useing vouchers
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Raging Athiest, you think subversion in the tax-paid schools is righteous? Do you think that undermining the morals, teaching them garbage that goes against our beliefs is proper? I suppose you do.
"Blackmail" a "professor" to stop doing wrong? Way to twist!!
What is truly hateful is to condone acts and mindsets that harden the human heart against the voice of God. That is hateful. To be told what is hateful by someone who doesn't understand the origins of love is foolish; if one were to seriously contemplate the words of the foolish.
In your mind, the educational system is the proper place to attack the Judeo-Christian morals of this nation, and you probably think it funny and ironic to use the Christian tax-paid dollars to steal their heritage from them.
Don't get too haughty, bud, you aren't forcibly taking the nation from the Christians, the nation built by the Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. It is being handed over to you, because the Christians of this nation have become ignorant of their national heritage, ignorant of their own God's word, and apologetic in their own nation.
You don't have the strength to steal from us, but we, collectively, do not have the sense not to hand it over.
But don't worry. It won't be valuable for long.
"Blackmail" a "professor" to stop doing wrong? Way to twist!!
What is truly hateful is to condone acts and mindsets that harden the human heart against the voice of God. That is hateful. To be told what is hateful by someone who doesn't understand the origins of love is foolish; if one were to seriously contemplate the words of the foolish.
In your mind, the educational system is the proper place to attack the Judeo-Christian morals of this nation, and you probably think it funny and ironic to use the Christian tax-paid dollars to steal their heritage from them.
Don't get too haughty, bud, you aren't forcibly taking the nation from the Christians, the nation built by the Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. It is being handed over to you, because the Christians of this nation have become ignorant of their national heritage, ignorant of their own God's word, and apologetic in their own nation.
You don't have the strength to steal from us, but we, collectively, do not have the sense not to hand it over.
But don't worry. It won't be valuable for long.
Upvote
0
Morals and beliefs are relative to each individual person. Is it my problem if I believe that eating crackers causes insanity and they teach me that they provide nutrients? Take it to court, they'll tell you the same thing.
Professors are allowed several freedoms when teaching such things as literature. For instance, a professor might decide to use all homosexual authors for contemporary writing. Is this her/his problem? No, and you shouldn't be using the wrath of popular opinion to silence him/her. Hence BLACKMAIL.
meaningless rhetoric...
Christian Morals of this nation? I don't know where to begin with that... how about with the treaty of tripoli which was approved by the senate: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
Better yet, how about with the Constitution?
As for attacking these "morals of the nation", I don't consider them attacks. I consider them common sense that you have a problem with... refer back to the cracker example... and "heritage"?... geez, you sound like a Nazi...
Yup. So, does this mean you'll be leaving soon? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anywhere else in the world you would either be lynched or laughed at hysterically... apologetic to their own nation indeed... this is the only nation that PUTS UP with such ridiculousness
Upvote
0
I don't think Atheist was twisting your account at all TC. If your account is true, then what you did was to intimidate your instructor. She had a right to express her opinions on the way that topics such as homosexuality, ect. enter into the literature that she teaches. You would also have a right to express your own opinion on these topics, provided you were not disruptive to the class in doing so, and if she didn't provide that opportunity then you would have had a complaint. You would also have had a complaint if you could show that she marked you down for your disagreement, but you were not ebntitked to a pre-emptive strike. There is absolutely no reason to avoid controversial topics in a college classroom, and if you cannot discusss them thoughtfully respectfully, then the problem lies with you, not the teacher.
To prevent a teacher from addressing a range of topics that are frequently expressed in literature is inexcusable. If you cannot even discuss alternative views, then you do not belong in a college classroom. I for one would have withdrawn you from the class immediately, and happily fought it out in whatever alternative fora you chose to pursue.
You simply define the truth as what you happen to believe, and then portray anyone who thinks differently as deliberately propogating falsehood. That is no forumula to find truth, but it is a good formula to silence anyone you disagree with. Once again TC it seems that you have no respect for other's rights, and you present your bullying as a defense of your own rights. If you feel that christian rights are being trampled, then by all means stick up for them, but if you define them so broadly that the rest of us are oppressing you just to express disagreement, then you are the one trying to oppress others.
To prevent a teacher from addressing a range of topics that are frequently expressed in literature is inexcusable. If you cannot even discuss alternative views, then you do not belong in a college classroom. I for one would have withdrawn you from the class immediately, and happily fought it out in whatever alternative fora you chose to pursue.
