Welcome To The NEA ~ Bringing Marxism to the U.S. One Child at a Time!

[samspade]

Originally Posted by A_Texian

We can only hope and pray!!!

My question is what they would consider to be an "Extremist Group?"

I'll wager that it'd be a LOT different than what you and I would consider to be such a group!

More than likely they wish to ban all other groups who do not have their mind think..

Let me think, I have seen this before, oh yes-from liberals

[samspade]

[quote=A_Texian;6240](Part IV)



The Association further believes that the United Nations (UN) furthers world peace and promote the rights of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide.

Are we talking about the same United Nations that have committed the very same things as are mentioned above included with other acts not mentioned?

Yeah I have a lot of faith in the United Nations. I am still waiting to see if the new head of the UN makes some drastic changes and starts to actually look out for the interest of their member countries and the United States. Mean while I will not hold my breath.

[edog30]

Bocce balls, Batman. I started to answer the second part not knowing theres was a first part. Ill do what I can, for now.


Ill start out on things we agree on:

People treat politics often like they treat God. Communism, for example, like Socialism, becomes a religion, devoid of fact but treated as such.

I could not agree more, except for the devoid of fact part. In fact you are the first person not in ideallogical agreement with me to say so. In fact, I would also add Science to that mix. How many people honestly understand what a scientist says without them 'dumbing it down' for people not of trained, scientific bent? In the translation, things can be added or taken away depending on the intent and character of the person saying it. Sound familiar? They can even fool other scientists, that guy in South Korea fudged the sheep cloning then was either found out or just fessed up to it. I also see cop out on the part of science when it comes to the orgins of life. The big Bang, existance was an 'accident' and it just so happend to work out where most things in nature balance out everything else. That to me sounds like it was planned out, and well.

I also think that in matters of faith, it takes as much or more to be an Athiest as apposed to any other faith. You, however, have to prove a negative.

I intended to reply longer, but my work is getting in the way.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Wow, there's too much here for me to got point-by-point on (and some points I'm less qualified to address than others). I'll just address some of it without using the quote funtion, and I'll still use numbers to avoid having to skip a line (after this one) to paragraph.

1. When you said "it uses a conception of human motivation and nature that is false", I felt that you were indeed implying that abstinence promoters felt that it was natural.
2. Abstinence before marriage isn't terribly difficult, and I think has shown a much better track record than teaching "safe sex", especially in earlier times when the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy wasn't championed and rationalized. Some say that promiscuity has always been this common, just not aknowledged. But effective reliable birth control is a relatively recent thing. It's pretty much impossible for a girl to hide a pregnant belly, and I doubt that the majority were kept locked away from public view, at least successfully.
3. I think that if we stuck with what is and what is likely to be, then we might as well throw in the towel, because our society is decadent (that is, in decline), and our only hope is in what is not and is unlikely.
4. I'll make clear that I find nothing sad about abstinence teaching, and I don't feel that you've made a case for its failure. I cited history as an example of its success. Perfect success? No. But much better, in my opinion, than the alternative.
5. Since I'm not conversant enough with it, I won't debate NCLB. It was a good thing for you to put your arguements out, though.
6. I've read much of the Bible; I can't say "all" or (with certainty) "most". I'm fairly (although not comprehensively) familiar with the New Testament and somewhat so with the Old Testament (more so with the first half). I too take exception to some of the things therein, including the story of Lot (where he offered his virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom who surrounded his house in exchange for leaving his guests alone) and the story of the levite and the old man (similar to the aforementioned story of Lot), and I cannot reconcile such things with the existance of an all-powerful all-knowing God. But I feel that you're taking some things in the Bible out of context for one thing, and also not allowing for how Jews and Christians interpret others. I don't know what you're referring to about the sexual practices of Christianity leading to the deaths of millions, unless you're referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But I doubt that their combined populations even approached a quarter of a million (I'll admit that I don't know for sure). In any event, there was a lot more than sexuality involved.
7. I very much question the statement that most of the Founding Fathers disliked Christianity, If I'm not mistaken, this issue has been addressed in other threads within the last few months (I can't remember for sure where, but I think some of it is in the Religion forum).
8. On the UN, one of my big objections to it is that the bigger the government, the more insulated it is from the consequences of its actions. Our own U.S. Government is all but out of control. How much worse a governing body over the nations? I feel that there is nothing worth the cost in the UN and its actions, and the only good thing about the U.S. being in the UN is our Security Council veto power.
9. I do indeed feel that you are a liberal, although I concede that you argue far more coherently and less vitriolically (I only picked up on one relatively minor thing) than most.

[Fantasy Chaser]

There's just too much here for me to cover, so I'll just touch on one particular point that I'm not sure you're clear on. The success of abstinence is historical. It happened in decades and centuries gone by, and I feel it has proven fairly conclusively that most people can indeed abstain outside of marriage. The only hinderence to this in the classical view is that masturbation was also condemned (based on scriptural evidence that was unclear at best), when in fact it gives a healthy alternative to uncommitted sexual relationships. I remember about twenty-five years ago as a teenager the church I attended showed a series by Dr. James Dobson called Focus on the Family (this was, I believe, before he founded the organization of the same name). Quite startlingly, he went against traditional Christian dogma and refused to condemn masturbation, believing that it was too powerful a drive, and he could not believe that God would put such a tiger into the feelings of a teenager and expect them to do nothing about it. But indulging the tiger of masturbation makes it possible (and a lot easier) to tame the tiger of promiscuity.