List of 14 States Where Governors Rejected Federal Abstinent Money

[SpiritMeadow]

The Church can’t impose its laws on other people anyway. But as Catholics we are called to be abstinent. LEGALITIES have NOTHING to do with morality.
First, some here have every intention of attempting to force Church teaching (laws) on other people. I agree, as Catholics we are certainly called to this. And I agree, legality has nothing to do with morality. However, you are going to have a very hard time declaring sex outside a valid marriage as a new law and requiring abstinence. Given that, people are not going to ban contraception no matter what you may want.

To suppose that all government policies are moral also skewers the debate to one side. Just because some people are not abstinent doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church should embrace their sins. If people muck themselves up, well, then they should have listened. It’s not like they weren’t warned.

No one is suggesting I don’t think that all govt. polices are moral. Goodness Gitmo would be the first on the list of immoral govt policies in my book. The catholic Church need not embrace anyone’s sins, but it also must respect that non-Catholics who are a majority of the planet have a right to differernt beliefs. You’re paternalistic reasoning that you are going to impose on others your views for their own good…well…I imagine you have some clue what people think of that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

predicated-1. To base or establish

This statement is false. This country was established with the principles of the Judaism and Christian religions. Many try to disassociate the religious past of this country in order to promote the false believe of separation of Church and State. There is a lack of knowledge of our country’s history.

I think your history is a bit faulty. The founding fathers were well aware of the fact that a Church/State was NOT wanted. They were well aware for instance of what happened to Socrates, one of the world’s greatest thinkers when he ran amok of the religion of his State and was condemned for “blaspheming the gods, and leading the Athenian youth to moral ruin.” They were most aware as well of John Locke, Montesque, Voltaire and others of the Enlightenment. (BTW, the non-establishment clause was hugely beneficial to Catholics in the early colonies where they were …you guessed it…persecuted for their faith.) Jefferson was a deist. Sure, most everyone believed in God, and most in this country were Christian, but that does not mean that the FF did not carelfully keep the two very separate. A huge chunk of history told them to do so, and they were right.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sure it does. No promiscuous behaviour, no disease. Problem addressed.

**You cannot parse answers in such a way that you can then argue them in a vacuum. The one sentence you quoted doesn’t stand alone but goes with the rest of the quote. **
Celibacy is a vocation some willingly dedicate themselves to. The Catholic Church does not require anyone to be celibate. You are getting off of the path now.

**It was not off the path at all, until you chose to isolate it as such singular statement. Put back in its context it is not off any path. **

The issue is whether contraceptive education should be taught in public schools. And the answer is no for a number of reasons. Firstly it is immoral and our country, being founded on Christian principles, needs to reflect those principles in its legislation. This is not a country founded on atheist principles. Two, it is false to say it protects from disease, so there is no protection.

Nobody thinks its immoral but catholics. That may make it immoral for you, but you have no riight to impose this on others. There has been plenty said already about whether or not we are founded on Christian principles, and this doesnt help your argument since most Christians find nothing immoral about contraception. It is not false to say that it prevents disease. Prove that it doesn’t !

It is inhumane to offer folks the opportunity to destroy their soul.
What most people think as already said before don’t make it so.

**Like I said before, your paternalistic totalitarian argument that you will do what’s best for others who are so debased they cannot think for themselves…well enough said…I’ve already seen quite faithful Catholics that I disagree with often, cringe at your insuations. **

 

[Mousey]

**Like I said before, your paternalistic totalitarian argument that you will do what’s best for others who are so debased they cannot think for themselves…well enough said…I’ve already seen quite faithful Catholics that I disagree with often, cringe at your insuations. **

Then the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The lesson to be learned is that we are indeed responsible for our brothers

I think your history is a bit faulty. The founding fathers were well aware of the fact that a Church/State was NOT wanted.

.
This has nothing to do with my premise. The founding fathers did not want to establish a state religion neither did they intend to establish a religion less country. They wanted freedom OF religion not From.

 

[mapleoak]

No one is suggesting I don’t think that all govt. polices are moral. Goodness Gitmo would be the first on the list of immoral govt policies in my book. The catholic Church need not embrace anyone’s sins, but it also must respect that non-Catholics who are a majority of the planet have a right to differernt beliefs. You’re paternalistic reasoning that you are going to impose on others your views for their own good…well…I imagine you have some clue what people think of that.

