Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Homework promoting polygamy & Islam garb sent home with students

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by The Old American
 


How is this homework assignment a 'violation of the 1st amendment?


It isn't. But every time a Christian sneezes in school the trolls come out of the woodwork on ATS to argue about it somehow violating the separation of church and state. But Islam is apparently OK to them because it's just a cultural thing.

/TOA




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by The Old American
 


How is this homework assignment a 'violation of the 1st amendment?


It isn't. But every time a Christian sneezes in school the trolls come out of the woodwork on ATS to argue about it somehow violating the separation of church and state. But Islam is apparently OK to them because it's just a cultural thing.

/TOA


But you DO get that this wasn't 'teaching' Islam. It was a reading assignment.

If the reading assignment was about a NASCAR driver, would you see it as 'promoting driving fast in a circle'?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by The Old American
 


How is this homework assignment a 'violation of the 1st amendment?


It isn't. But every time a Christian sneezes in school the trolls come out of the woodwork on ATS to argue about it somehow violating the separation of church and state. But Islam is apparently OK to them because it's just a cultural thing.

/TOA


But you DO get that this wasn't 'teaching' Islam. It was a reading assignment.

If the reading assignment was about a NASCAR driver, would you see it as 'promoting driving fast in a circle'?



I don't see this as anything at all. But that isn't my point, which you seem to be missing.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Do you find you get to where you are going backpeddling like that?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Do you find you get to where you are going backpeddling like that?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by RedGod
More importantly though....what's so wrong with polygamy?


Those who keep dragging the issue back to this thought are making the issue too simple. Is there anything about the merits or lack thereof in polygamy that is so imperative to teach a 7th grader? Not really. If we don't want lifestyles forced on kids, we shouldn't even bring them up and let them figure out what they want. If we want certain lifestyles addressed as being preferential, then we educate. The problem is that the law is preferential--don't make a corporation out of marriage. Could the purpose of this paper have been accomplished without bringing up something that is illegal in the US? Absolutely. So, it's rather pointless to make this a 7th grade discussion.


I agree, we shouldn't be teaching lifestyle choices in schools any more than we should teach religion in schools. Problem is, if we don't present these alternate lifestyle choices then we are teaching a lifestyle: that of the heterosexual couple. Think about it. The literature, the health classes, all of it is presented nearly unanimously in that light, leaving any other way of life to be seen as abnormal (in the sense it's not what is supposed to happen, not in that it's less common), which leads to those practicing it being shunned.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by RedGod

Because adults are old enough to dress that way. High-school kids should not be dressing as provocatively as they are. People get surprised when guys, especially adult guys, pressure these girls into sex but it's hard to blame them when you see what they wear.

Adults should be setting the boundaries, not the standard.


There's not any difference between a sexually mature teenager dressing provocatively and an 'adult' dressing the same way. You mean to tell me certain clothing is innapropriate for a 16 or 17-year-old, but suddenly when they turn the magic number of 18, it's not? Adults dressing and behaving a certain way, all the while telling their kids not to is downright hypocritical...."do as I say, not as I do". Who could respect that? When there are nearly NO boundaries in the adult world, there's not going to be for the generation they're raising either.


Physically, there's not much difference between an older teen and a young adult. Mentally there is nothing different between a teenager the day before and the day after their 18th birthday. There is, however, this little thing called "The Law". And while it is arbitrary, it is still in effect.

My question to you is; Why should my best friend, who has no children, have to amend her behavior to set an example to the children of others? The answer is obvious, she shouldn't. The only people who should be setting an example are the parents, and then only to their children. Their children are not my responsibility. I have a child, so I have a responsibility to him to set a good example. My friend, however, survived to adulthood, did as she should have, stayed out of trouble (mostly), and now is an adult, thus earning the right to behave in a manner that she wishes so long as it abides by applicable law.

