Call a tree a tree......

Smile
It's not true that I'd have to believe the media to be conservative if I don't think they're liberal! That's one of the logical fallacies rampant these days that keep people at each others' throats in political discussions.

The most fundamental point is this, and everyone needs to think about it: a democracy can't exist without a free press. Thomas Jefferson said that a free press without a government was preferable to a government without a free press.

Truthfully, to guide you to "sites" that can shed light on this would be difficult for me. I'll need to think about books you can read. Keep in mind that this has been my field since undergrad, and I've been teaching it for 15 years.

But these are some important points:

The biggest constraint on news media today is the market, which is neither liberal nor conservative, but apolitical. I would like to see all news take the public service model, as was attempted before the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1980, meaning that stations couldn't advertise during their news hour.

Calling the press "liberal" began with Barry Goldwater. His ideas at the time were considered way on the fringe of political thinking, and when the press quoted him and then quoted others who opposed him, he thought they were "liberal." You can start by looking at the rhetoric surrounding him. Nixon and Agnew were huge opponents of the media and tried to shut down the brand new public broadcasting service, which was reporting on the Vietnam war.

Justice Powell in the 1970s thought that "corporations" were being scorned by society and sought to remedy that by attacking the press as too "liberal." Back then, conservatism was associated with business. Then the think tanks started up. Do you ever wonder who they are and what they do? They're not academics, only a very few perform any research. How are they funded? Why are they taken seriously? They're on all the talk shows, their columns are in the newspapers. Pay attention even if they give you facts and figures. "Facts" and "figures" are often used to mislead.

And look how corporatized everything is these days. It's almost like the robber barons have returned from the dead.

The purpose of the press is to be a watchdog. We should WANT the press to be critical of WHOEVER is in power. If you think the press right now is critical of Bush, recall how they skewered Clinton and then Gore. If the Monica Lewinsky story wasn't kept alive by all the newspapers and all the networks, we wouldn't have been aware of it. Journalists are trained (or at least used to be trained) to ask tough questions on behalf of citizens so that we can make informed choices.

I'm sorry, but all the attacks on "liberal" media are only serving to undermine confidence in the press by everyone. It's working. Undermining our confidence in anyone's ability to attempt to be objective will then allow for all "opinions" to be viewed as equally valid. Want to be a cannibal? That's fine. That's your opinion. How about a child molester? No problem. Now let's hear from the other side.

See?

Happy Kwanzaa, DJ! What do you do to celebrate?

I 100% agree with you about the over-commercialization of Christmas. It always bothered me, but more-so since my daughter died in 1994. When that happened, a lot of life's fluff fell away and my perspective of just about everything changed.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm a Baha'i. We don't have any holidays in December. But I have Christian relatives and visit them on Christmas.

Kwanzaa is specifically an African American observance. I'm not exactly sure how it's celebrated.

I being the inquisitive person I am wanted to know more and have learned by simple research that Baha'i believe in a single God who has repeatedly sent prophets into the world through whom he has revealed the "Word of God." Prophets include Adam, Krishna, Buddha, Yeshua (Jesus), Mohammed. The religion is interesting and if you want to know more simply google the word Baha'i. I am always fascinated by the differences and yet the similarities of religions.

According to the book, The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler, "The time for Christmas....was chosen because this was the time of year when the ancients traditionally celebrated the winter solstice." (There are about 35 pages of footnotes in the book for those who are interested.) The tree may have many origins (check out factmonster.com), but most likely was brought into Christianity in the 8th century by St. Boniface. It's a symbol that those of us who are Christians have co-opted, and I, for one, thoroughly enjoy. So I would have to agree that, yes, the way we use it today, is as a "Christmas tree."
I believe the country was founded on a principle of freedom from government-mandated religion. Many, not all, of the people who were first here were some type of Christian denomenation. Spirituality, faith in God, etc. were all part of the early European settlers beliefs. (Although the Native Americans, who were here first, weren't Christian at that point in time.)
The point in going to a "holiday" tree or some form of what we now call "political correctness" was to acknowledge that not everyone in this country believes in some form of Christianity. I believe it was an attempt to embrace all Americans in a time of the year that almost every faith from time immemorial has acknowledged as very spiritually powerful. True, forcing the use of "holiday tree" is probably a bit overboard, but let's remember the intention.
And let's remember that for Christians, Christ's birth is a wonder and the peace and love that he brought forth on his brief time on earth is amazing.
Let's celebrate it in the lights we see on all the trees and reflected in the faces of all our fellow Americans, whatever their faith.
How important is it what we call the tree?

Casey, you have great points and very interesting facts.

Right now here in the Northeast Ohio sector of the globe this very topic is being discussed in our own newspapers. It seems that we are very tired of hearing our Christmas tree called a holiday tree and the greetings Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Many of us feel what's next?

While I'm not going to get very upset about this at all, Christians everywhere do have a valid complaint.

In my own daily living my form of Christianity comes in helping others. I believe actions speak louder than words. My promise to myself is that each day of my life I must do at least one good deed for another person. I've kept that promise.
Christianity should not only be in attending mass and praying it should be in good works. Maybe far too many people have forgotten that and this is how commercial enterprises let these terms be acceptable.