It is to be pondered what it might be that you would consider the need for government at all. Should there be any laws at all? If so, what should it be based on? Surely some moral criteria must be applied. Should it be illegal to steal someones sheep? What if I don’t see any problem with stealing a sheep. Should you be able to impose your morals on others? If so, why in this case?

I think your history is a bit faulty. The founding fathers were well aware of the fact that a Church/State was NOT wanted.

Actually, their intent was to not impose or prohibit the free practice of religious beliefs. Not to say that moral law cannot be imposed.
No, they did not intend for the moral rule to be whatever was most popular with the people. This is one of the main reasons the government was set up to utilize elected representatives. The intention was that people of above average moral character would be elected and make prudential decisions based on what they felt was right. They knew full well that leaving things to the popular vote would lead to moral ruin of our country. It is why I maintain that we need Catholic representatives in office to work towards governance based on Catholic principles.

Nobody thinks its immoral but catholics. That may make it immoral for you, but you have no riight to impose this on others. There has been plenty said already about whether or not we are founded on Christian principles, and this doesnt help your argument since most Christians find nothing immoral about contraception. It is not false to say that it prevents disease. Prove that it doesn’t !

Is is wrong to steal a sheep?

**Like I said before, your paternalistic totalitarian argument that you will do what’s best for others who are so debased they cannot think for themselves…well enough said…I’ve already seen quite faithful Catholics that I disagree with often, cringe at your insuations. **

Is it wrong to steal a sheep?
If most people thought it was okay, should it not then be illegal?

btw, your unorthodox use of the quoting system makes it hard to respond to your posts.

 

[c659smith]

wife of momoftwo and Karen KC

Now lets get back to the topic of the thread.

List of 14 States Where Governors Rejected Federal Abstinent Money

Why would the Governors reject Federal Money of abstinence unless thewre was another agenda.

Do Governors reject Federal Money on teaching sex education in the realm of birth control and abortion?
I think not.

This rejection has been forced upon these Governors through such liberal and anti life groups such as the N.E.A. , Planned Parenthood, and the A.C.L.U.

What are these groups afraid of, What is their motive,

You agree that sex education has not helped the teenage pregnancy rate as the figures you gave do not represent the differnece in population of our schools and the areas where poor and under privilidged children and teens are at and these courses are taught.

Again I ask what is the problem with abstince being taught in our schools as an alternative to contraception,protection, and abortion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is to be pondered what it might be that you would consider the need for government at all. Should there be any laws at all? If so, what should it be based on? Surely some moral criteria must be applied. Should it be illegal to steal someones sheep? What if I don’t see any problem with stealing a sheep. Should you be able to impose your morals on others? If so, why in this case?

**Why on earth would you conclude that i dont believe in Govt? Im no anarchist I can assure you. Of course there should be laws. They are based on what most people agree are right. There is a natural law, a common law, and most assuredly we look to our various faiths and take from them what we think is right and good. I doubt any society would find it useful to allow sheep stealing, still, one could imagine a society which allowed this no doubt. I generally don’t favor trying to impose personal moral from where ever derived on others. We are an interesting blend of both majority rule and protection of minority rights. It has a good deal to do with how the govt is set up. **
Actually, their intent was to not impose or prohibit the free practice of religious beliefs. Not to say that moral law cannot be imposed.

**You are correct, their intent was to prohibit the state from establishing a state religion. All were to be allowed to practice their faith or not as they saw fit. I’m not sure what you think moral law means. Perhaps you should define that. Many laws have little to do with morality. Others no doubt do. I agree they did not prohibit moral law, that would be rather absurd I presume. It is moral not to execute people over the age of 60. That is true whether one is a Catholic, Buddhist or atheist. **
No, they did not intend for the moral rule to be whatever was most popular with the people. This is one of the main reasons the government was set up to utilize elected representatives.
**Correct, its a blend between both majority rights and minority rights. It’s all in who gets effected. **

The intention was that people of above average moral character would be elected and make prudential decisions based on what they felt was right.

