Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I disagree,
Teaching manners to children is the job of the parents - not the school's job.



Both sides of the argument have their respective "loony" fringes.

It's like when people accuse others of having the freedom of speech curtailed - despite the fact that they use this freedom to hurl/incite abuse toward other people.
When they're told that they cannot hurl abuse - they roll out the platitude "you're curtailing my right to speak....blah, blah".

Freedom of speech - freedom of (pick any subject) - doesn't give people carte blanche to speak/behave as they choose.I think all of that is well put. I think the dynamic for manners changes when you put kids in groupsas in a classroom. Parents can do their part at home, but I have noticed it is being done fairly well by the shools as well. But your point is fair

Nope, it just goes to show that the Libertarian Party is a bunch of crackpots and a corruption of libertarianism.

People don't exist in society as islands. They affect the entire society, and society collectively decides on policies that protect or enhance society. Teenage pregnancy is a large problem in the U.S., and it affects all of society. It causes poverty and ultimately crime that affects others, and it also costs tax money. Since parents have clearly failed, society has to do the job for them by teaching about birth control in the schools. Thats a nice theory, but it called Marxism. Wrap it up and call it Scandinavian bla bla bla. Its Marxism or at the very least Utopian Socialism and it doent work. As soon as you remove personal responsabilty from society it begins to crack. If teenagers had consequences to getting pregnant they would get pregnant less often. In the U.S. we put them in programs,give them day care, welfare, food stamps section 8 housing and expect them to behave differently. Funny thing is I have never seen a pregnant teenager in my church. And your right. The Libertarian Party is a bunch of crack pots. They take a bit of what I am saying too far, but in a pinch I would much prefer it to Marxism. The Pregnancy issue illustrates my point again. The left is forcing an agenda into the schools that ought to be dealt with in the home. If you want to go down yet another rabit trail I will give my thoughts on the causes of teen prenancy, but the subject that remains is BKs claim that his personal freedoms are being trounced on by Christians. My point remains that its the left that is forcing an agenda and doing the trouncicng . Christian are on the defense my freind

A parent is fighting more then just a few things raising children. We can discuss the irresponsible media of all types , but we all know that most of it is too "adult" for children. That is a big influence on our children.

Acceptence and glorification of teenage pregnancy is now being accepted as "normal" in lower income society. The state has stepped in such a way that there is no real financial burden to the mother......And sometimes there is an illusion to the potential pregnant teen that being pregnant is a financial award. We have to move away from that.

Of course, it is a double edged sword......... As a society we must provide for the children of irresponsible mothers. We have to give the children a fighting chance to grab the American dream.

There are no answers that will satisfy everyone. A pregnant teen becomes a burden on society for the duration and continuation of the teens life in many cases.

This is why I fully support the Catholic School system in this country. [ which is on hard times. ] The Catholic School system can approach the problem in ways the public school cannot not. It provides the needed guidence that parents either have not , or cannot provide to their children. It teaches that bad decisions have bad endings. Within the school system there is generally a peer pressure system that has more effectivness then the parents and school combined. I am not saying that the Catholic Schools have a superior theology , but that they have stricter guidlines then the public schools are allowed to have. And we do need stricter controls to teach the children what is is expected from them later in life.

You really cannot make this stuff up.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/6/122654/257

Liberty Counsel, a Religious Right legal group associated with the late Jerry Falwell, issued an alert (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=759)Oct. 30 vowing to slap retailers with either a "Friend" or "Foe" label this year based on whether the word "Christmas" appears in their ads, in catalogs and on Web sites.

Focus on the Family, in an effort to be hip and trendy, has a new video short (http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000005834.cfm) out featuring Stuart Shepard, one of its faux reporters. The cheeky Shepard explains how this year he's celebrating "Tossmass" by discarding all of the catalogs that fail to use religiously correct terminology.

Not to be outdone, the folks at World Net Daily are hawking (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58101) "Christmas Defense Kits" featuring a bumper sticker that reads, "This is America! And I'm going to say it: `Merry Christmas!'"

Thats a nice theory, but it called Marxism. Wrap it up and call it Scandinavian bla bla bla. Its Marxism or at the very least Utopian Socialism and it doent work.
Uh-huh. A democratic society deciding what will be taught in public schools is "Marxism." Sorry to tell you this, but the Marxism bogeyman lost its effect a couple of decade ago, in part because of ridiculous characterizations like the one above. You need to move on to language that is more current.

