# Norfolk...disturbing.



## Darksoul (May 24, 2010)

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/norfolk-principal-put-leave-over-fetus-dolls-students


----------



## Empty Hands (May 24, 2010)

What, no blastocyst plushies?!?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 24, 2010)

Disturbing but not surprising.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 24, 2010)

Well, that principle isn't Congress making law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... so unless the District has written policy against the religious overtones and the prayer group I'm not sure what the horror is all about.

The only "Separation of Church and State" that exists is with Congress.  "Congress" does not, the last time I checked, mean Town Halls, Mayoral Offices, Courthouses, School Buildings, Municipal Parks, the White House Lawn, etc...


----------



## Empty Hands (May 24, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> The only "Separation of Church and State" that exists is with Congress.  "Congress" does not, the last time I checked, mean Town Halls, Mayoral Offices, Courthouses, School Buildings, Municipal Parks, the White House Lawn, etc...



Nope.  _Lemon v. Kurtzman_, SCOTUS, 1971.  The decision concerned a Pennsylvania law about schools.  _Allegheny  County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU_ (1989) concerned a religious display at a courthouse.  _Glassroth v. Moore _was allowed to stand by SCOTUS in 2003, which prevented Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display in his courthouse._  McCreary County v. ACLU of  Kentucky_ (2005) also held Ten Commandment displays in Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional.   _Abington  Township v. Schempp_ (1963) held that a mandatory recitation of the Lord's Prayer in schools was unconstitutional.

I don't think the religion is what everyone is finding disturbing though.  I think it's the plastic fetus dolls.


----------



## David43515 (May 24, 2010)

That`s what I don`t understand. Why did they lead with the fetus dolls when the vast majority of the story is about the bible study invitaions?

           Frankly, I don`t see what the big deal about the fetus dolls is. The article shows the message on the packaging and it`s not religious or even overtly pro-life in my opinion. It simply says that babies don`t start out as crying screaming poop machines, there`s a stage before that too.Just like frogs start out as tad poles and chickens actually grow inside the egg. What are we _supposed _to be teaching 3rd and 4th graders? That the stork brings babies? Or that thier mothers find them under cabbage leaves?

            The simple fact that someone _could _use the dolls as a visual aide to teach a pro-life message doesn`t mean much of anything. They could be used just as easily to teach a pro-choice or a very neutraly centered biology lesson. I would think that martial artists especially would understand that logic.After all, just because we practice a martial art that supposedly has killing and cripling techniques in it doesn`t make us violent thugs bent on handing out beatings, does it? (Well......not as a group anyway. :whip1


----------



## teekin (May 24, 2010)

I think a teacher or Administrator pushing ANY type of agenda is wrong. Making sure the information is made avalible is fine, chairing a commitee after school is concluded for the day is fine, making sure that the kids have the right to express themselves and explore their options is ideal ( and yes include religion/ theology  as well as pro-life reasoning ) but making info available does not equate to shoving it down someones throat. Handing out fetus dolls to elememtery kids falls into the Later catagory. This is a PRIME example of organised religion coercing with fear when it can NOT teach with reason. Of couse it does this to those whose ability to use logic and reason are not fully devoloped, children as young as 10. Nice.

It's too bad. I studied Theology ( I had to take some humanities, they made me) and found the rituals and symbolism intricate and beautiful. It made a great deal of social and political sense as well for the time they were devoloped. Damn ingenious in fact. It supprising how silly and outright stupid some religions are now, how self terminating they are, and that they don't learn from the mistakes made in the past. Ohhh look Darwin in Action. Ironic huh?:shrug:
 lori


----------



## Cryozombie (May 24, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Nope.  _Lemon v. Kurtzman_, SCOTUS, 1971.  The decision concerned a Pennsylvania law about schools.  _Allegheny  County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU_ (1989) concerned a religious display at a courthouse.  _Glassroth v. Moore _was allowed to stand by SCOTUS in 2003, which prevented Roy Moore's Ten Commandments display in his courthouse._  McCreary County v. ACLU of  Kentucky_ (2005) also held Ten Commandment displays in Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional.   _Abington  Township v. Schempp_ (1963) held that a mandatory recitation of the Lord's Prayer in schools was unconstitutional.