**Well that’s not entirely true. There are 2 models of representation. In one, the rep. determines the will of his constiuents, and votes accordingly. the other presumes that the rep is elected because he possesses qualities that engender faith that he can make decisions for his constituents. The HR is more the former, the Senate more the latter. **
They knew full well that leaving things to the popular vote would lead to moral ruin of our country. It is why I maintain that we need Catholic representatives in office to work towards governance based on Catholic principles.

**Oh I’m not sure that was the reason. but I do think they saw a national referendum as unwieldy and too subject to the whims of the day. I have read nothing that it was to prevent "moral ruin.’ Well I might agree with you, but I can assure you that the rest of the country will not. Catholics are still looked upon with suspicion. Claims that Catholics elected to office will make decisions from Catholic principles, smells too much like following teh church first. Catholics will not be elected if they run on such a platform. **

Is is wrong to steal a sheep?

**If I were a sheep farmer, i would sure as heck argue that it was. **

Is it wrong to steal a sheep?
If most people thought it was okay, should it not then be illegal?

**As I said, that would depend on the society. I can surely imagine one that allowed for it. But typically, no, in most places today, it surely would be wrong as inhibiting the livelyhood of another. **

btw, your unorthodox use of the quoting system makes it hard to respond to your posts.

**I’m sorry, but I’ve asked before, and apparently can’[t figure out how to do it better. No one has been willing to assist me. So sorry. that’s why I use the bold a lot. ****

 

[SpiritMeadow]

wife of momoftwo and Karen KC

Now lets get back to the topic of the thread.

List of 14 States Where Governors Rejected Federal Abstinent Money

Why would the Governors reject Federal Money of abstinence unless thewre was another agenda.

Do Governors reject Federal Money on teaching sex education in the realm of birth control and abortion?
I think not.

This rejection has been forced upon these Governors through such liberal and anti life groups such as the N.E.A. , Planned Parenthood, and the A.C.L.U.

What are these groups afraid of, What is their motive,

You agree that sex education has not helped the teenage pregnancy rate as the figures you gave do not represent the differnece in population of our schools and the areas where poor and under privilidged children and teens are at and these courses are taught.

Again I ask what is the problem with abstince being taught in our schools as an alternative to contraception,protection, and abortion.

As I understand it, thats just the problem. IF you accept the abstinence money, you can only teach abstinence. So I guess, if I’m correct, those groups had nothing much to do with it.

 

[KarenNC]

wife of momoftwo and Karen KC

Now lets get back to the topic of the thread…

Why would the Governors reject Federal Money of abstinence unless thewre was another agenda.

I would say that the agenda was refusing to allow the Federal government to dictate that the states must provide only information about abstinence rather than medically accurate information about sex overall.

Do Governors reject Federal Money on teaching sex education in the realm of birth control and abortion?
I think not.

If the Feds were to come and say “you can have this money if you will teach all of your students that the only viable way to avoid pregnancy is abortion”, I believe you would see a similar reaction.

You agree that sex education has not helped the teenage pregnancy rate as the figures you gave do not represent the differnece in population of our schools and the areas where poor and under privilidged children and teens are at and these courses are taught.

I do not agree to any such thing. The statistics I provided showed that it is neither abstinence alone nor better education in proper use of contraceptives alone that have been lowering the teen pregnancy rate for years, it is the combination of both.

You are going to have to explain what you mean by the rest of that.

Again I ask what is the problem with abstince being taught in our schools as an alternative to contraception,protection, and abortion.

Again, I respond that there is no problem in teaching abstinence along with medically accurate information on contraception, protection, abortion, etc. so that teens are in fact educated rather than propagandized. The problem comes with attempts to prevent any other information being presented along with abstinence.

 

[KarenNC]

**I’m sorry, but I’ve asked before, and apparently can’[t figure out how to do it better. No one has been willing to assist me. So sorry. that’s why I use the bold a lot. ****

It’s fairly easy. When the reply window comes up, you will see that the original message is framed between quote ] on the front and / quote ] on the end (I added spaces so that the words will show up, take them out when actually using them). These are called HTML tags, and tell the program how to display your text on the screen.

If you want to break the quote into sections, place / quote ] at the end of the first part to which you want to respond (since there’s already a / quote ] at the beginning that includes the poster’s name). Type in your response. The put quote ] at the beginning of the next section to which you wish to respond, ending with / quote ] and so on.