[ December 06, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: ladybug ]

Personally, I use Happy Holidays if I don't know the faith belief of the person I am speaking with. I feel it is respectful. I also hope that a non-Christian will accept Merry Christmas in the spirit in which it is meant and not be offended.
Yes, actions do speak louder than words! Thanks, Ladybug, for your help! We do need to remember, however, that words have the capability of hurting others and changing laws.
A question I have is,
"What would change about the Christmas/holiday season as it exists right now if everyone called a Christmas tree a Christmas tree rather than a holiday tree?"

I agree with you Casey and would never say Merry Christmas to someone if I don't know their faith either.

Truthfully speaking, whether we call it a Christmas tree or Holiday tree, I don't think it would change anything at all.

Well thats that that then I guess....LOL

When it comes to celebrating the Holidays I call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree and a Menorrah a Menorrah...and if people are offended when I wish them a Merry Christmas with a big smile on my face then they must really have either a major problem or too little in their lives and I take it with a grain of salt...sheesh...sometimes all of this political correctness is really over the top!!!

Oh my yes...

Christ is the reason for the season...political correctness...I could care less about.

oops! my ignorance of other religions is showing, DJ! i live in a predominantly christian area of the country so don't have contact with a lot of other religions. guess that's a good thing considering my lack of education on them...

I must be ancient but I remember when we celebrated the holidays all religions in their own way and no one was politically incorrect....oh for those good old days.

Yeah Chatty, oh for those good old days.....You know, my great grandmother came from Germany. My other relatives came from Ireland. And each had their religious views. Yet , I was born. Interesting isn't it? It seems to me that religion is important, but maybe not so as important as the caring and concern we each can have toward one another...just my view...

Search

If more of us viewed the world as you do my friend, it would be a kinder, gentler place.

You know, Chatt,

Those are words I wish to hear. But truthfully, it has been a journey to get to my view. A long and eventful journey. But just so you know, I would not have traded it. But my view is this - there is so much that we would like to make different. Better. Each of us have something that we would like to change. I hope that I can make some difference...I know you already have.

And yes, I would hope that in my life, I CAN make some difference in the lives of others - in the spirit of a kinder, gentler place. Life is cruel, and we need gentleness.....

oh my gosh Search...you just did it again..."Life is cruel, and we need gentleness..." That makes so much sense it's ridiculous!!! You are making a difference in our lives with every post you write...keep em coming...love ya!!!!

Beautiful words, Searcher.

The way we treat each other every day is more important than what label we attatch to religious symbols. If I can do something to brighten someone else's world or make their life easier, that's the most important present I can give myself.

Thank you, Avalon and NHJackie, and Chatty. I'm happy to hear that you think I can make some sense, 'cause oftentimes I don't make much sense to myself!! Happy Christmas!!(so is that a cop-out? You know Happy Hollidays, Merry Christmas - or maybe we could say, Merry Holidays LOL)

Search

I realize this is an old issue, but as I sit here at work reading the posts, I am saddened that we have come to this place in our country.
I recently went to a public school program that my step grandsons were in.
Forgive my ignorance, but when and where and why did Quansi enter the American scene? The kids had to incorporate Quansi, Christmas, Hannakuh, and some other holiday into their program.
Maybe its just me, but the truth stands on its own. It doesn't need me to make it even more true but if I wanted to dilute the truth or nullify or villify it, what I would do is water it down. Mix it with so many other things so as to make it appear less effective or powerless.
Christmas is to celebrate the major event when God humbled himself to be born a human, male by the way, so that he could redeem us by giving his life for us and bearing our sins because he is a holy God. That's the truth. It doesn't matter how many other events are thrown into the pot, the truth will always rise to the top, if not now, then in the end.

America is a melting pot. We have more immigrants inflating our population than we do native births at the moment. These immigrants bring their traditions with them. Many faiths and cultures have some ceremony or belief associated with December because it contains the shortest day of the year.

As these immigrants and their traditions come to our shores and our public schools, isn't it loving to honor their traditions and truths as well?

P.S. I think it's Kwanzaa and not Quansi, but I could be wrong.

It is nice to respect the traditions of other cultures, but it is not our obligation. Immigrants who come here and try to turn our country into what they left should not be here in the first place.

If we go to the homelands of others, we are expected to respect their culture over there as well. And if we expect them to respect America's culture, we will be called the "ugly American."

I'm not opposed to respecting anyone or anything, but somehow that just doesn't seem equitable.

smile

i'm with you, smile. i have traveled in europe and you are right, when we go to other countries, we are expected to respect their traditions and customs. i suppose because of our tradition as a world melting pot, we are expected to accept other cultures on our shores, and i'm all for that. i do not, however, believe that respecting their traditions should include giving up our own in their favor which seems to be what we are being asked to do.

my ancestors came here TO BECOME americans, not to CHANGE america to suit themselves.

Number5, your truth is not mine, and saying that your truth is valid and mine is not is a statement of complete intolerance and arrogance.

flipperjo, no one is asking you to give up your traditions.

My ancestors came here to become Americans. They did not come here to become Christians. This country was founded on the principle of freedom from religious tyranny.