Christian are on the defense my freind
Christians, who constitute what? 90% of the population--are being besieged by athiests and agnostics leftists, who constitute a few percent of the population. That makes sense. Did it ever occur to you that religious leaders characterizing their religion as being under assault is the same Big Lie tactic used by politicians to keep the prols in line. Orwell wrote an utterly brilliant book with that as a sub-theme.

You really cannot make this stuff up.
What about this........ Gays boycotting other gays........

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3842.shtml

This is why I fully support the Catholic School system in this country. [ which is on hard times. ] The Catholic School system can approach the problem in ways the public school cannot not. It provides the needed guidence that parents either have not , or cannot provide to their children. It teaches that bad decisions have bad endings. Within the school system there is generally a peer pressure system that has more effectivness then the parents and school combined. I am not saying that the Catholic Schools have a superior theology , but that they have stricter guidlines then the public schools are allowed to have. And we do need stricter controls to teach the children what is is expected from them later in life.
I don't have a firm opinion on private schools.

On one hand there have been large failures of the public school system. They are over funded and they under perform. Alternatives can provide competition and, perhaps, force improvements on the public schools.

On the other hand, the end results of abandoning the public school system will be a two tiered educational system that is incompatible with a democratic society.

Education comes down to whether the culture places an importance on it, and some cultures in America do not value it like they should.

What about this........ Gays boycotting other gays........

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3842.shtml

What's the problem? Not wanting to support a neo-fascist government that has and is currently ethnically cleansing its population sounds good to me.

You really cannot make this stuff up.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/6/122654/257

Liberty Counsel, a Religious Right legal group associated with the late Jerry Falwell, issued an alert (http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=759)Oct. 30 vowing to slap retailers with either a "Friend" or "Foe" label this year based on whether the word "Christmas" appears in their ads, in catalogs and on Web sites.

Focus on the Family, in an effort to be hip and trendy, has a new video short (http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000005834.cfm) out featuring Stuart Shepard, one of its faux reporters. The cheeky Shepard explains how this year he's celebrating "Tossmass" by discarding all of the catalogs that fail to use religiously correct terminology.

Not to be outdone, the folks at World Net Daily are hawking (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58101) "Christmas Defense Kits" featuring a bumper sticker that reads, "This is America! And I'm going to say it: `Merry Christmas!'"I checked out these sights and I do not see where any of these groups are asking the government to be involved to legally compel the stores to recognize Christmas. If I were a retailer I would be rather leary about not mentioning the name of the holiday I was advertising for. As a Christian perhaps the best thing a retailer can do for me is to decommercialize Christmas. We can celebrate the birth of Jesus and separate the commercialism of the ubiquitis "holiday" with Christmas. As for the previous fights concerning nativity scenes I don't see anywhere in the constitution where a local government is prevented from sponsering or allowing (or not allowing) a nativity scene. It is certainly not in any of the first ten amendments. Churches have a legitimate legal question concerning the placing of nativity scenes if they have been denyed so from a federal mandate.

40 years ago when I was a kid the town put up Christmas lights and had a Christmas tree and sometimes even a nativity scene. When January 2nd came they all went down. It was quaint. The fights came not when the 60-70% of the Christians demanded to put up the Christmas decorations the fights began when a handfull of people decided the rest of the town should not enjoy their traditional holiday because of the beliefs of a few.

I take exception to your use of the term "theocracy". Our government has one document as it's highest law, our Constitution. Iran is a theocracy, a government beholden to a group of religious leaders. I cannot name a single President who has not proclaimed their faith to some degree or another in the course of exersizing their office. Bush has done so to no greater degree than Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR etc. However, Bush and all the others made the oath to uphold the Constitution not the Bible. When I think of the atheist leaders this world has produced the list is rather imfamous, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot etc. All felt that they should be the ultimate arbitor of liberty and the results were the death of millions.

Our declaration of independence based our basic rights Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, on a higher power or creator. I believe that as long as the majority of Americans believe in that higher power our republic is secure. When we as a country fail in that belief we are doomed to a dictatorship or worse.

I am not debating your stance overall, but I don't think Hitler was an Athiest. Not a traditional Christan of thr times by any means but not an athiest.
Just an observation, carry on.

Nova this week has a two week show about the bible thumpers attempting to push their religion into the classroom in the guise of intelligent design. It follows the 2005 court case in PA. It should be very interesting.

As for the previous fights concerning nativity scenes I don't see anywhere in the constitution where a local government is prevented from sponsering or allowing (or not allowing) a nativity scene. It is certainly not in any of the first ten amendments.
You mean aside from that separation of church and state thing?