Hmm.  Interesting.  So, the SCOTUS has ruled that all those People/Places are considered Congress.  Thats... Intelligent of them.  

But seriously, I am aware of those rulings, or others like them, and the arguments about the Framers additional writings that are used to support them.   Regardless, it's still not what the constitutions *SAYS*.  A "fictional" seperation of Church and State that is NOT in the document was used to argue those cases, and upheld.  I would be hypocritical if I said this was ok, while making some of the Second Amendment arguments I have made based soley on the wording of the document.  



Empty Hands said:


> I don't think the religion is what everyone is finding disturbing though.  I think it's the plastic fetus dolls.



I'd buy that if that was the focus of the article, but that was a lead, and most of the article was NOT about the fetus dolls.


----------



## jks9199 (May 24, 2010)

No, the Supreme Court has ruled that the principle underlying that clause in the First Amendment extends beyond the Congress, and that government in general cannot endorse or support one religion or religious principle.  The idea has certainly been taken further than I think it was intended, as it's reached the point that the mere mention of religion is apparently the same as endorsing or controlling the practice thereof.


----------



## David43515 (May 25, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> I think a teacher or Administrator pushing ANY type of agenda is wrong. Making sure the information is made avalible is fine, chairing a commitee after school is concluded for the day is fine, making sure that the kids have the right to express themselves and explore their options is ideal ( and yes include religion/ theology as well as pro-life reasoning ) but making info available does not equate to shoving it down someones throat. Handing out fetus dolls to elememtery kids falls into the Later catagory. This is a PRIME example of organised religion coercing with fear when it can NOT teach with reason. Of couse it does this to those whose ability to use logic and reason are not fully devoloped, children as young as 10. Nice.
> 
> 
> lori


 
Sorry, but I can`t agree with that.Saying "This is what a baby looks like before it`s born" isn`t shoving an opinion down someones throat. It`s stating fact. It`s no different than me holding up a jar of tadpoles and saying "These are going to turn into frogs. This is what they look like before they grow legs."

If I start to talk about how cute they are and tell the kids that they prevent they spread of some diseases by eating mosquitoes, and close by saying that eating frogs legs is cruel, then you may have a point. But saying that teachers shouldn`t push ANY kind of agenda is both unrealistic and wrong. We don`t just open kids` heads and pour in facts. Part of a teacher`s job is to teach the manners and social mores of thier society.(_It`s not nice to hit. Say please and thank you. Ask before you use someone else`s things. Put things back when you`re done. Shake hands and say you`re sorry. etc.)_ Another part is to push agendas that society agrees are important. 

We teach kids to recycle and not pollute. We teach kids that people of other races, religions, and ethnicities are equal. We teach kids that peace is better than war. These are all someone`s agenda, and most of us agree that these are things we preffer our kids learn. But we also teach kids to think for themselves. They can`t learn to do that without being informed. And they can`t be informed unless they hear differnt opinions.

How in the world can you construe this as "organised religion coercing with fear when it can not teach with reason"? How does knowing what a fetus looks like instill fear? How is being forbidden to hand out a visual aide "teaching with reason"?  And just for my own curiosity, why did you feel you had to justify the fact that you`d had some theology classes with the statement that "they made me" take some humanities? Did you honestly feel that we would somehow think less of you because you had? Or is that just how you feel about someone who might take a theology class by choice?


----------



## crushing (May 25, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> What, no blastocyst plushies?!?


 
Actually, those plushies would be alright, what worries many is pictures and likenesses (dolls, if you will) of those 'parasitic hunks of meat' when they begin looking like real people.


----------



## chaos1551 (May 25, 2010)

Seems people were upset when their boss advocated a religion in the workplace, and that workplace was government (tax) supported.  Seems inappropriate to me.  If you were concerned about your job and boss said, "Come on down to [Christian] prayer meeting," and you were, say, Muslim, how would you feel?  A little conflicted, maybe?  Angry for being put in a perceivably untenable position?  In a private company, you wouldn't have recourse.  The folks that work in the public school system, however, do have recourse.  

The dolls were a proverbial straw on a camel's back to bring a culmination to the issues in that school.  Call it what you will, the doll is a pro-life manouver in an of itself (considering the saying and how it was supposedly presented) and touches on sensitive issues in our community.  I feel it was also quite inappropriate.  