It's the equivalent of a Sergeant Major telling a private to do push-ups for swearing, yet swearing himself while doing so. He has been through that time, and has earned his place. The private has to learn now, and down the road he will have earned the ability to do what he wants, within reason, while others will not be able to.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGod
 


What on earth does any of that have to do with what we were discussing? You made a complaint about a lack of modesty by high school students. It's not different when 'adults' dress immodestly. I don't believe there's any laws pertaining to the manner of dress concerning (strictly) minors. I'm not getting what your complaint is exactly.

Just for the record, all of the adults of a society as a whole have the power to implement certain standards & expectations and set societal norms for the upcoming generation. People ARE largely products of their society. The only possible way for parents to be the ONLY example for their children is if they live on some deserted island or keep their children in a bubble. To think that only 2 people have such power over the influence of an entire society is just not reasonable or realistic. Everyone needs to take responsbility and realize they have an obligation to the society they live in- an obligation to future generations. We're supposed to be progressing as a civilization- not just simply self-indulging our way through life while complaining about everyone else, i.e "kids these days" and their behavior that they were taught was acceptable.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Charmed707 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Pay taxes, I don't ef'ing think so, the guberment @ssclowns owe me way too much.

There's a difference between working the system and proclaiming 'STOP PAYING TAXES'...especially on this site.
Personally, if everybody paid their fair share, we'd all be in better shape. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization.
edit on 27-9-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because


No, the gouging that goes on today is because of ridiculous interest rates charged against money borrowed by the government from the IMF's private corporation called the Bank of Canada. If we printed our own money rather than borrowing it at interest from a private corporation owned by the international banking cartel, the present tax rates could be reduced by 50% across the board. We all know that would certainly stimulate the economy rather than stifle it.

No we are paying for @ssclowns in government to use us, a perfect example would be that new set of bills, C50, 51 and 52 or take bill C6/C36 or whatever the new number is. These jackasses in government are running one of the biggest criminal scams on the planet, second only to the IMF and BIS.

Don't tell me about paying a fair share, this government has given me nothing so far and I really don't expect they will. They have however wasted a lot of time on me with CSIS. And don't tell me I work the system, I understand my rights and the rights of corporations under the law, do you?

These idiots in government are just as corrupt as they always were and just a breath away from a new scandal. Remember what happened in the HR scandal, misplaced a billion dollars, ooops. Wait till you see what comes next in the funny pages because we all know it's coming ;-)

I'll say it again, STOP PAYING TAXES. If everyone stops, the insanity will stop because the governments and their handlers will be forced to change the way things are done.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/27.2011 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 


The reason for my complaint was, if you read it when I first posted, that the way these teens dress causes them to get a good deal of sexual attention. Often from men older than they are. When I go out to the yoga-berry to get some blueberry frozen yogurt, and a good looking, young lady dressed like an adult catches my attention, naturally I'm going to be likely to hit on her a little. If that little turns in to a lot, and I don't broach the subject of age, then I'm the A-hole, right? That's where the law comes in to effect (I probably could have been more clear). Not in that there is a law telling them how to dress, but rather that the way they dress is rather appealing and baits men into illegal actions.

ETA: As for the examples to the children. Yes, children will see other people. Yes, they will be an example of things. A good parent, however, will be a role model. A child will take after a good parent instead of an example (an example can be, after all, good or bad, and explained as either).
edit on 9/27/2011 by RedGod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Remember ladies...if you get "raped" you are not a victim but a seductress. The rapist simply could not control his lust that was furthered by your sexually provocative clothing...



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by The Old American
 


How is this homework assignment a 'violation of the 1st amendment?
It isn't. It's a violation of "Separation of Church and State" which is a lose interpretation upheld AS the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
I think the point of the lesson was made quite obvious in the article.

It was to give a different perspective on the topic of dress codes.

Incredibly simple when you just read beyond the headline.
The problem was it went off topic into an illegal practice in the United States, therefore making it a useless different perspective on dress code, as it is broader than dresscode. And on top of that, for most of those students it would have been so controversial a concept that it would have taken far more than 2 days to thoroughly address.

Originally posted by RedGod
I agree, we shouldn't be teaching lifestyle choices in schools any more than we should teach religion in schools. Problem is, if we don't present these alternate lifestyle choices then we are teaching a lifestyle: that of the heterosexual couple. Think about it. The literature, the health classes, all of it is presented nearly unanimously in that light, leaving any other way of life to be seen as abnormal (in the sense it's not what is supposed to happen, not in that it's less common), which leads to those practicing it being shunned.
I get where you're coming from, I really do. I understand that people are unnaturally against what they've not been exposed to. I even think that it is wrong to make polygamy a crime--especially a felony. But while it is illegal, I don't want kids to have a discussion about it in a Government run program, until they're legally an adult. Heck, I'd prefer it wasn't dealt with until closer to the age where the area of the brain governing inhibitionis fully matured. (This isn't until 25.) But there's no way in the world I'm going to get that.

Originally posted by Tulkor
Remember ladies...if you get "raped" you are not a victim but a seductress. The rapist simply could not control his lust that was furthered by your sexually provocative clothing...
Speaking as a woman who has dressed provocatively in her time (Like I'm THAT old, :lol
:

1. You are NEVER responsible for the first thought that pops into your head. What you do with that thought is what you are in control of, and therefore responsible for.
2. Men are TRIGGERED by sight. That means when someone dresses just like their favorite porn star, the first thought that pops into their mind is not going to be: "Oh, she's pretty" but more likely to be "I remember THAT scene". They don't have to think about it at all to have an "instant dog" moment.
3. Most women are not triggered by sight, so they won't get this without being educated on it.
4. Irrelevant of awareness, dressing in certain manners will cause a trigger fro most men, so when a woman dresses the part, and they trigger the first thought, they are at fault.
5. When the man does nothing to regain control of his thoughts he is at fault for his thoughts, as well as the subsequent behaviors.
6. While the woman is at fault for the first thought, she will be 100% the victim if the random guy rapes her.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tulkor
Remember ladies...if you get "raped" you are not a victim but a seductress. The rapist simply could not control his lust that was furthered by your sexually provocative clothing...


No one said they weren't a victim. Way to overreact.

Flash a roll of hundreds to a con artist, and he's going to try to fleece you. You're still the victim, but there's a reason you were victimized.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You think it is a big surprise someone might lie?

I don't think so.

Maybe that IS why I am on a conspiracy web-site.

Not so gullible.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
@ ARealandTrueAmerican ...

But your example was to DRINK moonshine.
you LIE.
my example was to "Sample" the shine which isn't to drink it or perhaps you're too young to know that.
a sample is nothing more than wetting the lips (literally), not a shot, not a drink but a sample
me thinks your imagination runs wild.

for children to "contemplate" illegal acts is sampling them. to act on them is criminal.
for a school lesson to be directing children to tolerate illegal acts is immoral.
(and probably so in most religions)
___________________________________________________

@ All who replied to me specifically ... sorry i didn't respond promptly, life took me away for awhile.

so, to those who think moonshine is a bad example, i disagree.
i know enough about moonshine that i do not need to read about it.

1st - moonshine is southern "culture"
2nd - moonshine is still produced today (it's not a historical thing)
3rd - children of moonshiners often have their first sample before age 12
4th - children of shiners are also well versed in the process generally by age 10
5th - it IS a cultural thing and equal to Islam if you're using the cultural premise
6th - it is as illegal as polygamy
7th - since the 'brew' time doesn't happen overnight, the relativity with the assignment should be obvious
8th - neither the subject matter or the author have any greater impact than the thought process it inspires
9th - neither are age appropriate for the 'masses' taught in public schools
and lastly ... it is just an analogy but an equal one considering the illegal aspects of both.

re: polygamy - i never denounced it or indicated it was a bad thing ... however, in Amrerica it IS an illegal thing!

IF the author was without an agenda, why infer illegal activities are just 'misunderstood' ?
why even include illegal activities (polygamy) as a point of discussion regarding dress-code?
and, the subject matter concerning the authors' comfort with Sharia law has no place in American primary schools at all.

I do not have a problem with a culture lesson, this was not.
I do not have a problem with muslims as a people, but this lesson was not about them either.
I do not have a problem with the lesson as a whole ... however, this material was inappropriate for the age group, inappropriate for the subject of dress-code, inappropriate as a 7th grade discussion and completely inappropriate as a 'culture assignment'. why? because this was commentary about a SECT of a culture, not the culture as a whole.

An equivalent could be the study of Santeria (also doesn't belong in public school) which would include special attire, special tools, special praise of the ceremonial acts (burka), and fleshy offerings.
It is as much a part of the American culture as islam wishes to be.

contrary to what the "anti-" confusion states ... for the record, i am not anti-muslim, i am anti-religion.
and, as an anti-religious person, i am highly offended that any religious material is being utilized in public school, period.
I pay taxes just like everyone else ... keep your religion to yourself, please?
There are much more important subjects and lessons to learn.

and for the poster who claims slavery being taught in a positive light is any kind of comparison ... are u serious? fyi ... slavery was legally practiced and accepted for more than 100yrs
fyi ... so was moonshine
polygamy however, has been outlawed for more than 100yrs ... sooooo, are you suggesting if polygamy is decriminalized then slavery should be also?

i kinda think not but your analogy doesn't even come close in comparison.
slavery wasn't a cultural thing either.
moonshine, the rebel flag, santeria, book burnings, bra burnings, rebellion of all kinds ... these are all tied directly to southern heritage and culture but you don't see public school lessons on them.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
this will probably get deleted but to those of you using attire as a rape cop-out ... you are wrong.
many women in less than appealing attire are raped, daily.
rape is about power and control, not sex.
sex is merely the tool.
shame on you posters who think women should be responsible for a mans' inability to control himself.
psssst, not all rapists are men.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by The Old American
 


How is this homework assignment a 'violation of the 1st amendment?
It isn't. It's a violation of "Separation of Church and State" which is a lose interpretation upheld AS the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
I think the point of the lesson was made quite obvious in the article.

It was to give a different perspective on the topic of dress codes.

Incredibly simple when you just read beyond the headline.
The problem was it went off topic into an illegal practice in the United States, therefore making it a useless different perspective on dress code, as it is broader than dresscode. And on top of that, for most of those students it would have been so controversial a concept that it would have taken far more than 2 days to thoroughly address.

Originally posted by RedGod
I agree, we shouldn't be teaching lifestyle choices in schools any more than we should teach religion in schools. Problem is, if we don't present these alternate lifestyle choices then we are teaching a lifestyle: that of the heterosexual couple. Think about it. The literature, the health classes, all of it is presented nearly unanimously in that light, leaving any other way of life to be seen as abnormal (in the sense it's not what is supposed to happen, not in that it's less common), which leads to those practicing it being shunned.
I get where you're coming from, I really do. I understand that people are unnaturally against what they've not been exposed to. I even think that it is wrong to make polygamy a crime--especially a felony. But while it is illegal, I don't want kids to have a discussion about it in a Government run program, until they're legally an adult. Heck, I'd prefer it wasn't dealt with until closer to the age where the area of the brain governing inhibitionis fully matured. (This isn't until 25.) But there's no way in the world I'm going to get that.

