The horror, the horror...!

[Snarf]

[i]But the only "morality" that matters or has meaning as that which conforms to the Truth of God's Natural Law. If we simply declare that morality is totally subjective, and what is moral for each person depends solely on what that individual personally believes to be moral or immoral, we have complete moral anarchy. (Just look around for evidence.)[/i]

Moral anarchy has reigned for all times. Certain forms of immorality--theft, murder, fraud, et cetera--carry a social burden that should be rooted out, and as you surely learned in sociology class, that's the point of societal sanctions. One might believe that killing is fine and dandy, but we can at least give them something to balance that with the threat of imprisonment.

[i]You have not shown how being "pro-choice" is really any different from any other "ego-centric" "morality."[/i]

The state has erroneously deemed that the unborn child is not a rights-bearing life. I believe that killing the fetus is an ego-centric act, but defending the right to choose is a maligned form of preserving rights, and so extends beyond the self. If there were no difference between the two, then it'd be absurd for male pro-choice advocates to exist. So, I fail to see your point.

[i]Are you implying here that no one should say or do anything about such immorality, or even try to encourage them to do otherwise?
That is again nonsensical.
In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.[/i]

It's the duty of Christians to educate our brothers and sisters in morality. It's not the duty of legislators. What was extrapolating from was what you described yourself--they see Natural Law as ignorance, so when the words of Truth fail, a little growing up should bring them home. Projecting to this generation's future, I don't think there's enough Viagara in the world to sustain "cuddle puddles" of octogenarians.

[i]In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.[/i]

And Aristotle liked little boys. You can't point to history as a concrete example of anything, because it's dialectic and dynamic. In the past, Catholics were persecuted for having the right beliefs. How much sense does it make to persecute those who have the wrong beliefs when they're only hurting themselvse?

Since you like to make mountains out of molehills in my statements, what I take from yours is that you support nothing less than theocracy. Communism has a better track record than theocracy, and I'm not even a communist.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 06:30 PM'][i]But the only "morality" that matters or has meaning as that which conforms to the Truth of God's Natural Law. If we simply declare that morality is totally subjective, and what is moral for each person depends solely on what that individual personally believes to be moral or immoral, we have complete moral anarchy. (Just look around for evidence.)[/i]

Moral anarchy has reigned for all times.  Certain forms of immorality--theft, murder, fraud, et cetera--carry a social burden that should be rooted out, and as you surely learned in sociology class, that's the point of societal sanctions.  One might believe that killing is fine and dandy, but we can at least give them something to balance that with the threat of imprisonment.[/quote]
So what's your point?
Should these forms of immorality you listed be legalized?
If murder should be "balanced" with threat of imprisonment or other punishment, why not other forms of immorality?

[quote][i]You have not shown how being "pro-choice" is really any different from any other "ego-centric" "morality."[/i]

The state has erroneously deemed that the unborn child is not a rights-bearing life.  I believe that killing the fetus is an ego-centric act, but defending the right to choose is a maligned form of preserving rights, and so extends beyond the self.  If there were no difference between the two, then it'd be absurd for male pro-choice advocates to exist.  So, I fail to see your point.[/quote]
Who determines that an unborn child is a "rights-bearing life"?
Isn't that a moral (or philosophical) judgement?
If some atheist believes an unborn child has no rights whatsoever, who is the state to "impose our Christian belief system nad morality" on him?
More contradictions.

[quote][i]Are you implying here that no one should say or do anything about such immorality, or even try to encourage them to do otherwise?
That is again nonsensical.
In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.[/i]

It's the duty of Christians to educate our brothers and sisters in morality.  It's not the duty of legislators.  What was extrapolating from was what you described yourself--they see Natural Law as ignorance, so when the words of Truth fail, a little growing up should bring them home.  Projecting to this generation's future, I don't think there's enough Viagara in the world to sustain "cuddle puddles" of octogenarians.[/quote]
And why should legislators not be Christian or not act as Christians?

This draws a false distinction between Christian life and public life - essentially saying that Christianity should be a purely private affair, and have no place whatever in the public life.
This form of radical secularism I do not buy into at all.

[quote][i]In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.[/i]

And Aristotle liked little boys.  You can't point to history as a concrete example of anything, because it's dialectic and dynamic.  In the past, Catholics were persecuted for having the right beliefs.  How much sense does it make to persecute those who have the wrong beliefs when they're only hurting themselvse?[/quote]
Why have any laws about safety or anything?

It is simply not true that people engaging in sexual immorality "only hurt themselves"!

When immoral behavior is publicly encouraged and rewarded, and allowed to be carried out unchecked, this immorality has an effect on others, who see immorality as being ok and desirable.
It has a bad effect on the children, who lose their innocence, and grow up not knowing right from wrong.

One need only look at the downward spiral of immorality, and its effect on family life to see evidence of this.

[quote]Since you like to make mountains out of molehills in my statements, what I take from yours is that you support nothing less than theocracy.  Communism has a better track record than theocracy, and I'm not even a communist.
[right][snapback]875908[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is a damned lie.
Atheistic communism has been responsible for the deaths of an estimated 50 million to 100 million people worldwide during its 75-odd year history.
No "theocracy" (and certainly no Christian or Catholic "theocracy") comes close!

You need to learn real history, rather than Marxist left-wing propaganda.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 4 2006, 07:27 PM']Perhaps they are embracing the "No child left behind" philosophy.
[right][snapback]875891[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The "no child left behind" plan is a good plan, but the problem is not with the plan, the problem is with the school administration, teachers, and parents.

Currently if a student is getting below a C, the school adminstration in attempt to keep from getting replaced will send the kid to alternative education at another school. Kids are a dollar sign to schools (at least to most public schools, which is appearent from the evidence which I don't care if anyone disagrees because I'm not debating it because it's too much to type out.).

Another problem is with the teachers that get tenure and loose interest in really helping kids. I've known and seen too many teachers that get away with murder and cannot be fired. (Another reason I hate most unions). People should have to perform to keep their jobs.

Ideally to motivate parents to get involved and help their kids, there should be tax breaks for parents with kids that have good grades and maybe even tax penalties for the parents of children with bad grades.

There is virtually no reason for a kid to have below a C. If parents got involved it would be rare that a child got below a C. Maybe parents of kids with low grades should have to come to the school when they are not working to learn how to help their kids succeed. Parents would improve too.

I know there would be exceptions to such requirements but it would help society in a great way.

And of course I know it would be much more complex than these few simple paragraphs. Things like druggie parents and parents with serious behavior problems would have to be addressed in some shape or fashion. Drugs are such a serious problem in society today that penalties need to be much harsher to make the risk to great to use them. I'm sure some will think "what about those that are addicted?"... For most of them it's their own fault, everyone that is under 60 knows that cocaine is addictive, heroin is addictive, etc... They should have been wise enough not to start. Most people get started with marijuana. I'm sure there are some here that have no idea how bad it is...

People I personally know tell me everything, I've worked in the restaurant industry, construction industry, education of troubled youths, factories and the business world... I would venture to guess that about 25-35% of people under 55 use some kind of illegal drug. I've seen doctors, lawyers, servers, cooks, and police all involved with drugs.

Many people who have kids and use drugs have kids with bad grades. Another stipulation should be that kids with bad grades open their parents up to drug testing. Parents who test positive for drugs should be fined heavily in proportion to the amount of money they make and have in savings... a way that they could work off the fine would be to help their children get their GPA above a C and continue to test clean.

But now I'm getting off topic, but the bottom line is that there needs to be a change and until parents have to get involved with their child's education then there will always be children left behind.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:30 PM'][i]Are you implying here that no one should say or do anything about such immorality, or even try to encourage them to do otherwise?
That is again nonsensical.
In times past, when there were higher standards of pubnlic morality, such behavior would not have been tolerated - and there was much less of it.[/i]

It's the duty of Christians to educate our brothers and sisters in morality.  It's not the duty of legislators.  What was extrapolating from was what you described yourself--they see Natural Law as ignorance, so when the words of Truth fail, a little growing up should bring them home.  Projecting to this generation's future, I don't think there's enough Viagara in the world to sustain "cuddle puddles" of octogenarians.
[/quote]

I can see where you're coming from, that legislation cannot be our guides to morality. We can't force people to be good by constructing an extremely elaborate set of laws around society. However, we're talking about a school here. I don't believe we should set our standards to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the upbringing of children.

And never underestimate the levels of perversions the elderly can reach. Just 'cause your Granny is a kindly little thing who likes to bake you cookies doesn't mean some of the others aren't leering ladies of lasciviousness. I've worked with some. It's pretty unnerving.

[frozencell]

Hey, IronMonk. Haven't seen you around in a while. I guess I've been pretty AWOL, though.

[frozencell]

Here's my theory. I heard a sound byte in a Circle of Dust song once (I think it may have been Ronald Reagan) that said, "The decline of urban America stems from the decline of the American family." Family is where it starts. Children aren't thrown into schools as soon as they are born; they're raised by parents...we hope. The family is where a child should learn the basic rights and wrongs of life. If the parents don't teach their kids the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of such then we end up with deviant children (morally, mentally, spiritually, etc.). Now what we do is take these impressionable (deviant and not) young children and throw them all in a place where other craptastic adults and parents have decided they don't want anyone to learn anything that everyone can't learn together and cross our fingers for the best.

Schools are in the state they are in now because of whiny parents who never got what they wanted out of life (or maybe TOO much out of life) and either feel jipped or supreme so they have decided to impose their criticality on their childrens' future. When I was in the fourth grade we stood up and put our hands over our hearts and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We had a Muslim who went and stood in the hall and waited for the end and then came back in. There was no problem, there was no fuss. He didn't mind or care. He was one of my best friends, too. What ever happened to that?

Teaches kids only the things that don't offend anyone is teaching them nothing at all. Evolution offends me. Where's my compensation? Condoms offend me. Where's my public apology and "we'll never do it again"? Adults of today need to grow up. Nothing will ever be solved until we get back the roots of what made this country in the first place. Morals. Plain old logical healthy morals.

Morals are not subjective. Just because a bunch of liberal crazies think that something is "archia" or "old-fashioned" or "imposing on someone's liberties" doesn't make morality subjective. Morality doesn't change from person to person or situation to situation. either you're moral or you're not. Simple as that. If you don't like morals, leave. There's plenty of room in the rest of the world where you would be more welcome. Like France. Or most of Europe for that matter. Stop stomping all over the decent people just so you can have your own little way.

You're not enlightened. You're not open-minded. You're not expressive. You're not "in control of yourself". You're dumb, blind, perverse, and acting like a pathetic child. Grow up. Act like an adult. Keep your whiny complaints to yourself. No one cares to hear that you're offended by little Sara learns about the moral rightness of heterosexuality and the Pledge. These were the foundations of our country. Your moral bancruptcy isn't my problem, so please stop making it my burden.

Anyhow....that was my rant. And the "you" shouldn't be taken personally...unless, of course, I hit a nerve. Then.....too bad.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:50 PM']am I the only one who thought those kids were all losers and so they make out with each other to compensate?  It's kind of pathetic.
[right][snapback]875082[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
or maybe they're children of God who have no idea how much God loves them? No one is ever a "loser" in God's eyes. Jesus hung out with all the low-lifes of his society, and he got them to turn away from their sins by showing them how much they are loved by the Father and how to live lives of holiness.

Imagine how sad you would feel if one of those teens were your child. Multiply that by infinity and that's what God goes through every one of His children sins like this. We must seek to offer up reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus for lost souls instead of putting them down.

[quote name='track2004' date='Feb 4 2006, 04:34 AM']Anyway, I find the article really interesting in that it pushes the idea of an undefined sexuality.  It really is true that today most kids don't define sexuality in to the gay or straight polarity.  This group is young and from a very specific kind of life style, but a lot of their thoughts are the thoughts of many 15 to 25 year olds, and probably future generations.  I know my qwerty friends sometimes have a hard time describing who they like.  So from my liberal public college side, that was a really cool article, and I wonder if some of my professors have seen it...
[right][snapback]875465[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The idea that society is somehow "over" the traditional way of perceiving maleness and femaleness and sexuality is just a bunch of bull. I used to be into all that "pomosexuality" stuff... I used to read the qwerty theory books and "Gender Outlaw" and I believed that even the definitions of straight and gay were starting to become blurry.

But even then, I KNEW I was on the fringe. Academic disciplines like women's studies and qwerty Theory try to get liberal-minded college students to think that the vast majority of people are "pomosexuals" or "pansexuals" but it's really not the case. Most 15-25 year olds don't even know what a pansexual is, and I say let's keep it that way

Academic feminism and qwerty Theory want you to think that humanity has somehow changed since the 60's... that people are fundamentally different in the modern era than they were before. But though peoples' attitudes have shifted, we are still the same [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i].

We laugh, we cry, we get angry. We all care about our families. We all have to make a living. We still eat, sleep (well most of us anyway) and work. Most of us end up getting married and bringing forth another generation of humans who are fundamentally the same as the generation that preceeded them.

The Church doesn't need to get with the times. The times need to get with the Church.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 4 2006, 05:40 PM']The absence of objective wrong does not infer the lack of any wrong.  What we base as being objectively wrong is actually subjective to the existence of God's judgment.  I believe in God's judgment, so I base my moral system accordingly.  In a solipsistic mindset, there cannot possibly be morals.  Right and wrong, therefore, are subservient to epistemological credulity.

I'm sure you have the charity to believe that most liberals do not think of themselves as the only facet of existence, so you have to concede that they have morality.  You don't have to agree with their system of morals, but you cannot rationaly deny the existence of liberal morality.  It might be as simple as "killing is wrong because it will incur negative sanctions from society's self-preservation", but at least it works.  Only in misguided cases such as being pro-choice is an egocentric moral system detrimental to others.

So kids are having sex--it's unfortunate any time someone succumbs to sin, but it's part of being human.  The only future I see for them is that the orgasm will lose meaning, and so at some point a sense of love as personal connection will most likely arise.  What gives Augustine his license to speak against licentiousness is the fact that he was once a lecher.
[right][snapback]875898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sometimes you speak in very pedantic ways....

(whispers)
you don't have to you know.