Hit message preview to see if it looks right. If it doesn’t, you have probably forgotten a / at the end of a passage or put the bracket facing the wrong way.

Hope that helps you and anyone else having the same problem.

 

[bankerdavid]

Oh, I certainly teach my child faith in the Gods, but this is an issue of morals and ethical behavior, not religion, for us.

You can’t simply say “Choose one God and one interpretation of that God’s plan for everyone.” If you do so, you run a substantial risk of having someone else’s idea of what God’s plan is being the one chosen, in which case you are actually worse off than you are now. Now, you are free to teach your view in your parochial schools, private schools, home schools, etc all you want, but not in the government funded US public schools.

Responding to the bolded part, for 1500 years, all Christians did, in fact, teach that there is one God and one plan. It was when some men took their faith in God, and chose to do it their way, rather than God’s way, that we began to shatter the one true faith into many faiths that all have part of the truth. It was man’s reliance on man, rather than God that put us in this boat to begin with. And I’m including many upper echelon Catholics of the time in this boat as well.

 

[bankerdavid]

This is another one of those issues (much like immigration) that frustrates the dickens out of me. People polarize the issue until it becomes a false dicotomy. Reality is not a danger to us here, folks. Contraceptives exist and to provide education that ignores them is as short-sighted as ignoring the benefits of abstinance.

1. Sex education in schools should be done in segregated classes so that kids can ask questions without nonsense.
2. Sex Ed should inform people how their bodies work, how babies are conceived, how menstrual cycles function, etc. on the biology.
3. Sex Ed must include a discussion about STDs. Discuss the prevalence of STD’s, summarize the biggies, emphasize the incurability of some of them (notably AIDS and Herpes). An honest sex ed program must emphasize CLEARLY that ONLY abstinance is 100% reliable as a way to prevent all STD transmission. Abstinance needs to be clearly defined so that kids know that they can still get an STD even if they haven’t quite gone ‘all the way.’ (and so that future presidents know who they have had sex with)
4. Contraceptives should be discussed with ALL the relevant data. The method of operation should be discussed so that people understand that some potentially operate via killing young embryos. The failure rate must be honestly presented so that kids don’t get the nonsensical idea that using a condom renders them truly SAFE (from either pregnancy or STD). (The ‘safe sex’ programs in place when I was in high school probably KILLED kids by leading them to believe that they would be safe having sex as much as they liked, as long as they used a condom). Ethical problems with contraception should be discussed (dogmatically so in catholic schools, discussionally in public ones) and kids should be sent home with handouts to be initialled by parents to indicate that they have discussed their personal ethical views on the matter with the kids. FACTS about NFP and its basis in the healthy function of the female body should be presented (not denigration of it as ‘rythym’ 30 years after NFP became symptom based, like was the case at my school)
5. Sexuality must be presented as deeply rooted in the human psyche and not a merely physical activity like soccer. Don’t laugh, that’s how it was presented in MY public high school. There is no reason that public schools need to pretend that humans are mere random bags of chemical reactions. Public education can discuss the emotional problems of promiscuity, the prevalence of violence among the promiscuous, the risk of disease transmission and the effect of promiscuity on ones view of his/her own dignity. Again, a mechanism should be thought up to ensure that kids have had a discussion of sexual morality with their parents.

As catholics, we have nothing to fear from a spin-free presentation to teenagers about human sexuality. Our culture clearly is attempting to rebel against our basic human nature. True factual presentation of all the facts merely bolsters our case that sex is special, permanently bonds a couple together and when abused has legion of physical, emotional and psychological risks.

Too often catholics react against ALL sex education because so many of the actual sex ed programs have been hijacked by those seeking to destigmatize promiscuity and promote contraception. The solution is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, it is to simply change the water in the bath!

This is so true, but what actually happens 99.9% of the time-seeking to destigmatize promiscuity. The solution should be to start over, and teach what is fact.

 

[bankerdavid]

Okay.

So getting back to my previous point (post #33, and nice additional food for thought by SpiritMeadow #37) It would seem to me that most people disagree with the above statement.

I personally believe such matter are for the parents to decide, but I keep seeing and hearing otherwise.