Meredithbead, you are so right, I couldn't agree with you more. But just as Israel belongs to the Jews, no matter what happens wars, etc., Biblically, the country of Israel will always belong to the Jews and not the Palestinians because God gave it to them.
That is a fact. There are certain facts that can't be ignored or diluted. It is true that this continent was inhabited by Native Americans when we came here. One only has to read the Bible to understand though that it isn't just about warm fuzzies. Certain things were predestined. Those seeking religious freedom were allowed to come to these shores and claim this land as their own. The reason they were allowed to do that is because their religion didn't worship nature but was the husbandman of nature. The persons who came here worshipped God who created nature. They certainly weren't perfect beings but neither were the native inhabitants...
That's where things have gone wrong, people have begun to worship the creation rather than the creator.
That has always gotten us in trouble.
I'm not a religious person and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but there are a few very basic things that I am completely aware of and know without a doubt that have no leeway or wiggle room.
Situations or feelings don't even come into play when there are absolutes.
Ironically, my dad fought for the freedom of all persons to worship or not whomever they please. I would fight for that too. What I want for myself is the freedom to say, "I am a Christian and I celebrate Christmas and will have my nativity scene in my community and in my home."
Many things offend me but I'm willing to share space in this country with anyone whether or not they agree with me. It is when anything remotely looking or sounding Christian is stampeded and snuffed out when in a public arena whereas Kwans**or any other ritual is sweetly welcomed.
Religious freedom doesn't mean the absence of religion.
I think what offends others about Christianity is that those who are believers know who it is that they worship and that he is an absolute being who deals in absolutes. He is a Holy God and can't go back on his word or wink his eye. He is NOT an enabler in the least but enforces his laws in a loving way. The most loving way. Science gradually catches up to the truth's of God's Word, for those who need proof.
I'm sorry if my words offend you. You seem like a very nice lady. Christ, himself, said that the Cross would be a stumbling block for some and that his believers would be hated for their knowledge. Its not arrogance, it is certainty and peace that comes from knowing the eternal boundaries set by the creator of my own body and the world in which I live.
Its OK with me if you don't agree with me. That's your right and privilege.
I guess at the end of time, everyone will see who was right.

PS. and being right is vitally important when your eternal destination is at stake......forgive me but I take that very seriously.

Be careful. We have several Jewish women on this list, and if you didn't offend the others, you offended me just now. Believe what you want, but don't try to force it on others.

NH JACKIE, Again, I am sorry I offended you. I am going to end my comments as I think I covered the topic from my point of view pretty thoroughly without going into any more detail.
I wouldn't think of interrupting anyone else's determination to travel their own path whether I deem it to be destructive or beneficial. What I believe isn't for everyone. I'm just thankful its for me.
I don't care that you think I'm "pushing my beliefs" on anyone, sorry. I'm not, because what you believe is your own karma or fate. I wouldn't think of interferring with that.
Again, sorry to anyone or all, if I offended you. This is a forum of opinions and beliefs, right?? or am I mistaken....
I was offended in an earlier post by someone and I wasn't going to post anymore on this site. See, you're not the only one who get her dander up.
But I realized we are all just human and entitled to our mistakes along with our victories. I'm happy with what I believe, you might even say, ecstatic so lets just leave it at that and go on to other topics.....

And maybe confine our religious discussions to the appropriate forums? BTW, I've never to my knowledge, I've never offended anyone here by anything I said.

To be honest, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with what I preceive as intolerance in some of the posts, both religious and personal. Giving constructive advice is one thing. Being nasty is quite another. We should probably think a little harder before we press that send button.

Smile,
My own grandmother was Black Foot. Hunted elk until she was too elderly to ride on horseback then she cooked at the camp.
My heart is with the Native American. My apologies if I touched a nerve but glad you had the opportunity to "vent".
Smile, smile.....its all good as they say. Doesn't change my mind or my beliefs...but I won't discuss anything that volitile out of respect for your fragile emotions.

I was not venting. I am stating fact, not expressing emotion.

That those beliefs were used as justification for genocide is history. That people continue to use them as justification for evil purposes is fact. That they are corruption of Scripture certainly appears to be fact.

To continue to believe them is an individual moral decision. Morality is demonstrated by actions, not emotions.

smile

[ January 23, 2006, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]

Lets remember that this site was started by a kind, loving, Christian woman who wanted something special, a place women could come and feel safe and vent their worries, anger and hopefully the good things in their lives. We have many threads and for the most part all the women here respect this Forum but unfortunately there are those that would slink in trying to use this site to irritate, to insult and to aggitate. Luckily the last thread that went against all this Forum stands for was eliminated. I for one hope we can get on with the business of being sisters, of respecting one another, of showing we are better than the trouble makers and slanderers that frequent othe volitale sites. Sometimes it is necessary to use common sense before beginning a thread that serves no purpose but to hurt and possibly insult others. I will have no part of this and pray no one of intelligence will either. We are all of different races, religions, backgrounds and cultures. Respect all the others even when they do not respect yours. Hard to do, of course but not impossible....There must be some Current Event that we can discuss....

Chatty, which thread are you referring to? Just curious.

Not going there, gone and best forgotten Number5....You were not involved in this particular thread....hows it going by the way? Are you feeling any better about your situation, I sincerely hope so.