To generalize, if I was Christian I might not feel at all like I do.  But I'm not.  And neither are many others.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Regardless, it's still not what the constitutions *SAYS*.



How far do you want to take this version of biblical literalism?  The first amendment also says that "Congress" shall not abridge the freedom of speech, press, etc.  By your just stated argument then, you should be absolutely fine with the police as part of the Executive branch shutting down critical press, dispersing protests without cause, and silencing free speech.  

For that matter, what exactly is meant by "arms" in the 2nd?  Tactical nuclear weapons, or only the arms present in the time of the framers, flintlock rifles/pistols and simple cannon?  What is meant by "promote the general welfare" and what are the limits?  What is even meant by the "people" considering the status of everyone except property owning white males when the Constitution was written?  Your argument would also do away entirely with incorporated amendments, and all of our guaranteed freedoms would only apply by Federal action.

This is why we have courts, why they are tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and why the bare text only goes so far.  We run up against the limits of literalism almost immediately.


----------



## tellner (May 25, 2010)

Argh! Wrong thread. Sorry


----------



## teekin (May 25, 2010)

David, if you really want me to answer those questions I will. But you may want to look at a few of my posts in the Study where I state I believe in a devine design. Please do not make this personal, this is a debate, an exchange of ideas, surely you can be passionate without sliding into personal attacks.

Lori


----------



## elder999 (May 25, 2010)

David43515 said:


> How in the world can you construe this as "organised religion coercing with fear when it can not teach with reason"? How does knowing what a fetus looks like instill fear? How is being forbidden to hand out a visual aide "teaching with reason"


 
Knowing what a fetus looks like could certainly be part of a science class-if this was "sex-education" it usually requires parental consent. However:



> "_Some people think that my life began at birth, but my life's journey began long before I was born."_
> *captioning accompanying the "fetus doll"*


 
It certainly seems to have a religious undercurrent......

Not appropriate for school: not part of science class, and certainly not part of social studies.

Especially for fourth graders.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 25, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> For that matter, what exactly is meant by "arms" in the 2nd?  Tactical nuclear weapons, or only the arms present in the time of the framers, flintlock rifles/pistols and simple cannon?



Thats part of why I say it would be Hypocritical for me to say "Well, it says congress, but means..." because I argue often that the 2nd says "Arms" which does NOT mean Flintlocks and Cannons, otherwise it would say the "Right to bear flintlocks and cannons" 

It's imperfect, but I _try_ and be consistent.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> It certainly seems to have a religious undercurrent......
> 
> Not appropriate for school:



Way back in the day when I was in High School I was made to read the Koran for "Change and Revolution" class... (That was the history class that came after Ancient Civ)

Damn them for expanding my mind.  LOL.


----------



## crushing (May 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> "_Some people think that my life began at birth, but my life's journey began long before I was born."_
> *"Some people think that my life began at birth, but my life's journey began long before I was born." *
> 
> It certainly seems to have a religious undercurrent......


 

The quote may be philosophical, but it hardly seems religious.  One certainly doesn't have to be religious to make various observations that would lead them to believe that life begins before birth.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Thats part of why I say it would be Hypocritical for me to say "Well, it says congress, but means..." because I argue often that the 2nd says "Arms" which does NOT mean Flintlocks and Cannons, otherwise it would say the "Right to bear flintlocks and cannons"



That still doesn't answer my point that "arms" is not defined, and could include tactical nuclear weapons.  Hence the need for interpretation, not literalism.  If you want to get really literal, perhaps the Founders were protecting the People against unwanted amputations? 

Also, again, you didn't answer my other points about the police or other aspects of government shutting down free speech because the "police" are not "Congress."  How far do you go?  Because you can only go so far before wandering into absurdity.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2010)

crushing said:


> The quote may be philosophical, but it hardly seems religious.  One certainly doesn't have to be religious to make various observations that would lead them to believe that life begins before birth.



My, what scrupulousness.  The same sort of scrupulousness that leads, say, Rand Paul to disclaim part of the Civil Rights Act while claiming it has nothing to do with race.  Or Intelligent Design proponents claiming their theories have nothing to do with religion.

If you can't see how handing out plastic fetus dolls with a "life begins at conception" message is part and parcel of a pro-life, religion based campaign...well, it's very scrupulous.


----------



## crushing (May 25, 2010)

Wrong place.


----------



## tellner (May 25, 2010)

Of course religion coerces. It is fundamentally based on fear. If you do not do and believe exactly as we tell you you will be punished. For the Abrahamic religions the punishment isn't just for a while. It's unending agony and torture.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 25, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> How far do you want to take this version of biblical literalism? The first amendment also says that "Congress" shall not abridge the freedom of speech, press, etc. By your just stated argument then, you should be absolutely fine with the police as part of the Executive branch shutting down critical press, dispersing protests without cause, and silencing free speech.


 
That is exactly what was meant.  That is why, before the 14th Amendment and the doctine of Incorporation, there were established State religions.  It was assumed by the Framers that people would actually be involved in the political process and would not allow the types of oppression you are referring to to occur.



> For that matter, what exactly is meant by "arms" in the 2nd? Tactical nuclear weapons, or only the arms present in the time of the framers, flintlock rifles/pistols and simple cannon?


 
That is why it is important to look at the context in which these things were written.  I think it's fairly obvious what they meant, but I will hazard a logical explanation.

In terms of nuclear weapons, they are regulated by the Atomic *Energy *Commission.  It is not a great leap to say that they are regulating an energy source, which may be used as a weapon, rather then the weapon itself.  Either if you quibble with that explanation, the U.S. government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, which would include regulating the sale and distribution of uranium, a necessary component of nuclear weapons.  



> What is meant by "promote the general welfare" and what are the limits?


 
Once again, context is important.  As an example from Federalist Paper #41:



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
> 
> Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
> 
> But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


 
They told us what was meant, or at least a couple of them did.  And as this was an argument put forth by those who were against the Constitution for this apparent lack of definition, we know that other Framers wanted it defined.



> What is even meant by the "people" considering the status of everyone except property owning white males when the Constitution was written?


 
What "status"?  Non-propertied whites were able to vote.  Women were not, and this is entirely within the scope of the Constitution considering it always refers to males.  Others weren't considered citizens, such as African slaves.

But, subsequent Amendments to the Constitution expanded this definition to include those others.  This is not interpretive, but was expressed, especially if you look at non-legally binding writings by those that wrote and developed these Amendments.



> Your argument would also do away entirely with incorporated amendments, and all of our guaranteed freedoms would only apply by Federal action.


 
No, it would not do away with incorporated Amendments.  Those Amendments changed the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.  I do believe that he may be unaware that, though the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", that the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that, now binding the States to adhere to restrictions of the Bill of Rights.

What's funny though, is that same court refused to do a blanket incorpororation, which is why States can still disallow the ownership of firearms because they did not incorporate the Second Amendment.



> This is why we have courts, why they are tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, and why the bare text only goes so far. We run up against the limits of literalism almost immediately.


 
I disagree.  I don't believe they are tasked with interpreting the Constitution.  They are tasked with determining whether the actions of the government fall within the meaning of the Articles of the Constitution.  Now, this may sound like semantics, but let me explain.

The Framers gave us the context in which the U.S. Constitution was to be interpreted.  I will grant you that they are non-binding in the legal sense.  For instance, the above mentioned "general welfare".  They stated that if taken out of context it could mean anything.  That's why we have ObamaCare and the Department of Education, and had the New Deal (which was originally labeled unconstitutional until SCOTUS was blackmailed).  If we leave it up to the courts to interpret the actual document, it will mean whatever their whim decides it will, which could be, and has unfortunately been, done.  

"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Empty Hands (May 25, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That is why it is important to look at the context in which these things were written.  I think it's fairly obvious what they meant, but I will hazard a logical explanation.



That's pretty much my entire point.  The "that's not what it SAYS!!!" argument is a deliberate dismissal of context and intent.


----------



## David43515 (May 25, 2010)

tellner said:


> Of course religion coerces. It is fundamentally based on fear. If you do not do and believe exactly as we tell you you will be punished. For the Abrahamic religions the punishment isn't just for a while. It's unending agony and torture.


