Why don't Fundamentalist schools...

[auxprix]

I dunno. When I went to the Baptist and Lutheran schools I attended in my youth, most of them did teach some evolution, although is was debunked on faith-based instruction, did allow jazz, supervised students because that's their job (K - 8). As for censorship, we openly discussed racism and sexism and it's lack of place in the church and society. I suppose I got lucky. Of course, this was before the Fundamentalist Revolution.

Which branch of Lutheranism? If they don't teach evolution, I'm guessing Missouri Wisconsin Synod.

-aux

 

[shesulsa]

Which branch of Lutheranism? If they don't teach evolution, I'm guessing Missouri Wisconsin Synod.

-aux

I went to Missouri Synod and ALC.

 

[JPR]

2) It is true that the theory of evolution is "man-made" in the sense that it is a mental construction created by humans to explain stuff. Y'know, kinda like... "God". Any theory, any idea, any formulation, any thought is "man-made". Whoopdy doo.

My bad, poor phrase construction. The translation from my mind, through my fingers fails sometimes.

Our conception of evolution, yes, is man-made, however the actual process of evolution itself is no more artificial than the process of digestion, or respiration, or sexual reproduction. All of these have been going on a hell of a lot longer before we came up with names or theories for them.

I'd like to know what religious schools are saying to their students about evolution, before you claim that they're teaching both sides. I'd also like to know how many different creation myths are supposed to be taught in public schools, so that we're teaching all sides--oh wait, I forgot, there's only the Christian creation myth, my bad. Hey, wait a minute...

For me, it isn’t a question of whether evolution (the process) exists. The natural system has an evolutionary process (natural selection, adaptation, extinction, mutation). It is a good design that I, as an engineer, appreciate and wish I could replicate in my designs because it is very robust. It is, however, a question as to the origin of the species that becomes the crux of the matter. I believe that God purposefully design man and gave him a soul not that we evolved from something else.

So put up or shaddap: why isn't it a tad closed-minded to allow ONLY speakers who agree with your evangelical mission on campus, to make your mission entirely a matter of inculcating Christian values to support Western culture and capitalism, …

Christianity’s goal isn’t to support Western culture. Christianity’s goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world. I acknowledge that some people, in the name of Christianity, have made it a Western culture thing. It is their mistake. A quote from Galatians 3,” 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.“

As to Christianity supporting capitalism, again I disagree. It does support a strong work ethic, but it is far more socialistic in nature since those that have are encourage to give to those that have not. Acts 2 gives the model of the early church, “44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”

The Christian kids I know are fairly well educated...except for biology and sex ed. Their history is probably somewhat jingoistic in its orientation as well...I doubt they read much of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," or "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Probably haven't read "Founding Myths" by Ray Raphael, either.

I am not sure how biology is different except, again, as to the origin of the species. Sex education is more the realm of the parent but what is given at school really centers on sex being a gift from God to enjoy inside marriage. I know it is old fashioned but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Doesn’t mean that it is either, but it works for me.

I’ll give a read to the sources you listed to see how the history compares. I do know that there is an emphasis on Christian accomplishments in history. Believe it or not Christians have contributed more than just the Dark Ages and the Crusades to world history.

If they don't want to expose their children to outside or free thought, it just won't happen. I know some of us might think this is hard to believe, that this is what some people want for their children. Honestly, I think it is done by parents and churches in the interests of protecting children in the only way they know how - exclusivity.

It isn’t an attempt to stifle free thought, but an effort to give children a base from which to explore differing worldviews. If I handed you a pair of rattan sticks and I took a pair and said let’s spar, how ready (assuming you had no prior training) would you be? If I tell you that I will train you for the next X number of months in “my” system [what ever that is] have I stifled your free thought on stick fighting, or have I given you a frame of reference on which to build?

[font=&quot]This has gotten long, an issue to me is how, in a pluralistic society, do we agree upon what is taught in a public school system?

JPR
[/font]

 

[raedyn]

I think the level of control of their students and faculty really depends on the school - both in the public and private schools. It would be unfair to say that all faith-based schools are as extreme as the ones robertson has described, but he isn't making up his examples there ARE schools that are tha controlling. Where I live, for instance, there are 2 publicly funded school systems the "public" and the "catholic" (this is pretty common across Canada I believe).

Neither of these systems is that extreme. They main difference is the teachers in the Catholic system must be practicing Catholics, and they can be fired for lots of stuff a Public system teacher couldn't (such as living in an unmarried relationship). And everyone attending one of the Catholic schools has to take "christian ethics" classes. Otherwise the curriculum is very similar and the experience at the Catholic school isn't overly 'churchy'.

There are also private Christian schools, not supported by taxpayer dollars. These school charge tuition, have uniforms, won't allow males & females to sit on the same couch, won't allow rock music - lots of those extreme rules that robertson describes. These are very closed environments, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole thing. But as long as my kids don't have to go there, and my dollars aren't funding it, I can respect their right to have thier own little closed bubble over there.

 

[heretic888]

For me, it isn’t a question of whether evolution (the process) exists. The natural system has an evolutionary process (natural selection, adaptation, extinction, mutation). It is a good design that I, as an engineer, appreciate and wish I could replicate in my designs because it is very robust. It is, however, a question as to the origin of the species that becomes the crux of the matter. I believe that God purposefully design man and gave him a soul not that we evolved from something else.

Ahhh.... good 'ol anthropocentrism.

Christianity’s goal isn’t to support Western culture. Christianity’s goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world.

Well, "Christianity" hasn't done that in nearly 1,700 years. So, why start now??

I acknowledge that some people, in the name of Christianity, have made it a Western culture thing. It is their mistake.

"Christianity" today is a Western culture thing.

As to Christianity supporting capitalism, again I disagree. It does support a strong work ethic, but it is far more socialistic in nature since those that have are encourage to give to those that have not.

See above.

I’ll give a read to the sources you listed to see how the history compares. I do know that there is an emphasis on Christian accomplishments in history. Believe it or not Christians have contributed more than just the Dark Ages and the Crusades to world history.

Yes, they've also opposed the advent of much in the way of medical science, meteorology, democracy, space travel, and a slew of other noble pursuits.

Most of the "Christians" that have positively contributed to society have either been moderate quasi-deists (the typical brand today) --- or radical free-thinkers (Luther, Clement, Eckhart, the Unitarians, the Quakers, etc).

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, it's important to establish a few distinctions. If you'll look at the title of the thread, one referred to, "Fundamentalist," schools and their, "evangelical," mission--NOT "religious," schools, not "Christian," schools, not, "Catholic," schools. And not Christian teachings. If C.S. Lewis' or Thos. merton's ideas organized these schools and their ideas, we'd all be a lot better off.

"Religion," and "Christianity," are NOT synonyms, not matter how much the closed-minded might insist. Nor are, "Christian," and, "Protestant."

Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?

Third off--"fundamentalism," is a term, apparently, that is "bad," if we're talking Islamic fundamentalists, yet "good" if we're talking Protestantism. Yet these groups tend to share ideas--compulsory, State-enforced religious observance, censorship/indoctrination in schools, opposition to women's rights/reproductive rights/homosexuality, and a set of others. Hm.

Fourth off--Bob Jones University and the rest, alas, are not small places. Reagan's government SUPPORTED Bob Jones U, when the IRS was yanking their tax exemption because of their open racism. Oral Roberts? Condoleeza Rice taught there for quite a while, if memory serves...heard of her? Liberty University is, I believe, Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson...you know, "The 700 Club?" The "9/11 is God's punishment for the ACLU, feminists and gays," guys?

And last. When a school STARTS OFF in 1970 with bans interracial dating, African-Americans, and jazz music, one doesn't need to be terrribly perceptive to Get the Message. No Darkies Need Apply. How much clearer could they be? Anybody seriously think they've changed all that much? They still ban jazz, as does Liberty U...they don't put their student rules up on their website. Hm. Gosh, wonder why?

And again. Why aren't fundamentalist schools willing to entertain other ideas? Every place I've gone to teach or study, there've been all sorts of different people, different ideas, different faiths--despite the recent, "O, poor poor oppressed me," that we hear and see so often from the cult of the right-wing victims led by Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell, and the rest. Why don't these schools have to be as open-minded as the evil secular humanists?

Sure, collitch professors can be narrow-minded little twits. Trust those of us who've been around them. But unlike fundamentalist schools, there's a difference: their narrow-mindedness is NOT INSTITUTIONAL POLICY. Yet these schools end up getting tax support in various ways...and it'll get worse, what with the Prez's, "faith-based," programs.

 

[raedyn]

First off, it's important to establish a few distinctions. If you'll look at the title of the thread, one referred to, "Fundamentalist," schools and their, "evangelical," mission--NOT "religious," schools, not "Christian," schools, not, "Catholic," schools. And not Christian teachings.

Good point. Kind of the point I was trying (badly) to make. People were answering with their experiences at other Christian schools that were not this extremist/fundamentalist. And therefore not answering yr question. But I think it is important to be clear that not al Christian schools are that extremist.

"Religion," and "Christianity," are NOT synonyms, not matter how much the closed-minded might insist. Nor are, "Christian," and, "Protestant."

A Venn Diagram would be helpful (*g* yes, I am a mini-geek.). Protestants are a subset of Christians. You can be Christian without being Protestant, but you can't be Protestant without being Christian, right?

Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?

This is a rhetorical question, right? You know people that are far out in religious nut-jobbery like this - they will somehow justify their double standards with illogic that only stands if you buy into their beliefs. Which you and I don't. I'm not sure we should be allowed to interfere in what they do in their institutions, even if we don't like it. And we shouldn't allow them to interfere in ours. Yes, of course they will TRY. They honestly believe it is their DUTY. We won't be able to shut them up, and that's fine. We just don't have to let them win.

And again. Why aren't fundamentalist schools willing to entertain other ideas? Every place I've gone to teach or study, there've been all sorts of different people, different ideas, different faiths--despite the recent, "O, poor poor oppressed me," that we hear and see so often from the cult of the right-wing victims led by Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell, and the rest. Why don't these schools have to be as open-minded as the evil secular humanists?

I don't think (and I might be wrong on that) that the evil secular humanists HAVE to be open-minded and diverse. It's ideological & institutional policy. These other school have a different ideology & therefore different institutional policy.

I get why it angers you. It's not like I rejoice over it. But sometimes I think it's important to pick yr battles. If they want to raise their kids in an ignorant vaccum, that's their option. But I will not allow them to force my children to suffer the same fate.

 

[loki09789]

1. Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?

2. Third off--"fundamentalism," is a term, apparently, that is "bad," if we're talking Islamic fundamentalists, yet "good" if we're talking Protestantism. Yet these groups tend to share ideas--compulsory, State-enforced religious observance, censorship/indoctrination in schools, opposition to women's rights/reproductive rights/homosexuality, and a set of others. Hm.

.

Not worth it to toucht the rest, but here goes on these points.

1. If they were posting here, I would probably say that to them too, so what. Two wrongs don't make a right...

2. "fundamentalism" is just a sect of belief. In reference to Islamic 'fundamentalist' I am more concerned about "extremist/terrorists" that justify their actions with fundamentalist beliefs.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Some of these groups are every bit as tied to violence and to the advocacy of violence as any Islamic fundamentalist school might be.

One recommends that you look up the explicit, very clear statements of the guys who've gone around shooting women's doctors and blowing up their clinics, or the various militia nut groups--they make it very, very clear just how the fundamentalism relates to their violence.

Still waiting for answers on the basic question--especially, from those who have repeatedly insisted that secularism, humanism and the rest have become closed-minded and repressive, that we ought to just let all views be represented in science classes because communities might want that.

How come us evil humanists--who have generally encouraged dissent, allowed everybody to speak, bring every idea we can get our little patty paws on into colleges and universities--need to learn to be openminded, but the folks who a) enforce their particular version of Christian fundamentalism, b) bar all sorts of ideas, c) launch direct attacks on the immorality of everybody else, d) openly state their contempt for everybody else's beliefs, e) ban jazz, rock, country and, "contemporary Christian," music, are doing just fine as they are?

Would you find it OK for a University or College to announce that they are only hiring secular humanists, and nobody who was, say, Lutheran need apply? That all employees and students must sign professions of their beliefs and their complete agreement with every principle of secular humanism?

Yet these colleges and universities--check their websites; check their job announcements--do PRECISELY this. Why's that just peachy? Why's this testify to their open-mindedness?

 

[loki09789]

Some of these groups are every bit as tied to violence and to the advocacy of violence as any Islamic fundamentalist school might be.

One recommends that you look up the explicit, very clear statements of the guys who've gone around shooting women's doctors and blowing up their clinics, or the various militia nut groups--they make it very, very clear just how the fundamentalism relates to their violence.

Still waiting for answers on the basic question--especially, from those who have repeatedly insisted that secularism, humanism and the rest have become closed-minded and repressive, that we ought to just let all views be represented in science classes because communities might want that.

?

If by 'one' you me 'you,' "I" would suggest that you examine the difference between a whack job or an extremist faction that corrupts the basic beliefs they learned from an institution and 'ties to' that actual institution itself. Did any of these 'fundamentalist' colleges say outright that you should go out and shoot abortion doctors? Did they give him marksmanship classes? Though I don't agree with the narrow mindedness, logic says that any college institution that passes on the mentallity or technicallity to commit murder wouldn't be in business long.

How many 'liberal arts' institutions have taught chem/bio studnents how to make chem/bio weapons? LOTS (here at BufState and UB both it is done in a very small way as part of certain courses/thesis study). Anthrax, Small Pox, or any number of bio-diseases that could be used in evil ways.

If one of the students went on a bio hazard rampage because they were a whack job, does that mean there are 'ties to UB/Buffstate,' as in the institution was conspiring with this whack job?

Did the USMC 'tell' Lee H. Oswald to shoot JFK, even though the discipline, skill and tactical planning that he used came from his service years?

I did answer the question: If someone where being as close minded from the 'fundamentalist' groups here in this discussion, I would say so to them as well as I have said to you and others. They aren't, so I haven't.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Note: our current President has given speeches at the institution run by the writer cited below. One of his nominees to the Federal bench specifically and vocally opposes the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling affirming the IRS's decision to remove Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status on their grounds of their fundamental racism. Here ya go...and still waiting for answers.

Congratulations Mr. President

God Has Granted America a Reprieve

By Rev. BOB JONES, III

Ed. Note: Rev. Jones sent this greeting to Bush on November 3. It is now posted on his website.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America-though she doesn't deserve it-a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years-a brief time only-to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

Christ said, "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour" (John 12:26).

The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you-that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.

Best wishes.

Sincerely your friend,

Bob Jones III
President
Bob Jones University

BJIII:lw

PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel. They applauded loudly their approval.

When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of the Senate, they cheered again.

On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during your first term. Nonetheless, we could not be more thankful that God has given you four more years to serve Him in the White House, never taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes off a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows the Bible to be eternally true.

November 8, 2004

 

[Flatlander]

Robert, you are freaking me out.

 

[raedyn]

Yet these colleges and universities--check their websites; check their job announcements--do PRECISELY this.

Yes.

Why's that just peachy? Why's this testify to their open-mindedness?

There's no one here saying that.

What's you're point, robertson? That there are bigoted people out there? We knew that already. That you don't like bigoted people? You make that clear. And there are several people here that agree with you - I'm one of them. That you think the bigots are hypocrytical? You're right, they are.

I just don't get the point you're trying to make, and who you think you're arguing against.

 

[raedyn]

Yeah, the letter is freaky, Bob Jones is freaky. Agreed, Agreed.

But I still don't get your point with the whole thread.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Simple.

The point has repeatedly been made, in reference to evolution and science, that "secular humanists," are closed-minded and bigoted. Indeed, the claim has repeatedly been made on this Forum that guys like me, "hate religion," that we're, "atheists," etc. etc, that we refuse to consider other viewpoints.

If you listen to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and Tom de Lay, one hears the same, "closed-minded," accusation repeated again and again.

So if this is something more than just a cheap tactic, why don't they have to be open-minded in the least? Indeed, why is their closed-mindedness explained as a virtue? And why, exactly, is it OK for these sorts of folks to get into positions of power in our democratic institutions?

Not necessarily putting anybody down, or any of the other convenient excuses folks use to ignore these questions. Just wantin' to know why.

 

[heretic888]

If I may interject here...

I believe the point that Robert is trying to make is one of philosophy, not legality.

Namely, the term one would give to individuals and groups that bemoan about close-mindedness and "cultural oppression" in one context, but don't actively practice open-mindedness and "cultural diversity" within their own backyard...

.... is hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Personally, I think it'd be great if these guys taught an honest take on "religious history":

- Talk about how Tertullian, who is famous for his "I believe because it is absurd" line, later turned his back on literalism to become a member of the Montanist gnostics.

- Talk about how 'Saint' Augustine, who proclaimed "I would not believe if the Mother Church did not compell me to do so", invented the concept of 'holy war'.

- Talk about how Clement of Alexandria, who is regarded as a saint within the Catholic tradition, wrote about how the "true Christian" is the intellectual gnostic --- juxtaposing them with the "primitive Christian" who relies solely in blind belief on absurd myths and stories (his words).