The fights came not when the 60-70% of the Christians demanded to put up the Christmas decorations the fights began when a handfull of people decided the rest of the town should not enjoy their traditional holiday because of the beliefs of a few.
You can enjoy your traditional holiday in the privacy of your own home or church.

I cannot name a single President who has not proclaimed their faith to some degree or another in the course of exersizing their office. Bush has done so to no greater degree than Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR etc.
I don't recall any of those other presidents claiming that god wants them to be president.

Our declaration of independence based our basic rights Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, on a higher power or creator. I believe that as long as the majority of Americans believe in that higher power our republic is secure. When we as a country fail in that belief we are doomed to a dictatorship or worse.
And this type of thinking is exactly why rational people don't trust religious nuts.

You mean aside from that separation of church and state thing?

Where in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state. It says that congress shall make no law respecting religion or the free excersize thereof. Some of the states at that time had official religions and the founders wanted no federal intrusion into the states rights or the rights of the individual. It was Justice Black who felt he found in the constitution "a wall of separation". He I might ad was once a KKK member.


You can enjoy your traditional holiday in the privacy of your own home or church.

I will thank you.


I don't recall any of those other presidents claiming that god wants them to be president.

I'll have to check exactly how that was worded. Many Christians feel they have a calling. I think others might call it circumstance, but either way events lead them on a particular course. An atheist might call it destiny.

And this type of thinking is exactly why rational people don't trust religious nuts.
Why is that? What scares you so much about the possibility. Why should my belief in a higher power scare you more than the possibility that our rights are derived from whoever is the most convincing or the most powerful?

Nova this week has a two week show about the bible thumpers attempting to push their religion into the classroom in the guise of intelligent design. It follows the 2005 court case in PA. It should be very interesting.
I agree with you intelligent design, creationism etc. has nothing to do with science. Evolution should, however, be taught as "the theory of evolution", not as scientific fact.

Where in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state. It says that congress shall make no law respecting religion or the free excersize thereof. Some of the states at that time had official religions and the founders wanted no federal intrusion into the states rights or the rights of the individual. It was Justice Black who felt he found in the constitution "a wall of separation". He I might ad was once a KKK member.
Someone who doesn't believe in separation of church and state is a lost cause, so there is no purpose in continuing this discussion. The theocracy you would have us live under would not be any different than living under the Taliban.

It is people like you that convince people like me that bible thumpers should not be given a single inch in foisting their religion on others. Give them a nativity scene and they will be burning witches next.

It is people like you that convince people like me that bible thumpers should not be given a single inch in foisting their religion on others. Give them a nativity scene and they will be burning witches next.
I'm a Christian but i agree completely with you. Our history as Christians shows that some will use it for power and domination. Just look at the Church in the middle ages. Men used religious doctrine for their own personal gain and to maintain their power.

Someone who doesn't believe in separation of church and state is a lost cause, so there is no purpose in continuing this discussion. The theocracy you would have us live under would not be any different than living under the Taliban.

It is people like you that convince people like me that bible thumpers should not be given a single inch in foisting their religion on others. Give them a nativity scene and they will be burning witches next.I believe the government should have no say in who, what or how someone worships or does not worship (assuming no laws are broken in the process ie. you can't go behead someone because your faith tells you you should). That is what our constitution says. Just what theocracy am I demanding you live under? What leader of what church am I demanding be placed at the head of our government. What scripture have I quoted you? You call me a bible thumper but the only thing I have indicated is that I am Christian, beyond that and that I like cycling you know little about me. If I may be a little bold I would assume from your postings that you would want an atheist government which just might tolerate churches. Finally, I would venture to guess that you have no idea what it is like to live under the Taliban. The only thing I expect of you and me is that we abide by the US constitution and the laws of this country. If I am so threatening because of that well you will just have to live with it.

You can separate church and state but will never separate church and politics.
Don't confuse the two.

I agree with you intelligent design, creationism etc. has nothing to do with science. Evolution should, however, be taught as "the theory of evolution", not as scientific fact. I disagree. Creationism is good science and neither evolution or crationism should be taught in a tax funded school. BTW Darwin beleived in creation...well kind of

You call me a bible thumper but the only thing I have indicated is that I am Christian, beyond that and that I like cycling you know little about me.
We know that you don't believe in separation of church and state and seem quite miffed that the Supreme Court doesn't support your view. That factoid implies a heck of a lot.