"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[Dr.Drock]

John Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

I've already agreed that some founders believe it was founded on christian principles, some didn't.

If you and kosher prefer to pretend it's a black and white, all or nothing thing, like I said go ahead. It isn't accurate, but it harms no one.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's not what the document says.

That article was removed 8 years later. The document doesn't say that.

You lie. And you fail.

 

[Newby]

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

 

[Newby]

John Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

I've already agreed that some founders believe it was founded on christian principles, some didn't.

If you and kosher prefer to pretend it's a black and white, all or nothing thing, like I said go ahead. It isn't accurate, but it harms no one.

It's not 'some', it's most.

 

[Newby]

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

 

[Dr.Drock]

John Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

I've already agreed that some founders believe it was founded on christian principles, some didn't.

If you and kosher prefer to pretend it's a black and white, all or nothing thing, like I said go ahead. It isn't accurate, but it harms no one.

It's not 'some', it's most.

Except the president and unanimous congress who signed the treaty.

Have a great weekend guys .

 

[Newby]

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

 

[Newby]

I've already agreed that some founders believe it was founded on christian principles, some didn't.

If you and kosher prefer to pretend it's a black and white, all or nothing thing, like I said go ahead. It isn't accurate, but it harms no one.

It's not 'some', it's most.

Except the president and unanimous congress who signed the treaty.

Have a great weekend guys .

You have your head in the sand, hope you don't sufficate.

 

[Newby]

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

 

[koshergrl]

It's not 'some', it's most.

Except the president and unanimous congress who signed the treaty.

Have a great weekend guys .

You have your head in the sand, hope you don't sufficate.

He knows what he's doing, he's just lying.

 

[logical4u]

As to the question on your first paragraph? Having sex with who you choose isn't indoctrination. Telling people that they can have sex only with those who are of the opposite sex is.

Does it bother me that Christians teach their children about right and wrong? Not really, but it depends on how they do it. If you teach an open mind and to love God above all else and to love one another as you love God (as Jesus taught), then yeah, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those that teach homosexuals are to be persecuted, that you have to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (which leaves out a LOT of others, such as the Jews (God's Chosen), the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindus, etc), as well as saying that you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe as they do.

I've got news for you..............if you were born, you can't be eternal, because that means that you're damned even before you're born, because if you're in someplace for eternity, that means you've always been and always will be. If you can't live and choose, why should you be damned for eternity?

As far as "Christian morals"? How are they any more "moral" than the Native Americans?

As far as the last part? Didn't Christ Himself take care of the poor?

Teaching "children" that it is okay for "children" to participate in sex is wrong (I don't care what kind of sex, but it seems where this IS taught, that homosexual and beastiality is included as acceptable). This is far different than facts: if you have multiple sexual partners you are more likely: to have STDs, have an unwanted pregnancey, be a victim of sexual (violent) crime, have mental problems, etc. Discipline in your life, should include all aspects, just because you WANT to eat a half gallon of Moose Tracks ice cream does not mean that you should/ just because you don't want to exercise, doesn't mean you shouldn't/ just because you think sex is great, doesn't mean that you should not CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES/ just because you want to steal something does mean that you should.


We have talked about judgement and facing the Lord. I know that I have specifically addressed you on this matter, so please cut the "you will burn in hell crap", you never got that from me. I did say that living in a sinful manner is unhealthy, and can cause those around you to suffer. BIG DIFFERENCE. Just in case you didn't get it the other multiple times: I believe (from Revelations) that at the last judgement, all sinners will kneel before the Lord. If you believe/accept that He is the Lord, you will be punished for your sins (that means those that are not homosexual will be punished as well, for He IS a "just" Lord). Once your punishment is served, you will be with the Lord. If you curse Him, and deny Him and His authority, you will be "removed". If that is throw into a firey pit for destruction, if it is living eternally in hell, I do not know. Maybe we can talk about that after we receive our punishment.