I guess it'd be the "Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties" thread? To call it "going against all that BWS stands for" is a bit overstated. This thread was a political discussion in which posters didn't see eye to eye. It was locked (but not eliminated -- you can see for yourself) either because some participants perceived each other as not being civil, or because it supplied too many links outside of BWS, or both.

I think that Vi was well intentioned. She was obsviously passionate. She spent a great deal of time and effort on her discussion. It isn't fair to insinuate that she was on here to irritate, insult, slander, or agitate. What might be more accurate is that she didn't feel that she fit in with the culture of BWS -- I've spoken before of the culture here. To say that one does or does not fit into this culture is not a value statement.

DJ that question was presented to me by Number5 and I answered it the correct way. Thank you for your assistance but it wasn't asked for or needed...

[ January 23, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: chatty lady ]

I didn't realize that I needed to ask permission in order to participate in this discussion.

Maybe you didn't need to hear what I had to say, Chatty, but I felt I needed to say it.

Not permission DJ just honoring Dotsies wishes for a calmer, nicer Forum by allowing the thread she CLOSED to remain CLOSED. Apparently you are intending something else????? Case closed as far as I am concerned, take your best shot...

Things are on hold right now. Nothing has really changed, but some of the tension has been relieved.
I am continually surprised by the, dare I say it, faithfulness and compassion of that 'great being' (?), who knows my situation and cares for me and mine.
It is also great to know that no matter what differences the ladies in this arena may have, one thing we all have in common is our love for our children and families.

I appreciate all of you and your many viewpoints. If everyone in the world agreed on everything, it would be a boring existance indeed.
I thank all of you for allowing me to voice my feelings, thoughts and beliefs without judgement.
I wouldn't hold it against anyone for being thrilled with their belief that kick boxing was the greatest sport and had done so much for them. Maybe so much so that they would want me and anyone else to try it for themselves.
I would know that they trully believe that kick boxing is wonderful and no other sport could rival it. They might even argue with me if I dared to pit it against football.
I would respect their right to speak freely of it and would acknowledge that it possibly could be the greatest sport and might even try it. I wouldn't think they were pushing it on me, but thinking enough of me to want me to try something that had been of great benefit to them.
What appears to be arrogance sometimes is strong belief in a remedy that has worked for someone who truly cares about others.
I once heard that we become angry with others because they don't do things the way we think they should. Isn't that so true?

Chatty said: "Not permission DJ just honoring Dotsies wishes for a calmer, nicer Forum by allowing the thread she CLOSED to remain CLOSED. Apparently you are intending something else????? Case closed as far as I am concerned, take your best shot..."

These comments are neither "calmer" nor "nicer." I am not accustomed to this sort of aggression and ask that you not talk to me in this tone.

What I intended in my previous post was to put a halt to what I perceive to be backbiting someone who is not present. There is nothing less nice than backbiting.

Now, I have remained silent
long enough . Dotsie closed the the thread out for a reason and that was her decision alone . When asked my Number5 what the topic was about Chatty in a nice calm way chose not to bring the subject up again full knowing what would happen. Now , DJ you brought the subject up and gave your opinion and all well and good , but sometime in this century this has to come to and end.

I have not read anywhere there is backbiting to anyone . So, lets call it a night on this subject and find something else to talk about This is getting old very quickly .

Amen.

Just a reminder about the purpose of these forums:

"A place to share from the heart and connect with other women."

Perhpas it's hard to connect with someone of opposing views, but we need to treat others the way we want to be treated.

"A place to share stories, give and receive advice and make new friends."

Are we trying to make new friends when we post?

I am and I hope you will too.

(Disclaimer: The following are my thoughts, opinions and beliefs and not meant in any way to disrespect anyone, but to encourage thoughtful, loving communication about ideas. Take what you like and leave the rest.)

I found myself thinking about this thread as I woke up this morning. Back in the late 1970s, I taught junior high school on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. Around the holidays, we English teachers banded together to use the various holiday symbols (such as the tree) to teach symbolism. Although there was a large Christian element on the reservation, there was also a strong native element and we walked a fine line between the two. (Northern Montana was settled by white people later than many places -- I knew people who remembered seeing their first white man.)

American began in part because of a desire of some to have religious freedom; to live in a place that had no state religion. That's why we don't have one. Based on the way our government documents were written, our founders believed in God, at least nominally.

Has the separation of church and state gone too far? Perhaps, but I don't believe it has in terms of separation of religious tenats from schools. However, a new religion has crept into our schools, and the powerful teachings of religions is gone. That new religion is materialism.

It's ironic, isn't it, that we allow our schools to have commerican support in the form of vending machines, piped in news (with commercials), logos on all types of school paraphenalia, but forbid the mention of God? We teach our children to be good little employee widgets by force-feeding them testing material and forget to have broad discussions on treating your fellow being as you would have yourself treated, and loving something bigger than yourself.

These are my thoughts from my heart and I would be interested in loving responses from others on them. I'm very concerned about our world and our children.

Casey, you make a very good point. As a Christian, I would rather have my children taught religion or at have it at least discussed in the classroom. But what if their teacher was of a faith that I didn't believe in? I wouldn't want any religion but my own taught to my child, although I would certainly like him to learn about other religions. It sure is a fine line between preaching and teaching.

I agree that we have taken things to far - thanks to the ACLU.