So does it appears most parents these days agree with contraception and underage sexual activity? (as encouraged by the public schools) And if so are the rest of us forced to accept it?

Help me out here, I’m in a corner

In today’s society, many parents use all sorts of substitutes for themselves-day care, Nickelodeon, etc. because they are too busy working to take care of their children. And too busy to notice what their kids might be doing.

 

[Filius99993]

This is another one of those issues (much like immigration) that frustrates the dickens out of me. People polarize the issue until it becomes a false dicotomy. Reality is not a danger to us here, folks. Contraceptives exist and to provide education that ignores them is as short-sighted as ignoring the benefits of abstinance.

1. Sex education in schools should be done in segregated classes so that kids can ask questions without nonsense.
2. Sex Ed should inform people how their bodies work, how babies are conceived, how menstrual cycles function, etc. on the biology.
3. Sex Ed must include a discussion about STDs. Discuss the prevalence of STD’s, summarize the biggies, emphasize the incurability of some of them (notably AIDS and Herpes). An honest sex ed program must emphasize CLEARLY that ONLY abstinance is 100% reliable as a way to prevent all STD transmission. Abstinance needs to be clearly defined so that kids know that they can still get an STD even if they haven’t quite gone ‘all the way.’ (and so that future presidents know who they have had sex with)
4. Contraceptives should be discussed with ALL the relevant data. The method of operation should be discussed so that people understand that some potentially operate via killing young embryos. The failure rate must be honestly presented so that kids don’t get the nonsensical idea that using a condom renders them truly SAFE (from either pregnancy or STD). (The ‘safe sex’ programs in place when I was in high school probably KILLED kids by leading them to believe that they would be safe having sex as much as they liked, as long as they used a condom). Ethical problems with contraception should be discussed (dogmatically so in catholic schools, discussionally in public ones) and kids should be sent home with handouts to be initialled by parents to indicate that they have discussed their personal ethical views on the matter with the kids. FACTS about NFP and its basis in the healthy function of the female body should be presented (not denigration of it as ‘rythym’ 30 years after NFP became symptom based, like was the case at my school)
5. Sexuality must be presented as deeply rooted in the human psyche and not a merely physical activity like soccer. Don’t laugh, that’s how it was presented in MY public high school. There is no reason that public schools need to pretend that humans are mere random bags of chemical reactions. Public education can discuss the emotional problems of promiscuity, the prevalence of violence among the promiscuous, the risk of disease transmission and the effect of promiscuity on ones view of his/her own dignity. Again, a mechanism should be thought up to ensure that kids have had a discussion of sexual morality with their parents.

As catholics, we have nothing to fear from a spin-free presentation to teenagers about human sexuality. Our culture clearly is attempting to rebel against our basic human nature. True factual presentation of all the facts merely bolsters our case that sex is special, permanently bonds a couple together and when abused has legion of physical, emotional and psychological risks.

Too often catholics react against ALL sex education because so many of the actual sex ed programs have been hijacked by those seeking to destigmatize promiscuity and promote contraception. The solution is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, it is to simply change the water in the bath!

Two years ago, when I went through sex-ed in Kansas, it was abstinence based. We didn’t really discuss NFP, as it was a public school, but otherwise it went pretty much the way you said it should be. We were taught ethics, though, as my Health teacher was a strong Catholic. He was pretty awesome. We were taught about failure rates of contraceptives and their side effects, and STDs too. I’m not sure if anyone else listened or paid attention, but at least I did.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s fairly easy. When the reply window comes up, you will see that the original message is framed between quote ] on the front and / quote ] on the end (I added spaces so that the words will show up, take them out when actually using them). These are called HTML tags, and tell the program how to display your text on the screen.

Wow, thanks so much! I’ve been criticized like 3 times for this, twice very very angrily…yet no one would explain how to do it, correctly. For some reason this stuff never seems to be intuitive, at least not for me. !

Thank you!!!

 

[bankerdavid]

You’ll be familiar with the following, then.