Again, with the other religions (Native Americans)? Some of them practiced human sacrifice or sent the old out to die. Need I go on, or do you just look at the good parts and ignore the evils?

We get to "definitions". Liberals ignore the abusers (people that take advantage of the system: they work under the table and collect gov't handouts at the same time). Conservatives have no problem assisting people that are "helpless". The widows, the orphans (different than children/women choosing to birth children from unsupportive fathers), the mentally handicapped (not the purposefully drugged children to collect more gov't handouts), the elderly, the physically handicapped (not the people that choose to be "too fat to work").
Liberals choose to "accept" the abuse and allow corruption to grow (all in the name of the needy). Conservatives refuse to "accept" abuse, and protest the increase in gov't handouts (the percentage of population that is needy, stays about the same, why does the number "needing" help increase?). One embraces CORRUPTION (decay, destruction, deceit, death), the other strives towards honor, justice, and personal integrity. All of us have a choice, which will you embrace? Which will demand in your elected officials?

Where is it that underage children are taught sex is good and they should do it? I'd appreciate evidence rather than you making a baseless claim. I'd also like evidence that these places accept bestiality.

....."Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex.

The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices.
..." Mandatory Sex Ed Details May Be Too Racy for Parents: Report | NBC New York

".....
Michael Sudlow, a parent of a 16-year-old student there, called the play semi-pornographic and too torrid to describe in print for a family newspaper.

"Except for one passing reference to abstinence, they centered on 'safe sex' and included dildos, male and female condoms and how to use them, explanations about oral sex and a Saran Wrap condom alternative," Sudlow said. "We were really shocked at the audacity of the school to show that kind of stuff."

Sudlow said his son saw one girl try to leave the assembly but was detained until she called her mother. The son was too embarrassed to even tell his mother about the program, said Sudlow, who works in the admissions office at Brigham Young University-Hawai'i.
...." Sex education play upsets Kahuku parents, students | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper

...."When she picked up her 12-year-old son at Hardy Middle School last Tuesday afternoon, "Susan" knew something was wrong. Her son looked "disturbed," his father said later. Susan asked her son what had happened at school. A test had been given in a health/physical education class filled with 7th-grade boys and girls.

One classmate called it a "sex test."

"What is your gender?" was the first question. The choice of answers:

a) Male
b) Female
c) Transgender (M to F)
d) Transgender (F to M)

The 12-year-old was slightly bewildered. He noticed other children seemed confused.

The questions became more graphic:

"How sure are you that you....

...Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV.
...Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex.
...Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner.
...Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex.
...Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex."

The 12-year-old, even more confused, asked an instructor about some of the terms. "What is this? I don't know what this is," he told the facilitator. Children ventured guesses as the instructor -- brought in on a DCPS contract -- started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex."

Susan (not her real name) called her husband at the office. She was practically in tears. He was outraged.

Other parents heard about the "sex test" from their kids. "The school is making us take a sex survey," one child told his mother. ...."
Parents upset by "sex test" at Hardy Middle School | The Georgetown Dish

"...A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old. ...............The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes. ..................."

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents | Fox News

"........SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against) after a Republican-sponsored amendment to require parental permission failed 26-48. The bill was sponsored by lesbian activist state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a former actress who is the driving force behind the legislative homosexual agenda. Earlier this month, in the face of a promised veto by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Kuehl removed a portion of the bill that would have forced all California public schools to teach the "history and achievements" of homosexuals in America. ........."
Concerned Women for America - California Law Makers Approve K-12 Pro-Homosexual School Bills

You can do your own research if that isn't enough examples.

 

[logical4u]

Sure have. Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't. I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is. But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.

Most did and it's very evident in their writings. I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington. Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear. So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.

Which Christian religion? They cannot say that it is founded on "the" Christian religion. That is a disputed title, that has not been settled to this day. This country was founded on Christian principals and Christian values, and Christian morals. It was not modeled after the leadership of the Catholic church, the Presbyterian church, the church of Latter Day Saints or any other Christian religion.

They were dealing with muslims..... their religion is their gov't. It is "founded" on islam. They cannot associate/deal/treaty with other "religions". Its okay, I know you won't "get it".

 

[logical4u]

For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted:

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.

They have eyes, but they do not see.... they have ears, but they do not hear....

 

[logical4u]

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

Wonder why so many in gov't are trying to make a nation of Biblical illiterate subjects (versus citizens)?

 

[Montrovant]

Teaching "children" that it is okay for "children" to participate in sex is wrong (I don't care what kind of sex, but it seems where this IS taught, that homosexual and beastiality is included as acceptable). This is far different than facts: if you have multiple sexual partners you are more likely: to have STDs, have an unwanted pregnancey, be a victim of sexual (violent) crime, have mental problems, etc. Discipline in your life, should include all aspects, just because you WANT to eat a half gallon of Moose Tracks ice cream does not mean that you should/ just because you don't want to exercise, doesn't mean you shouldn't/ just because you think sex is great, doesn't mean that you should not CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES/ just because you want to steal something does mean that you should.


We have talked about judgement and facing the Lord. I know that I have specifically addressed you on this matter, so please cut the "you will burn in hell crap", you never got that from me. I did say that living in a sinful manner is unhealthy, and can cause those around you to suffer. BIG DIFFERENCE. Just in case you didn't get it the other multiple times: I believe (from Revelations) that at the last judgement, all sinners will kneel before the Lord. If you believe/accept that He is the Lord, you will be punished for your sins (that means those that are not homosexual will be punished as well, for He IS a "just" Lord). Once your punishment is served, you will be with the Lord. If you curse Him, and deny Him and His authority, you will be "removed". If that is throw into a firey pit for destruction, if it is living eternally in hell, I do not know. Maybe we can talk about that after we receive our punishment.

Again, with the other religions (Native Americans)? Some of them practiced human sacrifice or sent the old out to die. Need I go on, or do you just look at the good parts and ignore the evils?

We get to "definitions". Liberals ignore the abusers (people that take advantage of the system: they work under the table and collect gov't handouts at the same time). Conservatives have no problem assisting people that are "helpless". The widows, the orphans (different than children/women choosing to birth children from unsupportive fathers), the mentally handicapped (not the purposefully drugged children to collect more gov't handouts), the elderly, the physically handicapped (not the people that choose to be "too fat to work").
Liberals choose to "accept" the abuse and allow corruption to grow (all in the name of the needy). Conservatives refuse to "accept" abuse, and protest the increase in gov't handouts (the percentage of population that is needy, stays about the same, why does the number "needing" help increase?). One embraces CORRUPTION (decay, destruction, deceit, death), the other strives towards honor, justice, and personal integrity. All of us have a choice, which will you embrace? Which will demand in your elected officials?

Where is it that underage children are taught sex is good and they should do it? I'd appreciate evidence rather than you making a baseless claim. I'd also like evidence that these places accept bestiality.

....."Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex.

The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices.
..." Mandatory Sex Ed Details May Be Too Racy for Parents: Report | NBC New York

".....
Michael Sudlow, a parent of a 16-year-old student there, called the play semi-pornographic and too torrid to describe in print for a family newspaper.

"Except for one passing reference to abstinence, they centered on 'safe sex' and included dildos, male and female condoms and how to use them, explanations about oral sex and a Saran Wrap condom alternative," Sudlow said. "We were really shocked at the audacity of the school to show that kind of stuff."

Sudlow said his son saw one girl try to leave the assembly but was detained until she called her mother. The son was too embarrassed to even tell his mother about the program, said Sudlow, who works in the admissions office at Brigham Young University-Hawai'i.
...." Sex education play upsets Kahuku parents, students | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper

...."When she picked up her 12-year-old son at Hardy Middle School last Tuesday afternoon, "Susan" knew something was wrong. Her son looked "disturbed," his father said later. Susan asked her son what had happened at school. A test had been given in a health/physical education class filled with 7th-grade boys and girls.