 
I suppose you could say that it does, ( I personally feel that it is based on anticipation because it says there are both good and bad results to actions. But that`s neither here nor there.) How does the lesson that things look different and go through several stages of devlopment before they`re born instill fear? I don`t get it. I can show my students a film about frogs showing all the stages from the eggs being layed and fertilized, to the tadpoles hatching to their legs developing , to them becoming full-fledged frogs. I can bring in tadpoles for them to play with and everyone is fine with it. But if I say this is what a baby looks like before it`s born then you automatically think I`m indoctrinating your kid into my narrow-minded fear-mongering cult. I give up. You`re right I`m a backward freak who doesn`t belive in science and secretly plans to gang-baptize your kids in the pool. 


Since I`ve given up on trying to make a point on the toys, can I ask a question about the invitation to a bible study? Are most people really so afraid to say "No thanks" to an invitation from your boss?  Have things changed so much in the States in the 5 years since I left ? Do you all have to walk on eggshells for fear of offending the powers that be, or can you still invite coworkers to join you in something you enjoy?  Can I still invite people to company BBQs, or might that be seen as me forcing my religion on Muslims, Jews, or Hindues who have dietary restrictions. Can I offer to organize a self-defense class at my work without offending any Jehovah`s Witnesses or Quakers (or any other groups that proclaim themselves pacifists)?  If my dog has puppies and I put up a notice on the bulletin board asking coworkers if they want one, am I being insensative to Muslims who think of dogs as unclean? I only ask because I`m a Mormon, and nobody where I`ve ever worked has thought they were insulting me by offering me coffee or a beer. Of course I`ve never been insulted by them offering. I`ve never felt pressured to say yes instead of "No thanks" either. I just assumed that was part of being an adult......and one of the many common sense things I thought I was supposed to teach my students.


----------



## David43515 (May 25, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> David, if you really want me to answer those questions I will. But you may want to look at a few of my posts in the Study where I state I believe in a devine design. Please do not make this personal, this is a debate, an exchange of ideas, surely you can be passionate without sliding into personal attacks.
> 
> Lori


 
Lori,

         I reread my posts and didn`t think I was being rude or attacking you personally. But if you did, or if I made you feel that way, I sincerely appologize. I never meant to make you feel uncomfortable or insulted. 

         I just thought it was strange to qualify your remarks like that and wondered why you felt you had to do so. I`m sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 25, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Also, again, you didn't answer my other points about the police or other aspects of government shutting down free speech because the "police" are not "Congress."  How far do you go?  Because you can only go so far before wandering into absurdity.



Well, ok... lets look at it like this... you can't say what you want free from repercussion.  If you work at Mcdonalds, and stand in the street yelling Eat At Burger King, Mcdonalds is free to fire you, despite your "right to say it"

If I say "Gosh, someone should murder my wife for me" and someone does, I could be thrown in jail.

I guess what I'm saying is that the constitution doesn't actually guarantee your right to "Free Speech"... while they probably can't stop you from saying it, you still are responsible for paying the price for that which you utter.  If the right was actually to be free to say whatever you chose, you would be protected in saying it.  It becomes a muddy area because we examine, rationalize, ect...

Maybe, just maybe, we should READ the constitution instead of trying to READ INTO the constitution.  

*shrug*


----------



## Cryozombie (May 26, 2010)

Actually, upon further examination, Empty Hands, I think you are correct.  We shouldn't assume that relates only to Congress, but rather, as the courts have ruled, to all those institutions. 

Now, about the pesky part that reads _*

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof *_


----------



## CanuckMA (May 26, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Since I`ve given up on trying to make a point on the toys, can I ask a question about the invitation to a bible study? Are most people really so afraid to say "No thanks" to an invitation from your boss? Have things changed so much in the States in the 5 years since I left ? Do you all have to walk on eggshells for fear of offending the powers that be, or can you still invite coworkers to join you in something you enjoy? Can I still invite people to company BBQs, or might that be seen as me forcing my religion on Muslims, Jews, or Hindues who have dietary restrictions. Can I offer to organize a self-defense class at my work without offending any Jehovah`s Witnesses or Quakers (or any other groups that proclaim themselves pacifists)? If my dog has puppies and I put up a notice on the bulletin board asking coworkers if they want one, am I being insensative to Muslims who think of dogs as unclean? I only ask because I`m a Mormon, and nobody where I`ve ever worked has thought they were insulting me by offering me coffee or a beer. Of course I`ve never been insulted by them offering. I`ve never felt pressured to say yes instead of "No thanks" either. I just assumed that was part of being an adult......and one of the many common sense things I thought I was supposed to teach my students.