Originally posted by Tulkor
Remember ladies...if you get "raped" you are not a victim but a seductress. The rapist simply could not control his lust that was furthered by your sexually provocative clothing...
Speaking as a woman who has dressed provocatively in her time (Like I'm THAT old, :lol
:

1. You are NEVER responsible for the first thought that pops into your head. What you do with that thought is what you are in control of, and therefore responsible for.
2. Men are TRIGGERED by sight. That means when someone dresses just like their favorite porn star, the first thought that pops into their mind is not going to be: "Oh, she's pretty" but more likely to be "I remember THAT scene". They don't have to think about it at all to have an "instant dog" moment.
3. Most women are not triggered by sight, so they won't get this without being educated on it.
4. Irrelevant of awareness, dressing in certain manners will cause a trigger fro most men, so when a woman dresses the part, and they trigger the first thought, they are at fault.
5. When the man does nothing to regain control of his thoughts he is at fault for his thoughts, as well as the subsequent behaviors.
6. While the woman is at fault for the first thought, she will be 100% the victim if the random guy rapes her.

for someone who claims to be 'closely' aligned with the public school system, it does not surprise me that even you have no clue what the 1st amendment says, implies or preserves.

there is NO such separation clause in the 1st ... that is a figment of your imagination !!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

if you believe this assignment is in violation of the 1st, please post which law Congress passed that applies.

i completely agree that lifestyles aren't subject matter for the school system, at all.
lifestyles and exposure to them happen in everyday life and should be 'taught' by parents and family.
for you to imply that the heterosexual model is exclusively represented, i disagree.
and, rape is about power and control, not sex ... attire has no relevance.
tip -- not all rapists are men



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
this will probably get deleted but to those of you using attire as a rape cop-out ... you are wrong.
many women in less than appealing attire are raped, daily.
rape is about power and control, not sex.
sex is merely the tool.
shame on you posters who think women should be responsible for a mans' inability to control himself.
psssst, not all rapists are men.


Shame on you for reading all of ten words and then regurgitating the words that were crammed down your throat completely out of context. In this context the rape is about sex. Statutory rape. That is what we are talking about.

And thanks for pointing out there are different kinds of victims. Really opens my eyes, Jack. Smokers aren't the only ones that suffer from heart disease, but not smoking reduces your risk factors. Why is it so wrong to suggest women lower their risk factor a little?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
re: polygamy - i never denounced it or indicated it was a bad thing ... however, in Amrerica it IS an illegal thing!

IF the author was without an agenda, why infer illegal activities are just 'misunderstood' ?
why even include illegal activities (polygamy) as a point of discussion regarding dress-code?
and, the subject matter concerning the authors' comfort with Sharia law has no place in American primary schools at all.


But you know, it's really only illegal because the U.S. Government couldn't constitutionally outlaw Mormonism. It was their way of being able to legally deal with the Mormon "threat" in Utah. As it was a law made to bypass the constitution, I see it as invalid.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGod

Originally posted by Honor93
this will probably get deleted but to those of you using attire as a rape cop-out ... you are wrong.
many women in less than appealing attire are raped, daily.
rape is about power and control, not sex.
sex is merely the tool.
shame on you posters who think women should be responsible for a mans' inability to control himself.
psssst, not all rapists are men.


Shame on you for reading all of ten words and then regurgitating the words that were crammed down your throat completely out of context. In this context the rape is about sex. Statutory rape. That is what we are talking about.

And thanks for pointing out there are different kinds of victims. Really opens my eyes, Jack. Smokers aren't the only ones that suffer from heart disease, but not smoking reduces your risk factors. Why is it so wrong to suggest women lower their risk factor a little?

i've read all the posts, not just bits and pieces.
considering the only difference in statutory rape is age ... power and control are still the driving forces. sex is a tool, nothing more.
don't know which words you think were crammed down my throat but they weren't.
i've had experience first hand, that is how i know and attire is merely a scapegoat.

no one is suggesting reducing risk factors is a bad thing but if we're discussing that, then clothing is still irrelevant. one can reduce risk by traveling in groups, carry a weapon/whistle, learn self-defense skills, be aware of your surroundings and various other skills. point is, clothing is irrelevant.

btw, if you believe clothes are the attraction and want reduced rape ... take all the clothes away.
zip, zilch, zero incidences of rape at naturalist/nudist colonies.






top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution