In article <3vvpm15srr6kpi0lodub3i5d49dhpfk8ks@4ax.com>, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:07:18 -0800,

In article <3438949.ZzTbIobSnj@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jason wrote:

... However, when a hard core evolutionist clearly states his or
her opinion--that's NOT arrogance. Have you considered that I am also
frustrated.
Jason

Jason, I would expect you to be frustrated because the preponderance

of the

scientific evidence is in favor of some variation on evolution and
contradicts the fundamental beliefs of a creationism. Holding to such
beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence is a frustrating experience
and may force one to question and ultimately reject core religious beliefs
that long ago failed the test of truth by the facts of the universe as it
really is.

Pramesh,
I am frustrated but the reasons are not what you think they are. I'm
frustrated because some stupid judge ruled yesterday that the staff
members of a public elementary school were not guilty. Those staff members
ordered public school elementary school students to take a sex survey. I
don't have the news report in front of me but could probably find the AP
story upon request. I seem to recall that some of the children were only 7
or 8 years old. They asked all sorts of very personal questions that I
will not even repeat. The parents filed a law suit after they found out
about it. The judge ruled that they school system did not do anything
wrong.

Indeed what was wrong with asking them a few questions? All
they are doing is finding out what they know, not telling them things.

I hope the kids get proper sex education at the appropriate age. When
I went to school it was a 'playground' subject only and therefore we
got a unhealthy 'naughty' view about sex instead of considering it as
an essential part of life and not something unhealthy to be whispered
about round the back by the dustbins.

What were the questions?

Les Hellawell

Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County

Les,
Do you think that it's okay for teachers to ask 7 year students personal
questions such as
How often do you touch yourself or think about sex?

Do you think that it could do harm to a student?

Do you think that it's okay for high school teachers to teach students
about Intelligent Design?

Do you think that it would do harm to a student?

If you have any small children, do you want teachers to ask them how
often they think about sex?

In article <9jdom1hamfq0hgpkdnkg8uiinddflg1ih7@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:07:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0411051707180001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <3438949.ZzTbIobSnj@192.168.1.1>, Pramesh Rutajit
<p2976221tongue@newsguy.com> wrote:

Jason wrote:

... However, when a hard core evolutionist clearly states his or
her opinion--that's NOT arrogance. Have you considered that I am also
frustrated.
Jason

Jason, I would expect you to be frustrated because the preponderance

of the

scientific evidence is in favor of some variation on evolution and
contradicts the fundamental beliefs of a creationism. Holding to such
beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence is a frustrating experience
and may force one to question and ultimately reject core religious beliefs
that long ago failed the test of truth by the facts of the universe as it
really is.

Pramesh,
I am frustrated but the reasons are not what you think they are. I'm
frustrated because some stupid judge ruled yesterday that the staff
members of a public elementary school were not guilty. Those staff members
ordered public school elementary school students to take a sex survey. I
don't have the news report in front of me but could probably find the AP
story upon request. I seem to recall that some of the children were only 7
or 8 years old. They asked all sorts of very personal questions that I
will not even repeat. The parents filed a law suit after they found out
about it. The judge ruled that they school system did not do anything
wrong. I'm frustrated because judge can ruled that it's okay to force
little children to conduct a sex survey.

If your reading comprehension of this story is anything like your
understanding of evolution, you probably got it wrong. Since you don't
bother to give us a reference, I see no reason to believe your claim at
all.

In the past three weeks, a group
of evolutionists have been telling me that they don't want high school
students to be exposed to ID. The judge will probably rule that ID can't
be taught in the public school system. Why am I frustrated? According to
judges, it's okay to force little children to take SEX surveys but
probably not okay for high schools students to learn about ID. "Beem me up
Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here."

What was the survey, where was it done, why was the claim dismissed?

Do you know that not guilty is a decision in a criminal trial? What
crime were these people charged with?

I heard this story on a news program and I found this related story on a
website:


November 3, 2005
9th Circuit 'Declares War' on Parental Rights

by Pete Winn, associate editor


Ultraliberal court makes outrageous ruling which dismisses the right of
parents to challenge what their children are taught.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has told
parents with children in California¹s Palmdale School District they have
no rights when it comes to what their children are being taught ‹ nor do
they even have the right to take action against anything they might object
to.