 

There's a question of context. Stuff like the company BBQ or self defense clases are usually posted company wide, and are easier to turn down. They're also usually one time events. It's easy to make a plausible excuse for not attending.

It is difficult to turn down a personal invitation, If a boss, or any person who has authority over you, asks you in person to attend bibble study, there is a undercurrent that refusing may not be in your best future interest.


----------



## crushing (May 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> My, what scrupulousness. The same sort of scrupulousness that leads, say, Rand Paul to disclaim part of the Civil Rights Act while claiming it has nothing to do with race. Or Intelligent Design proponents claiming their theories have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> If you can't see how handing out plastic fetus dolls with a "life begins at conception" message is part and parcel of a pro-life, religion based campaign...well, it's very scrupulous.


 
Had the message actually said that, I probably would agree with you.  But, I understand that you needed to alter the message to force in your comparisons with some Kentucky politician and Intelligent Design.

Personally, I am not religious and I don't think something mystical (or Frankensteinish) happens at the moment of birth that suddenly makes the a human at that stage of development alive.  One doesn't need to be religious to consider that a life's journey begins before birth, which is more in line with what the message actually said.

With that said, it isn't a leap based on some of the other information available in the article to make an _assumption_ that the message with the so-called doll meant something different to the educator distributing the doll than it may mean to others that read it.  At any rate, and not that you probably really care unless you can make a snarky reply out of it, but I think the distribution was inappropriate and I would be upset if it happened at my child's school.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 26, 2010)

Of course there's a religious connotation.  Even if the message didn't say "abortion is wrong" in so many words, any message about life starting before birth is inevitably linked to the abortion debate, which is religious in nature.  

Consider this: why else spread the message about life beginning before birth?  Especially in a mass communication to impressionable children.  Just to throw the idea out there for debate purposes?  There's an agenda driving such actions, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that there isn't.  

And yeah, the whole fetus doll thing just brings it to a new level of weird.


----------



## teekin (May 26, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Lori,
> 
> I reread my posts and didn`t think I was being rude or attacking you personally. But if you did, or if I made you feel that way, I sincerely appologize. I never meant to make you feel uncomfortable or insulted.
> 
> I just thought it was_ strange to qualify your remarks like that_ and wondered why you_ felt you had to do so._ I`m sorry for any misunderstanding.


 
David, Your last paragraph of the previous post was condesending and inflamitory, designed to get an emotional response out of me as is the phrase "you felt you had to do so". But lets face it, You will never listen to a Word I say. I am after all just a non-beleiver and even worse. . . . a Woman.  I can see that rational discourse is not possible here. Good-day sir.

Lori


----------



## Empty Hands (May 26, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that the constitution doesn't actually guarantee your right to "Free Speech"...



I agree with that, and your examples.  As well as governmental restrictions on free speech such as the exceptions for endangerment and incitement.  What I don't think is fair though is to read the Constitution so narrowly that only "Congress" and not the entire rest of government is prohibited from restricting free speech.  It does violence to the intent of the Constitution IMO.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 26, 2010)

crushing said:


> Had the message actually said that, I probably would agree with you.  But, I understand that you needed to alter the message to force in your comparisons with some Kentucky politician and Intelligent Design.



What the message said: "Some people think my life began at birth; but my life's journey began  long before I was born."  I didn't twist it at all.



crushing said:


> One doesn't need to be religious to consider that a life's journey begins before birth, which is more in line with what the message actually said.



No, one doesn't need to be religious.  However it _just so happens_ that this is a major message and argument of the pro-life movement, and it _just so happens _that the pro-life movement has previously used similar tactics to target children.  

I wasn't snarking on you, I'm being serious.  This is a monstrously frustrating set of behaviors that is not limited to the post I responded to.  People make arguments and actions that are consistent with a long train of historical precedent, and others will continue to make implausible excuses that it might mean something else.  When confronted with an animal that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it reaches the level of lunacy for someone to say "Let's hold on a minute here guys.  This animal doesn't have to be a duck.  It could be some other animal."

That is why the comparison to Rand Paul and ID are apt.  We are asked to believe in the giraffe when the duck is right before our eyes.


