along with it, and it shouldn't be taught as hard fact.:: juli k

You can't teach it as history if you don't teach it as being factual.

Yes, you can. It was written by a group of people at a certain time. That's the historical perspective on the bible. Some of the events can be connected with archaeology (it provides some clues in Egypt, for starters), and some can't.

Lots of ways to teach a historical perspective without declaring it all utterly literally exact.

I just realized I practically quoted Matthew word for word.

Well, you know what they say. Thousand monkeys, thousand typewriters, thousand years, Shakespeare.

You can't teach it as history if you don't teach it as being factual.

Sure you can. Ever study the old Greek, Norse, Indian, or Egyptian myths in school? Did they try to get you to believe in Zeus, Thor, Brahma, or Ra? That sounds like the same thing they're doing in one of the two Bible classes. It's just that the Bible is closer to the present day in parts.

Sometimes I think we avoid ANY mention of the Bible at all in public schools, which I think is silly. It was one of the most influential books in the world, and should at least deserve some mention, even a secular, hard-fact mention.

Mark Morgan, you have what I meant by history misunderstood. History, the way I see it, is "those events believed to have been done or that happened and were believed to be important to be remembered in one way or another and taught to prosperity." I don't see it as real history if you don't teach it as actually having happened.

::Sure you can. Ever study the old Greek, Norse, Indian, or Egyptian myths in school? Did they try to get you to believe in Zeus, Thor, Brahma, or Ra? That sounds like the same thing they're doing in one of the two Bible classes. It's just that the Bible is closer to the present day in parts.:: Matthew Patterson

None of my teachers ever tried to tell me that this was history or that it ever happened. When one calls it history, it is my belief you must believe it actually happened to call it history. Mythology was never treated as real in any sense of the imagination as I learned it.

That shoul say "posterity", not prosperity.

Mythology was never treated as real in any sense of the imagination as I learned it.

But you learned about it in a history class, didn't you? Besides, at least some of the events described in myth really did happen. (Yes, Virginia, there was a Trojan War.) They may not have been caused by gods and goddesses bickering, but they did happen. Why not use any religious text as a means to discuss history and said religion's influence on it?

From a practical standpoint, Mike, the reason the Bible is ignored in school is the firestorm of protest it would generate from both sides. Between the "you're teaching religion" to "you're insulting my religion" crowds, school board meetings would never, ever, end.

::But you learned about it in a history class, didn't you?:: Matthew Patterson

No, it was taught in literature class.

::Besides, at least some of the events described in myth really did happen.:: Matthew Patterson

It's not a myth if it actually happened.

::Why not use any religious text as a means to discuss history and said religion's influence on it?:: Matthew Patterson

You can, IMHO, as long as you teach it with the idea that those things you teach actually happened if you're going to teach them AS history.

It is a shame that the bible is not taught in schools at least from a literary/historical perspective.
For style alone, the bible is quite an interesting work. It contains everything from poetry (psalms) to metaphor to prose. Passages from the bible are alluded to by writers as diverse as Shakespeare to Maya Angelou. Even a cursory knowledge of the bible can enhance these other works greatly.
Historically, there is quite a lot about the bible that is closely related to history. First, the books of the old testament are not placed in chronological order. When relating the books of the bible to their time period, they give a good idea about the time period in which they were written. For instance (and sadly a mind blank is preventing me from remembering the name of the book) the book of the bible related to the end of the world was written during a time when there was a very repressive and unstable government in the region it was written. Many references to the "end of the world" and dragons etc. were actually subversive code against the govt. of the time.
Furthermore, Noah and the great flood is very similar to a tale that appears in Gilgamesh (a book written in the same area many years before the bible.) It is quite probable that these writings occur because at some point there was a "great flood" between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
What is sad is that the bible can be easily taught without pro or anti religious connotations but schools are so afraid of "offending someone" that they refuse to even touch the text. Thanks to lawyers and frivolous law suits, any work that might be offensive to any person (including everything from the bible to Mark Twain) is effectively banned from schools. We herd our children in to schools like animals, take away anything possibly "offensive" (aka interesting, challenging) and then wonder why the education system is so poor and why kids start lashing out behaviorally. Hmmm. Of course, that's just my pet peeve . . .

As I earlier posted, Ghel, at least two schools in the Dallas (Texas) area, do teach the Bible from the historical perspective. Texas state laws permit it.

I don't doubt you Benn, it just seems that very few people, companies, or institutions are willing to take chances or do anything the least bit "offensive" for fear that somebody may sue them.

A good portion of the cost of medical bills goes directly into malpractice insurance. Schools are forced to teach watered down courses. Rollerblades are banned from most corporate parking lots (Which in some areas is the only flat surface around). There are even whole towns that ban rollerblades. Even McDonalds has to write "hot" all over their coffee cups for people too slow to figure that one out. Heck, even our presidential candidates are reduced to suing for office. Thanks to sue-happy people, lawyers, and frivolous lawsuits, we have a wonderful tort crisis that not only cost every taxpayers money but also indirectly restricts our fredoms. Of course, that is just my pet peeve. :o)

I'm understand what you're saying, Ghel. I think it's extremely appropriate that the presidential election of the world's most litigious nation should be settled in court! Only thing is, I don't see any way to reverse the situation and put the legal cat back in the bag. Americans love a quick, easy fix. Lawyers are to human relations as Slimfast is to good eating and exercise....

So when do we hit the real problem. Seperation between Church and state is possible, but seperation between Church and society is an impossibility. There is simply too much intertwinement. If you teach only the secular belief, you will only teach the subject from one ideological viewpoint.

If the subject is science, that's absolutely fine with me.

"I pledge allegience to the Boss Moss of The Boss Moss of Boss Moss"....... Fred Hernandez said that in 3rd grade, unfortunately he stood next to me, and I could not help but laugh. Mr Ingraham treated us both like heretical pariahs. How DARE the Pledge be mocked, gosh, he was an ass. A 60 year old man getting his kicks by terrorizing children and flirting with little girls. Benched for a week and 500x I Will Not blah blah blah..... I always said the Under God part because it was part of the pledge, never gave it any thought as I believed most of what we said. One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Sounded nice, words you wanted to believe. Public school patriotic indoctrination is what it was.I see a parallel in parochial schools, Nuns put the fear of nuns into you, as teachers put the fear of teachers. OK I ramble. sorry.J Oh, and also the bible has a whole section giving God's worth of servants and slaves, was HE wrong then? Or just reflecting the current social norms? have those passages ever been retracted? Or just ignored?

What I find interesting is that an public school teacher who is an athiest can tell a Christian student that his beliefs are stu*id and he should not believe in God and not get into any trouble. After all he is just stating his opinion. But if a Christian teacher in a public school dared talked about his faith he would get in trouble for forcing his views on the students.
Sounds like a double standard to me.

Bobby,

Are you talking about a specific incident or just in general? I don't think that many parents would stand for a teacher calling their child •••••• for any reason, let alone his religious beliefs.

Merry

On what planet did you hear of a teacher telling a student that belief in God was dumb and no action being taken? Any teacher who would ridicuel the beliefs of a student, the student's poarents would have that teacher's hide nailed to the wall. In fact strictley speeking a teacher could get in trouble for even telling a student what their beliefs are, even if it was phrased "I believe that their is no God"

Gee guys, no need to get sore at Bobby. What he said may not be too groovy to you or I, but we should all just be mellow when it comes to other peoples' opinions.

Keep on groovin'!

Who's sore at Bobby? All I asked was that he tell us if that was an incident that really happened. I did not attack his opinions.

Merry

You know Merry, taking responsibility for your actions is very important. When your father gets home, I'll have him give you one of his inane lectures on the subject. Now go wash up; Alice made lard cakes for dinner.

Um, I'm lost? ooo. Okay, Now I get it, Bobby, Mrs. Brady. lol

Merry