Daisygirl

There are always people who will take things too far. And lawyers who will encourage them to do so -- for a fee, of course. We've become a litigenous society in many ways.

The schools do try to teach the kids to be loving, compassionate human beings. But the teachers have a lot of limits set on them. There are the parents who scream that we are teaching their kids the wrong values; there are the ones who aren't teaching them any values at all. And the ones who will sue the school district at the drop of a hat for all sorts of reasons. As Daiygirl said, things can go much too far.

I agree that children should be taught about all sorts of religions. But I'm not sure the public schools are the place that should be done.

My dream is still that everyone will someday live in harmony --- all faiths, all creeds, all cultures. Despite everything, I remain an optimist.

Daisy, I feel about sex ed. as you do about teaching religion/humanism in the schools except I'm pretty convinced that I don't want sex ed in schools at all. I never wanted my children to learn about sex without also learning its moral value and I didn't want them to learn about it from someone whose values or even sexual orientation I didn't know or trust.

I once taught sex ed for a very short time and went through the training program for teachers. Sex ed material at that time consisted primarily of a cartoon video illustration of heterosexual intercourse. I felt it dehumanized the sex act. And it seemed to me that some of the teachers actually enjoyed the graphic discussion of sex in the classroom becaue of the way it stole the sexual innocence of children.

I think our world has given higher value to education than to innocence and once lost innocence cannot be restored except through the redemption of Christ's blood.

I hear they are now including other types of sexual orientation as a part of sex ed. That seems a further corruption of our children's innocence and I fear for my grandchildren.

Anyone else have opinions about sex ed in schools?

smile

[ January 26, 2006, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]

Well, I suspect that sex ed is another potentially explosive issue. I'll try to be careful, but again I want to treat all with respect, yet express my opinion.

I agree that sex ed needs to include a component that discusses the emotional aspect, as well as respect for the other person in the act. I have vivid memories of a sit-com with Burt Reynolds (can't remember the name). One of the side characters got roped into teaching sex ed and was very embarrassed. But then he came out with an impassioned speech. He said that sex begins in our heads and that is where we need to decide what we do with it. He talked about the importance of respecting ourselves and others. I'm not doing it justice.

I feel that we do need to have sex ed in schools, but with that component. I get edgy around the words "moral values," because it too frequently means something that I don't agree with.

As far as other types of sexual orientation, I think it should be an "optional" part of sex ed, out of respect for those who have issues with homosexuality and other variations. I don't, particularly and embrace my child knowing that other types of sexual orientation exist and that people who practice this are loving, spiritual human beings.

Innocence can be a whole topic unto itself. Short of putting a child in a bubble and never letting him/her talk to anyone or watch television, or go anywhere, I'm not sure you can keep them "innocent." I'd rather be the imparter of knowledge they are going to get anyway, although I undestand the perspective that some people feel there are topics best left to teachers and parents.

I do have to, respectfully, note that I don't agree with the statement "once lost innocence cannot be restored except through the redemption of Christ's blood." I do, however, applaud you for sharing your belief. Thank you.

Peace to all

There is a saying that could be answer both the religious issue and the sex issue and that saying is:

If you think Education Is Expensive/Dangerous,
Imagine The Price of Ignorance....

Casey and Smile you both have valid points but would you not agree that the best place for our children to learn about these topics is at home from their parents or parent? The schools are better than the streets or the internet. I began teaching my boys at a very young age about many things, these two topics among them and I felt they were equipped to listen to anyone elses theorys and still have the basic knowledge to listen, absorb and believe what they would believe. But 'WE' as parents must be the base, the rock they can hold onto that teaches them what we believe. My son has always done this with my grandchildren as well. Too many parents are passing the buck to the schools and then as NHJackie says, they jump up and down, rant and rave and want to sue somebody when the teachers do their jobs. Our childrens innocence will be taken away one way or another, hopefully our own teachings will make this a simple, gentle passing into adulthood. Teach values on everything important at home this will help them not to fall prey to wrongful teachings they are bound to hear out in the world. Just a thought!

I don't know if I mentioned that I'm a retired school teacher, which admittedly gives me a different slant on things than someone who has approached education just from a parents point of view. I've yet to meet a teacher who didn't respect the values of the parents whose children they teach. The problem is that so many parents have different values that you end up not pleasing anyone. It's a no win situation, one I'm happy not to have to deal with anymore.

Chatty, I agree with you that parents should be the 'base.' What a wonderful way to put that! I, too, talked to my boys from early on. It didn't always help and there have been some very rough times, but I know that they have a solid foundation to which to return.

And I sympathize with the teacher's plights. We really have asked them to go beyond what teachers were originally supposed to do, and it does seem to be a "no-win" situation. I've met more teachers who are happy to be done lately and that's really sad. They really try.

But after all that is said and done, what happens to the kids who don't have a good base? I don't particularly have an answer, but feel that we, as a community, must have something for them, or promote a place where they can get the "facts" and a loving personal presence (not the internet or the street).

Recently just in our local schools we have had teachers convicted of molesting students, pedophilia, soliting sex from under age children of both the same and opposite sex, maintaining illegal images on their school computers, photographing students in bathrooms, having babies by students, and no end of other disgusting sexual practices.