----------



## David43515 (May 26, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> David, Your last paragraph of the previous post was condesending and inflamitory, designed to get an emotional response out of me as is the phrase "you felt you had to do so". But lets face it, You will never listen to a Word I say. I am after all just a non-beleiver and even worse. . . . a Woman. I can see that rational discourse is not possible here. Good-day sir.
> 
> Lori


 
I`ve read and reread everything I wrote and I still don`t see anythiing condecending or inflamitory. I suppose that the last sentance could be seen as slightly contentious because it implies that you may have an agenda of your own that you`re trying to insert into the discussion. But all I did in the last paragraph was ask you to explain in more detail the opinions *you* stated. I quoted you word for word. I wasn`t being condicending. I wasn`t being confrontational. I was being inquisative. You made some very critical opinionated statements and I asked you what the rationale behind them was. I always thought that`s what "rational discourse" was all about, listening to the views of others and asking for clarification when needed.

I`ve appologized to you in the same public forum where you seem to think I`ve insulted you. I`ve been polite. I`ve been mature. And I`ve done nothing but ask you to be more specific. I would ask that if you can`t be more specific, or simply choose not to be, that you don`t hide behind some self-imposed victim status and accuse me of disregarding you because of your beliefs or your gender. I`ve done nothing of the kind and I think you know that.


----------



## crushing (May 26, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> *No, one doesn't need to be religious.  *However it _just so happens_ that this is a major message and argument of the pro-life movement, and it _just so happens _that the pro-life movement has previously used similar tactics to target children.



The sure was a round-a-bout way to agree.  I can understand how long ago, before the advent of many of the modern medical and scientific instruments we take for granted now, how some people may have thought that life didn't begin until the child is born and took that first breath of air.  They could even take a DNA sample to prove that it is indeed human.  Maybe the children were simply earning their human rights badges?


----------



## David43515 (May 26, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> There's a question of context. Stuff like the company BBQ or self defense clases are usually posted company wide, and are easier to turn down. They're also usually one time events. It's easy to make a plausible excuse for not attending.
> 
> It is difficult to turn down a personal invitation, If a boss, or any person who has authority over you, asks you in person to attend bibble study, there is a undercurrent that refusing may not be in your best future interest.


 
Okay, I can deffinately see your point in that context.&#12288;A personal invitation like that might be more awkward. But when I read the article in question I thought they said it was a blanket invitation to all the staff. I must have read it wrong.

But let`s take religion out of the picture for a moment. If I were a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and my boss invited me to go with him and a few coworkers on a hunting trip, would it really jepordize my job to say no thanks?  If that kind of work environment is really prevalent back home, I don`t think religion is the issue people should be worried about.


----------



## teekin (May 27, 2010)

David43515 said:


> I`ve read and reread everything I wrote and I still don`t see anythiing condecending or inflamitory. I suppose that the last sentance could be seen as slightly contentious because it implies that you may have an agenda of your own that you`re trying to insert into the discussion. But all I did in the last paragraph was ask you to explain in more detail the opinions *you* stated. I quoted you word for word. I wasn`t being condicending. I wasn`t being confrontational. I was being inquisative. You made some very critical opinionated statements and I asked you what the rationale behind them was. I always thought that`s what "rational discourse" was all about, listening to the views of others and asking for clarification when needed.
> 
> I`ve appologized to you in the same public forum where you seem to think I`ve insulted you. I`ve been polite. I`ve been mature. And I`ve done nothing but ask you to be more specific. I would ask that if you can`t be more specific, or simply choose not to be, that you don`t hide behind some* self-imposed victim status and accuse me of disregarding you because of your beliefs or your gender.* I`ve done nothing of the kind and I think you know that.


 
Very well. This is an excellent example of how far past eachother we are talking. I never cast myself as a victim, that is not really my schtik. Any degree you obtain from a University requires that you mix humanities and sciences. I was annoyed that I had to take time out of my schedual to do a pure humanities. My 1st attempt at English Lit resulted in me being ejected from the class after refering to Edgar Allan Poe as Verbose. I mean Geez! Yup the windows of the House of Usher that reflect the swamp are metaphores to the rot that lies within. Got it. Could have explained it in one or two sentances, Ok maybe a paragraph, but Not Poe! He just goes on and on and on till you want to just burn the damn book. Verbose. Dickens uses metaphor without being verbose as does Camus.  The English Lit prof did not like this pointed out. I was invited to leave. I was happy to oblige. Hence "they made me".
 Now when you take you fetus visual aid in to school do you EVER and I mean Ever mention the idea of abortion and what it entails to those children? Do you Ever espouse your beleifs to those same children or do you just graphically describe the medical proceedure and let the children make up their own minds? Yahhhhhhhh. right. No Fear mongering there.
 Do you think Children of 12 can understand concepts like "right to life," "Self Determination" , appreciate concepts like when a a cell package becomes "human", understand concepts like Self Awareness? These kids don't get delayed gratification yet! _The part of their brain that allows for that type of thinking* Isn't fully Formed and Functional Yet!!!*_ Most people won't figure that out till into their late 20's, a great many Never will! 
 If you can teach children using fetus dolls in grade school without Ever touching on Abortion or religion be my guest. I don't want grade schools to teach children religion, ANY religion. It is NOT, I repeat NOT your place.
 You are Not God, You are Not an Emisarry of God, You are not the chosen one come to save us all, You are just 1 person, with One opinion, same as the rest of us. That's it. You are no better or worse than me, or any other person here or anywhere else on planet earth and your opinion carries Exactly the same value as the rest of ours. Can you dig it?
 Now, do I sound like a victim? Didn't think so. The time I spent in a Mormon household taught me that the men have ALL the perks and the women do ALL the sacraficing. Same old song sung through the ages. Time and tide and natural selection are where I place my faith.

Lori

Lori


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen, if you find during your discourses here that there is a point of view that you simply cannot reconcile yourselves to, then the simplest of approaches is not to take part in threads that contain that view.

Likewise, if there is a particular poster that you cannot respond to civilly or that you feel has breached the regulations of the forum in some fashion, then there are two tools available to you to cope with this:

If you cannot get along with someone else, then place them on your Ignore List.

If a breach of the regulations has occurred then use the RTM function so that the Staff can deal with the problem.

The temptation to "have it out" in a public forum should be resisted at all costs.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Moderator


----------



## chaos1551 (May 27, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Okay, I can deffinately see your point in that context.&#12288;A personal invitation like that might be more awkward. But when I read the article in question I thought they said it was a blanket invitation to all the staff. I must have read it wrong.
> 
> But let`s take religion out of the picture for a moment. If I were a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and my boss invited me to go with him and a few coworkers on a hunting trip, would it really jepordize my job to say no thanks?  If that kind of work environment is really prevalent back home, I don`t think religion is the issue people should be worried about.



What, do you have something against animals now?  I don't get it.  

Kidding.  Good point, though.  Seems like you're touching on unfair treatment.  However, religion and PETA are two different things, not only in how morality views them but in how the law does.


----------



## elder999 (May 27, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Do you think Children of 12 can understand concepts like "right to life," "Self Determination" , appreciate concepts like when a a cell package becomes "human", understand concepts like Self Awareness? These kids don't get delayed gratification yet! _The part of their brain that allows for that type of thinking* Isn't fully Formed and Functional Yet!!!*_ Most people won't figure that out till into their late 20's, a great many Never will!


 

lori-

*I *understood all that before 12, including (especially) delayed grattification.


----------



## crushing (May 27, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> We are asked to believe in the giraffe when the duck is right before our eyes.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 27, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> .
> Do you think Children of 12 can understand concepts like "right to life," "Self Determination" , appreciate concepts like when a a cell package becomes "human", understand concepts like Self Awareness? These kids don't get delayed gratification yet! _The part of their brain that allows for that type of thinking* Isn't fully Formed and Functional Yet!!!*_ Most people won't figure that out till into their late 20's,
> 
> Lori



If they aren't fully formed, we should be able to abort them until their late 20's


----------



## Empty Hands (May 27, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> If they aren't fully formed, we should be able to abort them until their late 20's



Considering some of the people I run into or hear about, perhaps there should be no age limit at all.


----------



## chaos1551 (May 28, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Considering some of the people I run into or hear about, perhaps there should be no age limit at all.



I like the idea of putting someone out of everyone else's misery.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Considering some of the people I run into or hear about, perhaps there should be no age limit at all.



Im a fan of the idea of Retroactive Abortion... as long as I get to choose.


----------