"This decision declares war on parental rights," said Liberty Counsel
President Mat Staver. "It essentially says that parents have no rights.
Once you drop your kids off at school ‹ according to this court's decision
‹ you have severed all of your parental rights until you pick your kids up
at the end of the day. But while they're in the public school's
jurisdiction, there are no parents, according to this decision."

The Palmdale parents filed suit alleging the school had interfered with
their constitutional rights by surveying their elementary-age children
without disclosing that the survey contained personal questions about sex.

Writing for the unanimous panel, Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt said
"there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of
information regarding sexual matters to their children . . ."

Further, in the court's opinion, ". . . parents have no due process or
privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the
information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as
students."

Staver said the court had the audacity to say that parents may have a
fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public
school, but they do not have a fundamental right to direct how that school
teaches their child.

"That's just outrageous," he said.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
Center for Law and Policy, said prior to administering the survey, the
district mailed a letter to the parents of the children, who ranged in age
from 7 to 10.

But the letter, he said, simply described the survey as establishing "a
community baseline measure of children¹s exposure to early trauma."

"The letter," Fahling said, "did not disclose that, of the 79 questions,
the children would be asked 10 questions rating areas such as: touching my
private parts, thinking about having sex, having sex feelings in my body
and can¹t stop thinking about sex.

Staver was explosive in his disgust.

"Understand that these are 7-year-old children that are being asked
intrusive and controversial and inappropriate questions about sexual
behavior," Staver said. "And this judge says, 'That's OK.' Well, it's not
OK!"

Fahling said the decision puts the schools firmly in control.

"The court has held that once parents send their children to public
schools the children are essentially guinea pigs that the school may do
with as they please," he said.

Fahling also said the judge didn't rely upon law for his decision ‹ he
cited a few cases and tried to make them fit his predetermined
conclusions.

"The court failed even to consider the deception of the school in failing
to disclose that the children would be exposed to questions about sex," he
said.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, called
the ruling "an egregious example of judicial tyranny."

"Unless it's corrected, the entire future of public education and the
rights of parents are in severe jeopardy," he said.

Hausknecht noted that Reinhardt is the same judge who ruled the Pledge of
Allegiance unconstitutional in the case brought by atheist Michael Newdow.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the 9th Circuit "a bastion of
goofy decisions."

"If it's not the parents talking to their children about such sensitive
matters, who is it?" Graham asked rhetorically. "And what body has the
right to trump a parent? What institution in this country, school or
otherwise, has a greater right to provide information to a child than the
parent? That's what's wrong with our courts.

"Courts are not elected officials. They should not become
mini-legislators. They should not become the culture-setters in the
country. They should follow the law. And there's nothing in the law,
written anywhere in the country, that says that there's an institution
greater than the parent when it comes to talking about sex."

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., agreed that parents have the responsibility of
being the primary educators of their children.

"Parents have a right to know and to decide what their young children are
being exposed to by the schools regarding sex education," he said.

Hausknecht said this decision certainly underscores the importance of
putting judges like Samuel Alito on the bench ‹ judges who are
originalists and who understand the role of a judge is to interpret the
law.

"Up to this point, parents have been walking around assuming that their
children are still their children while they're in school," Hausknecht
said. "But this is a wake-up call that Big Brother has other ideas for
your children."

Meanwhile, Staver said there has been talk of breaking up the huge 9th
Circuit and creating a new court, or perhaps two. The 9th covers most of
the western U.S. and has the heaviest caseload of any of the appeals
courts. Splitting it up would be a good idea, he said, not only because
it's the largest, but because it's also the most liberal.

"It is the most reversed court, bar none, in the country," Staver said.
"Hopefully, if this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit
will be reversed one more time."

TAKE ACTION:
Please contact your members of Congress, and tell them that we need judges
who will neither legislate from the bench nor usurp the rights of parents.
Especially, tell your senators that it is important to give President
Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, a fair hearing and an
up-or-down vote.

You can receive family news stories by email.  Sign up now for this
complimentary service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2005 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.