My children first learned about sex at home from me because I figured if they got any hang ups, I wanted them to be mine. I tried to keep them out of sex ed in the schools, but the teachers made such a big deal of it, they were embarrassed and I gave in.

As I said, some of the teachers I trained with for teaching sex ed seemed to get gratification from graphic sexual discussions. The discussions in the training programs were downright lewd. It was an eye opener. Of course the internet is a very bad place to learn about sex, but maybe kids should learn from their parents and each other as they always have.

If I had it to do over, I would not succumb to peer pressure as I did and I would keep my kids out of sex ed. But that's just me.

smile

[ January 26, 2006, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]

I have a funny story about the sex education in school. When they began it my youngest son came home and said, "now they're talking about sex, all the girls were giggling mom it was so dumb." My eldest(5 years older)says, "heck they always do that, just do like I did. Listen with one ear, think about football practice and smile alot. It'll be over before you know it."

[ January 26, 2006, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: chatty lady ]

From christmas trees to sex ed... it is excellent how we can broaden discussions.. My best friend and i were walking home from school in grade 4, and she proceeded to tell me about sex, and she used the biggest swear word possible in her description.... I was shocked and so angry that she would imply such a terrible thing about my mom and dad, i called her a liar, and i dont know who threw the first punch, but we had one big fight, ending up on the ground just battling it out....
After someone broke us apart i marched straight home to confront my mother .... needless to say i was stunned when she somewhat confirmed this horrible state of affairs...... (but she did give me a different word to use for what appeared to me an obvious abominable form of behavior.)

How times have changed..........

[ January 27, 2006, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: norma ]

I have had two daughters graduate from private Christian schools and one I home schooled through Junior High then she went on to alternative school. The one graduating from alterntive school is the one having all the problems with the law and her own choices.
The two oldest are doing great and have had their seasons of sowing wild oats, but the youngest still struggles and is promiscuous.
I can't begin to judge any one of my three daughters.
I just look at life as boot camp for eternity. One of my pet peeves is the person who gets into the blaming game. "If I had just had different parents", or "I was abused as a child." I trully am sorry for those experiences, but I still feel that as a diamond isn't at its finest until shaped and honed and cut, so life goes.
When my children were in sex education or health class...they came home and told me what they learned, then I calmly sat with them and explained 'our' point of view and pointed out the error in what was taught to them.

When my children were in kindergarten I showed them the cartoon "Where Did I Come From?" We also have the book which I read to them before showing them the cartoon. I wanted them to know the basics instead of the silly things I had heard on the playground when I was small. Like Number5 whenever they came home from school to tell me what was discussed in sex ed., we'd talk about what was incorrect. I was appalled that in fourth grade sex ed., in a Catholic school the teacher told them that "women do not get sexually aroused." Where does this incorrect and needless information fit into sex ed??
In high school it wasn't the teachers getting off on the sexually graphic nature of the class but the students asking the graphic questions themselves. This is according to what my daughter told me about last years health class. There are a few areas of sex ed. that a parent can discuss at home with your children as I did and still do with mine. In the fourth grade my kids asked me a question about homosexuality that appalled me but I felt I needed to correct. I never thought I'd have to be answering such a question but it was brought up by one of the other children on the playground.

Parents should'nt blame themselves if a child makes a bad choice. We can give them our best and fullest attention and hope they listen but society can affect them too. Unfortunately sex is pervasive and brought out in demeaning ways. I think every parent here is doing the best that they can but in the end our children make their own choices. We can't be there every minute of their lives.

We had a Planned Parenthood organization wanting to locate here in our town. A large group of parents protested it saying they only promote abortion. The Planned Parenthood organization itself said they offer other alternatives and counseling for troubled teens. Other parents felt the organization should be allowed to locate itself here. They also felt that the protestors were naively assuming their own children didn't or wouldn't need the services of Planned Parenthood.

This was the first year I can remember that our hospital did not have the traditional Christmas tree in our atrium. Our new Community Relations VP thought it was not "politically correct". Boy, did she get an earful from employees. She relented by having a tree put up downstairs outside an elevator that most people never use. It was tucked in a corner with only a few ornaments decorating it. It made me feel sad to see it tucked away in a corner as though it was being punished. At home we had a Christmas tree!

Heres a question....ever since I've been alive and for more years that can't be counted before my birth, we had a Christmas tree as did everyone else unless Jewish etc....My question is: WHEN DID IT BECOME POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO DO SO and who the heck had the nerve to change that, who and how did they get away with it....tell me that would someone please? Who is this devine shephard leading us all, his flock of blind, deaf and dumb sheep?

[ January 29, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Dotsie ]

When my daughter was in high school (not too many years ago)the health teacher brought in a banana and put a condom on it, in front of the boys and girls.

In my opinion, this is not sex education (how did boys learn how to use these things before the demos??). What the schools should do as part of their health and/or biology curriculuum, is teach reproduction. When they teach animal reproduction, do they show the animals doing it? Do they talk about whether the animal enjoys it? They should teach the science of egg and sperm and how they get together, in a scientific way and then end it!!
Since Adam and Eve were created, thousands of years ago, people seemed to know what to do and how to do it!!

[ January 27, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Bluebird ]

They also use the bananna demonstration here too Bluebird.

I agree that all the "other" things brought into sex education aren't necessary.

My kids caught a little of everything for sex ed…

When the kids were young I bought a Christian based book about sex that I felt encompassed the facts and values that I agreed with. As each of them was old enough I gave them the book. My daughter and I read it together. The boys wanted nothing to do with sex and Mom in the same room so I let them read it on their own and made it clear they could ask Dad and me anything…they asked nothing.

My oldest went to a Catholic HS where sex ed. was taught in 9th grade. The school held a parents’ night to go over the curriculum before the course started. I objected to the fact that EVERYTHING was taught coed, that boys and girls should have some class time with only their own sex to discuss the more personal aspects of anatomy and sexual encounters. I am far from a prude, but was very uncomfortable watching the videos and other materials with men other than my husband. How can we convince our kids to be modest with the opposite sex while forcing them to sit together to look at sexually explicit videos? It seemed to me a very confusing message for teenagers. I was totally shot down by the teachers!

I regret that I gave in so easily and kept my son in the class. I wish I had pulled him. As it turns out, he was given the same curriculum during his catholic confirmation classes.

Wow, FlipperJo, I'm surprised by that since I was married to a man who was Catholic and he said the nuns made him feel like a pervert for having sexual feelings.
He said they made sex dirty and it messed him up for many years. Toward his final years, he had turned to leather and bondage as the only way to find fulfillment.

I, too, am uncomfortable with co-ed sex education classes. During teenage years, it's tough for girls to speak out in regular classrooms, never mind something so personal. When I grew up, the education classes weren't co-ed and it was weird enough.

When I taught school on the reservation, I worked with the school counselor to get a small group of at-risk girls in one class. I taught English to them on an individualized basis, but we also discussed other things. I had a nurse come in and we went to the courthouse to watch a hearing. Life stuff. Because of the tribe and being white, I had to be careful. But there were over 300 teenage births a year on the reservation, so there was a impetus to get some education going. Many of these girls were having babies to have someone to love them because their home lives were very bad. Poor reasoning, I know, but I don't remember my teenage years as steller for decision-making! LOL.

number 5, my husband, too, said the nuns of his childhood were mean. the catholic church has come a long way in sex ed. but i'm not sure they are going the right direction.

casey, how fortunate those girls were to have you! the ed. system lost a good life teacher when you retired.

'Many of these girls were having babies, to have someone to love them ...'. I believe that is so true Casey.... when one of my daughters became pregnant at 16, i believe it was in a very large part, because of our inability as parents to give her the affection that she so needed .....

Some of you have mentioned sex education as taught within the church and the behavior of certain nuns .....

We all know that thousands more women in the past, went into the convent then now, but i doubt the reasons were always spiritual. Death or severe lifetime complications because of pregnancy and childbirthing was a very real possibility, (and apparently still is some nations with poor health services). Birth control was not easily available and certainly not approved of by the church. Nor was there a possibility of getting out of a bad marriage...... surely the convent may have seemed the lesser of two evils to more than a few.....

When i read the 'lives of the saints', over and over again, it seemed to be girls/women who maintaned their 'virginity' at all costs, were somehow deemed saints more than others, the unmarried, or those who did not remarry after the death of a spouse, seem to have been cannonized more than the married of either gender, these teachings, the requirement of celebacy and the whole concept that the mother of Jesus, being forever a virgin , certainly implies that no sex is better than having sex....... whether that is the intent or not......

Kids are constantly exposed to an education about sex, through television and other outlets..... unfortunately, the messages seldom seem to speak of sacrifice, tenderness or responsibility which is certainly part of love........

[ January 29, 2006, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: norma ]

Jesus had brothers and sisters. How could Mary have remained a virgin after the birth of Christ? Why would Joseph who gets absolutely no recognition, remain celebate also....? He was, after all, a flesh and blood male.
Jesus certainlly had brothers. Women were not mentioned as much in the lineage of families as men, but I'm sure in a society lacking birth control, he had sisters.
Mary only had to be a virgin for the conception and birth of Christ, not thruoghout her life.

There is no proof that Jesus had brothers and sisters. When it mentions "brethren" in the NT, it could have meant any family relations, like cousins. To back that up, go to the OT where it mentions Abraham and Lot being "brethren". Lot was Abraham's nephew.
If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why would he "give" His mother to John while He was dying on the cross? John took Mary into his home that very day - this would not have been proper if Mary had other children that should have taken care of her.
Why is it hard to believe that Mary remained a virgin after having Jesus? Did she not conceive a human child through the Holy Spirit?
BTW - did anyone ever think about where those 46 chromosomes of Jesus came from? If Mary gave Him 23 from her egg, and there was no sperm to contribute the other 23, where did they come from?

My personal opinion is that Jesus was not "born" in the normal way. When He resurrected from the dead, He would appear in a room where the doors were locked. Why couldn't He have come from Mary's womb the same way? Pain in childbirth was part of the curse on Eve (and us!) after the fall, but Mary was exempt from all those curses, if she was conceived w/o original sin.

