Behind every 'Moral Crusader', is a closet full of skeletons.

[Cutten]

Quote from ilikefox es:

Well, who gets hurt when someone robs a bank, dodo? It's insured isn't it. You say insurance rates go up, point to indirect effects, well, MANY indirect effects can be pointed out for prostitution too, lunkhead!

I can point out many indirect effects of leaving school at 16, getting drunk, or having unprotected sex. That doesn't mean they are crimes or ought to be made illegal.

Robbing a bank, on the other hand, is causing direct harm to the bank and/or its insurance company - stealing someone's property is a *direct* effect. Big difference.

I think we can put prosecuting people for offences, then committing them yourself, down as a direct effect (voter fraud, adultery).

 

[ratboy88]

"THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS"

anyone that believes this lie needs to get off the fluoride and aspartame IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

Wow...what a decent into hyperbole hell.

Can you cite one reference of "homo sex" being taught in an elementary school? I'd be shocked yet most appreciative if you could.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

the schools thinking ......and teach them the ins and outs of homo sex in elementary school.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Turok:

AAA:
>Is it fair to tar someone as a "moral crusader" when
>they are fighting to preserve traditional moral standards,
>often against the force of the state?

Yes -- they don't need to crusade, they can happily live their lives according to those "traditional moral standards" (BS IMO) and let everyone else live their lives according to more appropriate moral standards.

Live and let live.

JB

So why doesn't that same rule apply to those who are using the state to undermine traditional values? You don't seem to have a problem with them. Isn't their "crusading" equally objectionable?

ps. I have no desire to get into another endless go around with you on this, so this will be my final response to you on this thread.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigarrow:

AAA I think what you wrote is pretty much the same thing Rearden wrote except for the protecting religion part. For what it's worth I help my granddaughter who's in 3rd grade with her home work after school several times a week and there is no homo education at her school or any other PC type stuff only basic studies. There is some save the earth, recycling stuff and global warming stuff though. But the global warming is backed by evidence which is backed by the majority of scientist, if they are right or not, or if man is partly responsible or not will remain to be seen. The good thing about science is the teaching changes constantly as the evidence and proof changes.

Apparently that is not the case with all school districts, or maybe yours just delays it for a while.

There is nothing inherently wrong in moral crusades, whether pursued by evangelicals or liberals. The problem arises when they invoke the power of the state to compel you to do as they want. My sense of it is that liberals are far more guilty of that than conservatives or religious activists. The activism by the latter has come as a reaction to govenment action, which they see as undermining or threatening their principles. Just as it is inapproriate for the schools to advocate for one political party, they should not be taking positions on contentious social or political issues under the guise of teaching "values" or "tolerance" or "citizenship."

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Apparently that is not the case with all school districts, or maybe yours just delays it for a while.

There is nothing inherently wrong in moral crusades, whether pursued by evangelicals or liberals. The problem arises when they invoke the power of the state to compel you to do as they want. My sense of it is that liberals are far more guilty of that than conservatives or religious activists. The activism by the latter has come as a reaction to govenment action, which they see as undermining or threatening their principles. Just as it is inapproriate for the schools to advocate for one political party, they should not be taking positions on contentious social or political issues under the guise of teaching "values" or "tolerance" or "citizenship."

Had to dive in here a second. One reason that perhaps the evangelicals and other sects don't invoke the power of the state is that they cannot due to their tax free status.

I agree that public schools should teach, not preach. We have religious schools for that.


c

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from cgroupman:

Had to dive in here a second. One reason that perhaps the evangelicals and other sects don't invoke the power of the state is that they cannot due to their tax free status.

I agree that public schools should teach, not preach. We have religious schools for that.


c

But the church leaders are putting their nose into politics and others peoples business all the time.
Lets tax the churches and remove the tax exemption for donations to churches also. The churches are a major political and economical force, let em pay their fair share. It's time the freeloader churches bellied up to the bar and pay their tab. And the shit people get away with on their deductions to churches would be fraud for any real business to deduct.

 

[Rearden Metal]

Quote from ilikefox es:

Fart... Belch... FAAAARRRT!

Speak to me respectfully if you want a response, and save all that unprovoked belligerence for your budding dominatrix career.

 

[Turok]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So why doesn't that same rule apply to those who are using the state to undermine traditional values? You don't seem to have a problem with them. Isn't their "crusading" equally objectionable?

ps. I have no desire to get into another endless go around with you on this, so this will be my final response to you on this thread.

Apparently you don't read well. If you notice the "more appropriate" (said admittedly with a touch of humor) comment in my post it will all make sense.

JB

 

[Cutten]

Quote from neophyte321:

While I understand and agree in large part to your post, I still think it is important for someone to stand up and declare:

"It Is Not Right To Raise Your Young Children on 'Grand Theft Auto' "

or

"Young children must not be exposed to 'Horny_Girls_With_Farm Animals.com' "

Most people my age that I know have played GTA and seen internet bestiality porn, it doesn't seem to have harmed them. If you think it's harmful then how come society is not FUBAR? Crime is lower now in the US than it was in the 1970s and 1980s before violent video games and before vids of danish sluts shagging pigs could be accessed by teens.