- Talk about how St. Thomas Aquinas, who invented the 'argument by design' everyone makes such a hubbub about, later stated that everything he had ever written "counts as so much dung". Apparently, after a mystical experience of the Divine, he was wise enough to figure out trying to "prove" God through science and reason is, well, stupid.

- Talk about why ideas from modern-age Christian sages --- Tielhard de Chardin (a paleontologist who wrote a wonderful exegesis on harmonizing Christian philosophy and the theory of evolution), Paul Tillich (who coined the idea of regarding God as 'Ground of All Being' in lieu of 'Big Daddy in the Sky'), Thomas Merton (one of those goofy ecumenical contemplative monks that seems to think meditation may not be so evil after all), Jacob Boehme (Protestant mystic), William Blake (visionary artist and poet), and John Shelby Spong ('Christianity Must Change or Die') --- are all ignored in favor of idiocy from the likes of Billy Graham, Pat Roberston, and so on.

Now, that'd be an interesting school.

 

[Melissa426]

RMCROBERTSON

http://biology.oru.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1647&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dept=BIO

This is a link to a web page from Oral Roberts University. If you read the course description to BIO II (Introductory Biology II Lecture,) it mentions "evolution " distinctly.
Bob Jones University is not accredited by any reputable national accrediting agency that I can discover.
I am just not buying your arguments on this thread.

HERETIC888

Do you know positively that "fundamentalist schools" don't teach the subjects you noted? Are you currently admitted or been admitted or enrolled in a School of theology at a "fundamentalist" school? Just curious.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[heretic888]

http://biology.oru.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1647&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dept=BIO

This is a link to a web page from Oral Roberts University. If you read the course description to BIO II (Introductory Biology II Lecture,) it mentions "evolution " distinctly.

Somehow, having the word 'evolution' listed in a generic course description doesn't seem all that convincing to me. After all, in the context of the class, 'evolution' could only be brought up in such a way as to demonstrate its full of poo.

Do you know positively that "fundamentalist schools" don't teach the subjects you noted? Are you currently admitted or been admitted or enrolled in a School of theology at a "fundamentalist" school? Just curious.

Nope. Don't have to be.

Its obvious if you were actually familiar with any of the references that I made that this kinda stuff wouldn't be taught at a fundamentalist school. Unless done with the explicit purpose of repudiating them.

It'd kinda be like going to a fairly "liberal" school and expecting to be taught much in the way of orthogenesis in the anthropology program. Unless, of course, they were classes devoted to debunking the theory.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Did the USMC 'tell' Lee H. Oswald to shoot JFK, even though the discipline, skill and tactical planning that he used came from his service years?

I realize the point you're trying to make, but Oswald didn't learn much of anything in the Corps. He was a radio-operator (not infantry) and ostracized by fellow Marines for being an outspoken communist. He was courtmartialed twice, once for shooting himself in the foot and another time for starting a fight with a sergeant. He escaped punishment another time for firing his rifle randomly into some woods. He did time in the brig, and by the time of his discharge was doing menial labor.

I realize where you were going with that. I simply don't want any negative credit for Oswald's assassination of Kennedy going towards the Corps.



Heretic...great post. Any particular books you suggest for reading those details about Tertullian, Augustine, Clement, etc? Or do I have to start with City of God and work through all the other tomes? I'm not being sarcastic here...I'm truly interested. I'm always up for a good read on theology.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Melissa426]

Somehow, having the word 'evolution' listed in a generic course description doesn't seem all that convincing to me. After all, in the context of the class, 'evolution' could only be brought up in such a way as to demonstrate its full of poo.

Thanks for answering my question to rmcrobertson. I'd guess he wouldn't mind having words put in his mouth. But the only way to know for sure, about my question, would be to ask an ORU student, someone who has actually had the experience. Until then it's an unknown

Nope. Don't have to be.

Its obvious if you were actually familiar with any of the references that I made that this kinda stuff wouldn't be taught at a fundamentalist school. Unless done with the explicit purpose of repudiating them.

Yes, you should be. You are generalizing and making assumptions about groups and individuals. As far as your condescending comment about what I may and may not be familiar with, are you familiar with the concept espoused in Matthew 5:29 regarding turning the other cheek?
I am ready, dear. Smack me again.

Peace,
Melissa