One classmate called it a "sex test."

"What is your gender?" was the first question. The choice of answers:

a) Male
b) Female
c) Transgender (M to F)
d) Transgender (F to M)

The 12-year-old was slightly bewildered. He noticed other children seemed confused.

The questions became more graphic:

"How sure are you that you....

...Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV.
...Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex.
...Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner.
...Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex.
...Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex."

The 12-year-old, even more confused, asked an instructor about some of the terms. "What is this? I don't know what this is," he told the facilitator. Children ventured guesses as the instructor -- brought in on a DCPS contract -- started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex."

Susan (not her real name) called her husband at the office. She was practically in tears. He was outraged.

Other parents heard about the "sex test" from their kids. "The school is making us take a sex survey," one child told his mother. ...."
Parents upset by "sex test" at Hardy Middle School | The Georgetown Dish

"...A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old. ...............The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes. ..................."

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents | Fox News

"........SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against) after a Republican-sponsored amendment to require parental permission failed 26-48. The bill was sponsored by lesbian activist state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a former actress who is the driving force behind the legislative homosexual agenda. Earlier this month, in the face of a promised veto by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), Kuehl removed a portion of the bill that would have forced all California public schools to teach the "history and achievements" of homosexuals in America. ........."
Concerned Women for America - California Law Makers Approve K-12 Pro-Homosexual School Bills

You can do your own research if that isn't enough examples.

Not surprisingly, none of your links showed that kids are being taught to have sex. Also not surprisingly, none of your links had a single thing to do with bestiality that I saw.

 

[koshergrl]

Look, another progressive who doesn't know what constitutes "teaching" and "learning".

That explains so much.

 

[Montrovant]

Look, another progressive who doesn't know what constitutes "teaching" and "learning".

That explains so much.

logical4u specifically said teaching. Thanks for playing.

 

[sublime]

People who pass judgement on others and condemn them to hell are guilty of sin. They are not good Christians, they do not follow God's commandments and they should learn to hate the sin but love the sinner.

I always love b!tch slapping a so called religious person who is on their high horse of condemnation.

Sin is sin.....

 

[koshergrl]

Again. More slowly.

There is question about what the original document actually said, as it no longer exists. If it ever did.

It is generally understood and accepted, except for the particularly ignorant, that the clause was added because the MUSLIM PIRATES refused to recognize countries, or statesmen from countries, founded upon Christianity.

THE MUSLIMS RECOGNIZED US AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

So the statesmen lied to them, in order to facilitate continued dealings with them.

You still haven't narrowed down your choice. You're simultaneously sticking with the gov't conspiracy theory and that our founders were a bunch of lying wussies who kowtowed to muslims. Pick one and run with it.

If you think the muslims recognized us as a christian gov't, then you must also recognize that gov't wanted to correct that view, and agreed to do so unanimously.

There's a reason you're so sensitive about it, it's a truth you don't like. People get a lot angrier about those than they do lies.

Not at all.

You make assumptions that have no feet. I don't think the founders were lying wussies. I think they stuck that clause in because otherwise the Muslim pirates wouldn't sign the treaty. And eight years later, the article was removed.

I don't recognize that the government wanted to "correct" the view that we were a Christian country. Yet another leap of fancy that has nothing to do with anything.

And I'm not sensitive about it at all. Pointing out your half-assed logical fallacies is amusing.

 

[koshergrl]

People who pass judgement on others and condemn them to hell are guilty of sin. They are not good Christians, they do not follow God's commandments and they should learn to hate the sin but love the sinner.

I always love b!tch slapping a so called religious person who is on their high horse of condemnation.

Sin is sin.....

Thank you for that irrlevant tidbit.

I like macaroni.