SUPER Controversial Thread!!! (Not for the faint of heart)- Page 6

[bythesword84]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:00am

The whole idea of separation of church and state is an idealistic one. Anyone who thinks that will ever be completely possible is just wrong. No matter how much people claim that religion should not impact politics, it always will. Unless of course you outlaw religion all together which would violate the Constitution and, as it has been proven by history over and over again, just because you outlaw religion doesn't mean it won't still be there. So long as people are living they will be influenced by their religious (or lack of religious) beliefs. It's a fact of life and even though people don't have to agree with religious standpoints it would be completely and utterly impossible to banish it completely. So, while you are free to think that anyone who thinks there is a place for religion in government should get out of the US, which you're allowed to think, it would be pointless. Unless you want a complete country of athiests you're not going to get that to happen, you have to respect people's lives being influenced by their religious beliefs as much as they have to respect your choice to not believe in that.

Try all you want, you're never going to get complete separation of church and state. Ever. It's just not possible.


*note: you being the editorial you.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:04am

Ugh....that's just awful. I'd never try to ban religion. I think that people should worship or not worship what they want and I'd never dream of preventing them from doing that. That's the difference between me and them. I don't try to force my beliefs on others.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:07am

Mattio which statement is true?

I think anyone who thinks that there is a place for religion in government should get the hell out of the US.

I'd never try to ban religion.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:08am

Both! They're not mutually exclusive!

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:09am

Why are you not getting this? Am I speaking Scandanavian or something?

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:10am

Que? Que?

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:10am

I jest, Mattio.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:11am

*Breathes a sigh of relief*

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:53am

You are making perfect sense, Mattio. I think it is that some people can not see the difference between choosing how to live your life while allowing others to live theirs. That is why one can personally be pro-life, but support pro-choice legislation. That is why one can believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, yet support gay marriage as it applies to the government use of the word.

[musicalmjk]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:54am

peoples with really bad breath. talk about that controvercial topic GO

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:06am

It's time for straight white males to be repressed for a couple hundred years.

[feinstein9]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 7:54am

i second that, ms. flowery.

controversial thought: public school doesn't really work.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:05pm

"It's time for straight white males to be repressed for a couple hundred years."

Um.....ouch?

And yes Feinstein....public school really doesn't work.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 1:19pm

I can't really comment on the public school thing because I never went to one.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:32pm

trust me--bisexuality is real!

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 2:59pm

My Controversial Statement: I'm still a little scared of the south.

[musicalmjk]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:02pm

a black or female is going to become president in 2008

[SammyGal]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:42pm

bisexuality IS real.
As is pansexuality.


and I'm scared of the south too!!!!!

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:56pm

bythesword, there is a difference between having a religion affiliation and being personally and morally guided by it, and imposing the particular beliefs of your own religion on the entire populace via legislation and governance. Of course many, if not all, of the elected officials are going to have personal religious ties and beliefs, but they should not impose their church or synagogue or mosque's requirements on the entire population. Think of it this way: if an Islamic President were elected (impossible in this time I know) would you want your rights as a citizen to be ruled by his extreme religious rules? Women wearing burkas? Dietary changes in all the restaurants? (Not bringing in terrorist acts or anything else violent, because Islam is, at it's heart, a religion of peace. It is being twisted by those with an agenda. Sound familiar?)

THAT is why we do not want ANY particular religion to "rule" the land. Personal religious affiliation and belief is totally a non-issue, but when you try to impose your rules and regs on the populace, THAT violates the separation of church and state.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:25pm

Public school doesn't work any less than private school does.
A good deal of the time, the educations that they provide are identical (within a given district... not comparing inner-city to rural regions.)
Most of the time, people that spend a great deal of money on their children's education are more concerned with their kids making the "right" kinds of friends than anything else.
That especially applies to high priced private pre-k, which is at an age level that all given stimuli effect a child's brain in the same way.
And I've taken developmental psychology at the college level, so don't try to argue with me on that, because I'm not wrong.



Another controversial theory I learned from that class:

All people are instinctually bisexual at birth.
The situation in which they are raised often has the ability to force them to one side of the sexual preference spectrum, but it is not human nature to be in that position.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:50pm

Sunfish, my entire point was that you're never going to get complete separation of church and state, that's all. I wasn't making a political statement.

FF, I honestly can say that I disagree with you saying that private and public schools provide identical education, at least in my area. When I graduated from High School and started college it was blatantly obvious who went to private school and who went to public school. (I'm talking education based, not personality.) I found in class after class after class that my classmates who had gone to public schools came out of them with a lot less under their belt. We may have had less days of school than they did but we walked away with a much more comprehensive education. I'm not even talking big things, I'm talking these people don't even know how to write a basic paper coming out of school. It became a really big problem in a few of my classes where the students who went to public school had no idea what was going on so the professors had to spoon feed them basic ideas and concepts that the private school kids had been forced to learn. This is not to say that public school does not offer good education to its students, I'm sure it does. This is to say that in private school you are more likely to have it thrown at you until you learn it, and you won't just be able to dance around it. I've actually had a number of people who went to public school tell me that they thought their education was not as good as our local private schools. I've also met people who went to both and their comments on it were that they would hands down pick private school because even though it is more rigorous, you get a lot more out of it. In public school, if you're not naturally a person who wants to learn, they barely force you.

Updated On: 9/26/04 at 04:50 PM

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 5:30pm

"In public school, if you're not naturally a person who wants to learn, they barely force you."

I think you're absolutely right. If someone doesn't want to learn something, they won't. I'm a graduate of the public-school system and I am more than capable of writing a five-page essay, forming a thesis statement, all that. But that's because English and writing and language in general just naturally click for me. If you asked me any random question about algebra or stats, I'd stare at you blankly.

Updated On: 9/26/04 at 05:30 PM

[SammyGal]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 6:47pm

FF, how can you say it's not natural?
I have a few bisexual friends. They're very in touch with their gay side and their straight side. They know they like men AND women in the same way.
It's possible, later in life they can choose they really do like one sex more but it's very very normal to like both sexes.

Bisexuality is actually looked down upon by straights and gays and I think that's a huge problem. "They're not willing to accept that they're gay." or "They're just experimenting"

It IS a sexuality people are born with and it involves loving all. Good for them and pansexuals too.
Hence the B in LGBT. (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)
The gay community recognizes it as a sexuality.
I recognize it the same way.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 7:23pm

1. The public schools in my area were far superior to the private ones. The two public highschools in my township are always listed among the best schools in the state. The private ones in my area are jokes in comparison. So I do not by any means believe that a private school education is the better way to go. Now mind you, I go to a private college, so I'm not trying to trash private schools, nor do I speak out of lack of experience with them. Private schools tend to put emphasis on things that public schools do not and vice versa, but that does not always effect the quality of education at the institutions. I would also like to point out that I did not claim that private and public schools are ALWAYS alike (my cousins lived in an area with failing public schools, so private ones were the only way to go).

In most cases, what people get out of school has a lot to do with what they put into it.

However, I stand by my argument that private pre-k has no effect on a child's intellect in the long run.


2. SammyGal, please reread my post.

First of all, I did not state that bisexuality was not natural. I stated that bisexuality WAS natural, and that everyone that claims to be something other than bisexual has been formed that way by their environment and now no longer is bisexual.

Second you will see that I stated the theory of bisexuality being innate as one that I learned in a developmental psychology class, not one that I believe. I just felt that I should add it to the list of controversial things being discussed on the thread.

[SammyGal]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 8:52pm

oh I reread it. I think the wording of it screwed me up.
But it's part of the great debate that is this thread.