You simply define the truth as what you happen to believe, and then portray anyone who thinks differently as deliberately propogating falsehood. That is no forumula to find truth, but it is a good formula to silence anyone you disagree with. Once again TC it seems that you have no respect for other's rights, and you present your bullying as a defense of your own rights. If you feel that christian rights are being trampled, then by all means stick up for them, but if you define them so broadly that the rest of us are oppressing you just to express disagreement, then you are the one trying to oppress others.
Upvote
0
Brim, the "professor was using her classroom to further an agenda that is not part of the class. The attempt is to circumvent the family unit and go straight to the child, to undermine the family beliefs and morals and to further the liberal beliefs, behind the backs of the parents.
While the tactic makes sense and is stragically sound, it is still cowardly. That which you cannot win with the adults, you terach to the children so that it will make sense to them when they get older. If it were a professor that was a Christian, and that professor was inviting anyone who wanted to come to her church Sunday, to come, you would applaud the lawsuit that would have surely followed, but let a Christian stand up against the continued attack against the nation's foundation, and you cry "FOUL!", or "BLACKMAIL!". This, I find, hipocritical.
The continued bullying is those who have no hindrance from shoving the Christian in the corner and telling him to keep quiet. As far as what is to be discussed in a college classroom, the course topic is to be taught. I go to literature class, not to discuss how abominations are perfectly ok and the mean ol' Christian is a hate-mongerer, but to study literature. But, I forgot, we make class easy, talk about whatever we want and grade on a curve, right? As long as we feel good about ourselves, learn all the right politically correct social-engineering doctrine, everything will be ok, right? Pretty soon, we will have the world as God said it will be, what is right will seem wrong, and that wich is wrong will seem right. You have prophecy unfolding before your eyes, but you are so "intellectually enlightened" you cannot recognize it for what it is.
The idea of relative morality being good and proper is not even worth going into. It is just an excuse for being deviant and not wanting others to hold a yardstick up to them. Some moral standards must be, you take that to court. It is moral standards on which the law is based, and that moral standard is the Judeo-Christian standard. That, which used to be common knowledge before the revision of history, can still easily be understood with just a little study.
The Constitution? You even invoke the word? Athiest, you obviously have little knowledge of the Constitution, the framers of it or what their stated intentions and goals were. You know of a couple sentences written by Thomas Jefferson and the printed words of the 1st clause of the 1st amendment, and with that, the liberals pervert the Constitution into standing against religion.
Is that the only thing that the anti-Christians can stand on, a treaty with Tripoli? I see no conflict with that as we are, and never were meant to be, a theocracy. I see no conflict with Thomas Jefferson's support of the government's role in the "propagation of the Gospel among the heathen", as, once again, that does not make us a theocracy. While Judeo-Christian principles were expected to be the backbone of this nation, no established church would rule, or would be the recipient of taxes (Forced tithes) from the citizens. When Chief Justice Earl Warren said "I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.", he also was not suggesting that we are a theocratic nation.
So no, our federal corporation whose duty it is to enter into treatiese with other countries for the purpose of trade has no religious barriers that would prevent it from trading with the Arab nations.
As far as calling me a Nazi, if you had any wisdom and even a little knowledge, your face would be burning with shame right now.
While the tactic makes sense and is stragically sound, it is still cowardly. That which you cannot win with the adults, you terach to the children so that it will make sense to them when they get older. If it were a professor that was a Christian, and that professor was inviting anyone who wanted to come to her church Sunday, to come, you would applaud the lawsuit that would have surely followed, but let a Christian stand up against the continued attack against the nation's foundation, and you cry "FOUL!", or "BLACKMAIL!". This, I find, hipocritical.
The continued bullying is those who have no hindrance from shoving the Christian in the corner and telling him to keep quiet. As far as what is to be discussed in a college classroom, the course topic is to be taught. I go to literature class, not to discuss how abominations are perfectly ok and the mean ol' Christian is a hate-mongerer, but to study literature. But, I forgot, we make class easy, talk about whatever we want and grade on a curve, right? As long as we feel good about ourselves, learn all the right politically correct social-engineering doctrine, everything will be ok, right? Pretty soon, we will have the world as God said it will be, what is right will seem wrong, and that wich is wrong will seem right. You have prophecy unfolding before your eyes, but you are so "intellectually enlightened" you cannot recognize it for what it is.
The idea of relative morality being good and proper is not even worth going into. It is just an excuse for being deviant and not wanting others to hold a yardstick up to them. Some moral standards must be, you take that to court. It is moral standards on which the law is based, and that moral standard is the Judeo-Christian standard. That, which used to be common knowledge before the revision of history, can still easily be understood with just a little study.
The Constitution? You even invoke the word? Athiest, you obviously have little knowledge of the Constitution, the framers of it or what their stated intentions and goals were. You know of a couple sentences written by Thomas Jefferson and the printed words of the 1st clause of the 1st amendment, and with that, the liberals pervert the Constitution into standing against religion.
Is that the only thing that the anti-Christians can stand on, a treaty with Tripoli? I see no conflict with that as we are, and never were meant to be, a theocracy. I see no conflict with Thomas Jefferson's support of the government's role in the "propagation of the Gospel among the heathen", as, once again, that does not make us a theocracy. While Judeo-Christian principles were expected to be the backbone of this nation, no established church would rule, or would be the recipient of taxes (Forced tithes) from the citizens. When Chief Justice Earl Warren said "I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.", he also was not suggesting that we are a theocratic nation.
So no, our federal corporation whose duty it is to enter into treatiese with other countries for the purpose of trade has no religious barriers that would prevent it from trading with the Arab nations.
As far as calling me a Nazi, if you had any wisdom and even a little knowledge, your face would be burning with shame right now.
Upvote
0
I as a Christian do not ponder why homosexuals take great pride in their hedonistic lifestyles in these days; It is prophecied in God's Word.
2TIM 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2TIM 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2TIM 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2TIM 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2TIM 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
GySgt James
Upvote
0
Do not assume what I would do in a classroom TC. I have taken classes from Christian teachers, and didn't object once when they expressed their opinion on various topics. A born again professor did once ask me to go to his church and listen to a speaker that Sunday, and far from initiating a lawsuit I went to his church that day. To this day I count him as one of my greatest teachers, and that is precisely because he was able to advocate his beliefs in the classroom without silencing the rest of us. That fact that you cannot conceive of such an approach is rather sad.
There is nothing dishonest about teaching adults (and college students are by and large adults) what you think is relevant to the subject matter. Issues like literature and history include the very topics that you wish to avoid, and if a teacher has a strong opinion on those subjects he should be free to work that into his lessons. Teachers are obligated to make room for others' views and to grade as impartially as they can. They are not obligated to refrain from saying anything that you might disagree with, or to ensure that parents would approve of every lesson.
The question at present isn't whether there are absolute standards of truth or morality, but whether one should allow disagreement about such topics. If you have ever been prevented from speaking in an open discussion because of your beliefs, then you have a valid complaint in that case, but when you act to silence others, then you are the one on the offensive. Your refusal to allow anyone to voice alternative views will not help advance your critique of relativism in any sense. A silenced opponent is not defeated in the name of truth, but in the name of power.
You have consistently shown absolutely no regard for the rights of non-Christians, and you pretend your naked agression is really defense of Christian rights. I find that dishonest. The difference between what I have just said and what you have said about me and other liberals is that I am responding to your actual posts. Your tirades about a liberal consipiracy to poison the minds of the young are nothing but opportunistic slander. It is a pre-emptive strike designed to relieve you of the obligation to consider seriously the views of any particular liberal. With regards to one particular liberal, me, your assertion that I am being hypocritical merely assumes aspects of my behavior that you know nothing about.
I believe that topics like that should be discussed in college classrooms, and that includes opportunities to express Christian views. It is difficult to manage such discussions fairly, but to refuse to try is to reserve liberal arts classes for trivial lectures that don't matter to anyone. The day I take steps to silence a Christian student who is voicing his opinions respectfully you will have a valid accusation, but in the meantime your comments show only that you have projected your own closed-mindedness onto me.
There is nothing dishonest about teaching adults (and college students are by and large adults) what you think is relevant to the subject matter. Issues like literature and history include the very topics that you wish to avoid, and if a teacher has a strong opinion on those subjects he should be free to work that into his lessons. Teachers are obligated to make room for others' views and to grade as impartially as they can. They are not obligated to refrain from saying anything that you might disagree with, or to ensure that parents would approve of every lesson.
The question at present isn't whether there are absolute standards of truth or morality, but whether one should allow disagreement about such topics. If you have ever been prevented from speaking in an open discussion because of your beliefs, then you have a valid complaint in that case, but when you act to silence others, then you are the one on the offensive. Your refusal to allow anyone to voice alternative views will not help advance your critique of relativism in any sense. A silenced opponent is not defeated in the name of truth, but in the name of power.
You have consistently shown absolutely no regard for the rights of non-Christians, and you pretend your naked agression is really defense of Christian rights. I find that dishonest. The difference between what I have just said and what you have said about me and other liberals is that I am responding to your actual posts. Your tirades about a liberal consipiracy to poison the minds of the young are nothing but opportunistic slander. It is a pre-emptive strike designed to relieve you of the obligation to consider seriously the views of any particular liberal. With regards to one particular liberal, me, your assertion that I am being hypocritical merely assumes aspects of my behavior that you know nothing about.
I believe that topics like that should be discussed in college classrooms, and that includes opportunities to express Christian views. It is difficult to manage such discussions fairly, but to refuse to try is to reserve liberal arts classes for trivial lectures that don't matter to anyone. The day I take steps to silence a Christian student who is voicing his opinions respectfully you will have a valid accusation, but in the meantime your comments show only that you have projected your own closed-mindedness onto me.
Upvote
0
I agre with TC on this point. The homosexuals have no place in the school system, much less having their homosexual agenda being taught directly to our children. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an aberration and a crime against God himself. I would not want my children learning that such things are acceptable.
Upvote
0
Yet another intentional mockery of Christianity... but you wanted me to respond, didn't you???
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
May I infer by your complicity with user 956's statement, that you and he are the same person? And what about the identical quotes in your signatures? And what of both of you being relatively new to Christian Forums?
No, no, no... this is nothing more than yet another wild-eyed, scatter-brained, Christian conspiracy theory that is deserving of your open exploitation and blatant ridicule and fodder for the furthering of your agenda, correct?
Upvote
0
The fact that you would even allude to the fact that I might be an Atheist is offensive. I follow the word of the LORD to the letter. If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it. But don't hurl insults, as that is a clear violation of forum rules.
Upvote
0
I apologize if I am incorrect, but your posts have truly raised my suspicions concerning your sincerity.
Upvote
0
MatthewDiscipleofGod
Senior Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 2,992
- 267
- 47
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
user 956 You changed the web site. You indeed did have a link to a inappropriate content site. I honestly am praying for you. You think it's a game with what you doing but I can promise you Christianity is no game.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by humblejoe
May I infer by your complicity with user 956's statement, that you and he are the same person? And what about the identical quotes in your signatures? And what of both of you being relatively new to Christian Forums?
No, no, no... this is nothing more than yet another wild-eyed, scatter-brained, Christian conspiracy theory that is deserving of your open exploitation and blatant ridicule and fodder for the furthering of your agenda, correct?
Humble: NO! User 956 is an idiot (probably an atheist) parading around and making ridiculous assertions. We are not the same person. If you bother reading between the lines, the post I made that you quoted was make in sarcasm. Assuming he's an atheist, user 956 is an embarassment to other non-believers. I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked yet.
Also, if you would bother READING our other posts you would notice an enormous difference between the seriousness and logic of our posts.
Frankly, humble, I'm kinda [wash my mouth]ed at both you and him. I'm not sure which I'm more [wash my mouth]ed at: him for being an idiot or you for falling for it.
Regarding our similar quote: I saw the quote by George Bush on one of this earlier posts and liked it, so I copied it. I've seen it published else where so I'm pretty sure its true. I see such a statement as a monument to Bush's ignorance and prejudice.
Well put, Brim. You da man!
EDIT: *stares at auto-bleeps* you've got to be kidding... I can't say the English version of the word angry? Bah... censorship is rampant...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I've had a few conspiracy theories of my own. We all know the games some people play, and the place can be quite a soap opera besides. I don't think Raging is User956, and I have nothing but respect for Humble's opinions (now don't embarrass me now in your next post). Several of the more articulate atheists have left the site recently, and so I hope that Rage sticks around. This is where I say in a choked up voice; "Can't we all just get along?"
(Oh, and Rage you can simply delete your own post. Look at the top of the edit page. I believe the option will be up there.)
I'm also uncomfortable with the tone that is developing between TC and I. I can't say that I am interested in apologizing here, and I don't expect one either, but I would be happy to tone the rhetoric down a notch or two. That's not going to be a unilateral move on my part, but it is an option I will be happy to pursue in direct proportion to what I see coming from you, TC. The fact is though that we do have some unfinished business here. So, let's all just put the parody guy behind us and get back to business. TC, I think the ball is in your court.
(Oh, and Rage you can simply delete your own post. Look at the top of the edit page. I believe the option will be up there.)
I'm also uncomfortable with the tone that is developing between TC and I. I can't say that I am interested in apologizing here, and I don't expect one either, but I would be happy to tone the rhetoric down a notch or two. That's not going to be a unilateral move on my part, but it is an option I will be happy to pursue in direct proportion to what I see coming from you, TC. The fact is though that we do have some unfinished business here. So, let's all just put the parody guy behind us and get back to business. TC, I think the ball is in your court.
Upvote
0
Stormy
Senior Contributor
OK guys, If you are all finished getting to know each other... How about we get back to the topic of the thread?
Vouchers!
I say good. We could not have the public schools... how we wish. For that would be stepping on someone's rights. Private school is expensive. Many Christian parents could not afford them. The parents that did pay for their children's school, were also being forced to pay for a school that their children did not attend. How could that be fair?
But now I see a weird future. The public schools could become pagan schools. I can not see them being desirable.
The private school is going to flourish.
Vouchers!
I say good. We could not have the public schools... how we wish. For that would be stepping on someone's rights. Private school is expensive. Many Christian parents could not afford them. The parents that did pay for their children's school, were also being forced to pay for a school that their children did not attend. How could that be fair?
But now I see a weird future. The public schools could become pagan schools. I can not see them being desirable.
The private school is going to flourish.
Upvote
0
Hmm, we actually agree on something Stormy, more or less anyway. I do think the whole idea her is to cut loose the public school system, fund schools for elites, and in the meantime do an end-run around the establishment clause (you might want to opt out of agreeing with my last point, I don't know).
Upvote
0
Stormy
Senior Contributor
We should have seen it coming. It will be good for the children. What is good for the children, is good for the future.
Tell me Brim. I do not know if you have children. But at least pretend that you do. Now think of how the Public High Schools of the future will be... when all the Christians leave. Will it be where you want your kid to spend his days?
Tell me Brim. I do not know if you have children. But at least pretend that you do. Now think of how the Public High Schools of the future will be... when all the Christians leave. Will it be where you want your kid to spend his days?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Well, I see a small group of "superschools" slowly emerging. Not particularly religious schools, but rather mechanized, standardized, high-ticket factories. The private schools I see as most successful aren't necessarily the religious types, but the standardized test pushers. These institutions have one goal: turning out perfect standardized scorers. This makes me wonder. How will vouchers affect this elite "presence", and what will become of the "average commons" in the public system?
On one hand, we have the public schools that care more about the kids that aren't in class than the ones that are. Then you have the elite super institutions where they don't have to worry because they've gotten their bucks, and the perfect scores just roll out. They even have special courses to push this. Public schools are worried about little Johnny that skipped first period, and privates are worried about another superschool having more "36"s than they do.
I don't know exactly where this is all going to lead, but the voucher funding for elite private "super" schools is going to shift the balance. Is it a good thing that more kids get to take advantage of preparatory test courses? At first glance, yes, but down the road, I don't know. It depends on whether the additional applicants causes a reduction in the preparatory quality. What if private attendance swells, but then they put a sudden cap on their enrollment number? What legislative actions will parents pressure the govt. to take then? Surely, you can't force the "super" private schools to increase enrollment; that would violate, by definition, the schools' "private" rights. I think we're going to have a US govt. created monster on our hands, at the expense of an ever declining public educational system.
On one hand, we have the public schools that care more about the kids that aren't in class than the ones that are. Then you have the elite super institutions where they don't have to worry because they've gotten their bucks, and the perfect scores just roll out. They even have special courses to push this. Public schools are worried about little Johnny that skipped first period, and privates are worried about another superschool having more "36"s than they do.
I don't know exactly where this is all going to lead, but the voucher funding for elite private "super" schools is going to shift the balance. Is it a good thing that more kids get to take advantage of preparatory test courses? At first glance, yes, but down the road, I don't know. It depends on whether the additional applicants causes a reduction in the preparatory quality. What if private attendance swells, but then they put a sudden cap on their enrollment number? What legislative actions will parents pressure the govt. to take then? Surely, you can't force the "super" private schools to increase enrollment; that would violate, by definition, the schools' "private" rights. I think we're going to have a US govt. created monster on our hands, at the expense of an ever declining public educational system.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