[ January 31, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Bluebird ]

I'm not sure, BLuebird, I'll have to look it up again, but it does refer to one of the disciples as the brother of Jesus and in translation it doesn't maan as you are my sisters, it means flesh and blood just as Adam "knew" Eve and she concieved and bara a son.
It infers intimacy in much more than a "Philadelphia sort of way". I have studied the Greek and Hebrew translations of much of the scripture.
It wouldn't at all interfere with the holiness of Christ or make him any less the son of God. What it would do is take the diety away from Mary and place it squarely on the shoulders of God born in the flesh as a man and also give Christ the complete experience of manhood, down to the future expeience of having step brothers and sisters. After all, the brothers and sisters sired by Mary and Joseph would be the step brothers and sisters of Christ since his biological father was God.
It has never been hard for me to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin with God as his sire placed in the womb of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.
But to think that Mary had to remain a virgin while married to Joseph goes against the very teachings of Christ that a man and his wife "come together often" in the marriage bed.
Joseph was, after all, a man and a good respectable man at that who listened and obeyed the voice of God.
The diefication of Mary was incorporated into the Catholic faith during the time that the pagan religion was threatening to overtake Catholicism. The female goddesses of that time were worshipped and incorporated into faith right along with Easter eggs and the such. It was the only way the Faith could self perpetuate.

The Catholic Church does not and has never, deified Mary. Read the Catechism or any encyclical ever written about her.
Jesus having brothers and sisters wouldn't take away anything from Him, but if it's not true, it's not true. There is no evidence of it. Mary and Joseph agreed to marry, with him knowing that she had taken a vow of chastity. It was a marriage of convenience, probably so his kids (he was a widower)would have a mother. If Mary was planning on having children, why would she say to Gabriel "How can this be, since I know not a man?"...she was already "betrothed" to Joseph, which in the Jewish faith, meant married!
why would Joseph want to "put her away quietly" instead of just letting people think it was his child? He obviously loved and respected her.

The following is from a National Geographic article on the James ossuary:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox_2.html
QUOTE:
Jesus and James

Whether Jesus was the son of God is a theological problem, said Lemaire. But historians don't doubt the existence of either James or Jesus; both are mentioned frequently in early historical accounts.

Following the death of Jesus in 29 A.D., James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in 62 A.D. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection.

He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters. But the exact nature of these relationships—whether they were full siblings by blood, half siblings, or cousins—has been open to interpretation.

"If you're Catholic, you think they're cousins because the perpetual virginity of Mary is official church doctrine," said Witheringon. "But there are a lot of problems in the historical record with that."

"When James is referred to as the 'brother of our lord' in the New Testament, the word used means 'blood brother,'" he continued. "It would have to be qualified in context to mean something different."

A second interpretation is that James and the other siblings are half-brothers and -sisters, Joseph's children from a prior marriage.
END QUOTE

This seems to be one of those points that you could argue circles in, depending on what doctrine you have been taught and follow and how you choose to interpret it.

Well, as I know the story, she was engaged to be married to Joseph, which in that society was the same as being married only the marriage hadn't been consumated as indicated by the throwing down of the marriage sheet.
However, why would Mary and Joseph leave their other children and go looking for the one they finally found in the temple teaching the older men as an adult during the time of taxation?
Mary was about 12 yrs. old when she was bethrothed to Joseph and just after she was old enough to conceive when she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
It is of no importance what-so-ever either way to the historical and religious impact of the reason and reality of Christ and his ministry whether or not Mary remained a virgin.
She is of little consequence in the big plan except that she was the vehicle by which God came into the world. Maybe as an example of chastity and to show the suffering every mother has to bear who has children, but to assume that she is the mother of God is an insult to the almighty.
If it were true that Mary was on equal ground with God the father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit would imply a four-sided God instead of a Trinity...

I think we're getting into a whole 'nother' category here though and to me it isn't relevant. I think we should just agree to disagree or something and go on to other topics and I do apologize for yet another possible flap.
Sorry all. I'll keep my unpopular beliefs to myself.

No one said she was on equal footing with the Almighty. And if you believe that Jesus is truly God, then you had better believe she was the mother of God. In Luke chapter 2, it doesn't say that Mary and Joseph left any children to go find Jesus. And you still can't ignore the fact that John took Mary into his home - something that wouldn't have happened in a Jewish family, if there were other children.
Number5, you don't have to keep your beliefs to yourself! I'm not upset about this discussion. I just like to clear up misconceptions that people have about the Catholic church. I used to have them myself.

[ February 01, 2006, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Bluebird ]

Recently I was in a store that had "christmas"
cards on sale. I went through a load of boxes.
I could not find one! that said Merry Christmas!! It was awful! This past season, when the clerk would say Happy Holidays - I said Merry Christmas - so many whispered "Merry Christmas to you too"! I refuse to say Happy Holidays - and if, eventually , I have to make my own cards...I will! So There!!!

you go Sandi!! I'm composing my cards for next Christmas right now...

Its that kind of grit that will keep Christ in Christmas. Maybe if enough people boycott Walmart and all the other stores and make Christmas a celebration of the birth of Christ instead of a celebration of the pocketbook and materialism, a huge message would go up to those who need to hear it.

If you shop for your Christmas cards at one of the Christian book stores you won't have a problem with finding what you want. I can almost assure you they sell none that say Happy Holidays.

Good idea, Ladybug. I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of that.

I think if you don't have one of these types of stores around you really wouldn't think of it. The one in our town went out of business but there's another one close by.