Where the preamble declares, “that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion”, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. Proclaimed June 10, 1797.

earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

*In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” [/l]

and

[l]“They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point”*

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

You know, I used to think the the foundation of our country was a great thing. That Jefferson and Adams were really the great men and set a good model for our country. They were, in some ways, but they defined morality as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Their ideas were not based on divine law. They had a great distaste for Catholic Theology. Samuel Adams wrote in 1768 “I did verily believe, as I still do, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” John Adams wrote to Jefferson “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” By the time of the American Revolution, every colony except Pennsylvania had anti-Catholic laws prohibiting Catholics from voting, running for or holding office, attending religious services, etc. Massachusetts had laws forbidding all Irish and priests to enter the colony. In 1795 Bishop Fenwick purchased three acres of land for a cemetery on Bunker Hill next to a Protestant cemetery. He was told that the health regulations of the city prevented the burial of Roman Catholics, though they did allow for the burial of Protestants.

None of this is to say that these weren’t great men, but the Protestant Reformation, and the attitudes it generated-to put God pretty much out of the picture-had a great deal to do with our attitudes today, and frankly, most of them (the attitudes) suck wind.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You know, I used to think the the foundation of our country was a great thing. That Jefferson and Adams were really the Fathers of this country. They were, but they had a great distaste for Catholic Theology. Samuel Adams wrote in 1768 “I did verily believe, as I still do, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” John Adams wrote to Jefferson “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” By the time of the American Revolution, every colony except Pennsylvania had anti-Catholic laws prohibiting Catholics from voting, running for or holding office, attending religious services, etc. Massachusetts had laws forbidding all Irish and priests to enter the colony. In 1795 Bishop Fenwick purchased three acres of land for a cemetery on Bunker Hill next to a Protestant cemetery. He was told that the health regulations of the city prevented the burial of Roman Catholics, though they did allow for the burial of Protestants.

None of this is to say that these weren’t great men, but the Protestant Reformation, and the attitudes it generated-to put God pretty much out of the picture-had a great deal to do with our attitudes today, and frankly, most of them (the attitudes) suck wind.

Wow, I knew Catholics were persecuted in the colonies but had no idea it was quite that bad. All the more salutations to our FF for havinig the courage to protect us as well when they prohibited the govt from establishing any religion. I’d have thought the Enlightenment had more to do with the idea that Govt and Church don’t mix than the reformation. Historically, even the Church recognized the disaster that can occur when the state and church are tightly entwined.

 

[KarenNC]

Responding to the bolded part, for 1500 years, all Christians did, in fact, teach that there is one God and one plan. It was when some men took their faith in God, and chose to do it their way, rather than God’s way, that we began to shatter the one true faith into many faiths that all have part of the truth. It was man’s reliance on man, rather than God that put us in this boat to begin with. And I’m including many upper echelon Catholics of the time in this boat as well.

Yes, Christians have indeed taught this. However, there has never been a time when the US consisted solely of Christians, much less a particular type of Christianity.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by** bankerdavid**
Their ideas were not based on divine law. They had a great distaste for Catholic Theology. Samuel Adams wrote in 1768 “I did verily believe, as I still do, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” John Adams wrote to Jefferson “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?”

The leaders and people in general were anti-Pope and anti-Catholic yet many of the leaders were of a religious background. They also allowed a Catholic to take part in and sign the Declaration of Independence. George Washington wrote a letter to the Catholics thanking them for their part in the War of Independence. If you read their writings you will see references to God and religion.

John Adams wrote:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

originally posted by** KarenNC**
However, there has never been a time when the US consisted solely of Christians

The 100 people on the Mayflower of which 41 signed the Mayflower Compact were Christians

.“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” - Patrick Henry

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

wife of momoftwo and Karen KC

Now lets get back to the topic of the thread.

List of 14 States Where Governors Rejected Federal Abstinent Money

Why would the Governors reject Federal Money of abstinence unless thewre was another agenda.

Do Governors reject Federal Money on teaching sex education in the realm of birth control and abortion?
I think not.

This rejection has been forced upon these Governors through such liberal and anti life groups such as the N.E.A. , Planned Parenthood, and the A.C.L.U.

What are these groups afraid of, What is their motive,

You agree that sex education has not helped the teenage pregnancy rate as the figures you gave do not represent the differnece in population of our schools and the areas where poor and under privilidged children and teens are at and these courses are taught.

Again I ask what is the problem with abstince being taught in our schools as an alternative to contraception,protection, and abortion.

Nothing. Abstinence is all that is taught in my kids schools:thumbsup: