Judge Orders Children out of Home School Because of Creationism?

I noticed that story, mostly because I was educated in creationism as a homeschooler. I don't consider that abuse, just an unfortunate side effect of homeschooling. Most of my education was top notch, even the non-evolution parts of biology so I'm not annoyed that my parents knew very little about science. I'm thankful that they instilled in me enough of a love of science that I was able to eventually figure out that creationism is just bullocks.

I hope that they weren't forced into public school just because of stupid old creationism.

The Raleigh News & Observer had audio of the judge's ruling. We listened to it, and I don't remember creationism being mentioned.

IIRC, his logic was that the father father never agreed with the homeschooling, and that a regular school environment would be in the bests interest of the children. The children will finish out the semester in homeschool and then transfer to public (?) school starting next year.

The children will probably have a better education in the Wake County schools than at home school. Wake's public schools are some of the best in the country.

I hope that they weren’t forced into public school just because of stupid old creationism.

— Jesse

Timothy Sandefur said: The problem is, when does religious instruction become abuse?

but if it's just a dispute over evolution and creationism, it's clearly not abuse.

this is not an easy question to call.

so which is it, Tim?

Teaching kids exclusively fiction IS damaging to normal mental development.

If i were to lock my kid in a closet to prevent them from getting contact with any other human beings for years at a time, that would most certainly be considered physical abuse.

if one locks a child's mind away from reality for an even longer period of time, that certainly seems to be a case for abuse in my book.

If this were some wacky cult instead of religion, and the child was being indoctrinated into the cult instead of this "religion" against the father's wishes, this discussion would be short.

the only thing separating religion from cult is the 501c3 status.

Paul Burnett, above, adumbrates something that we need as a society to find a way to solve. It is the distinction between instruction and indoctrination.

If one believes that any "fact" that disagrees with the bible must be >notafact< because the Bible is perforce inerrant, then that person cannot teach another.

The problem is, when does religious instruction become abuse? That line can often be blurry–but if it’s just a dispute over evolution and creationism, it’s clearly not abuse.

— Timothy Sandifur

If any individual, family, sectarian group, or whatever, wants to educate their child with pseudo-science, they should not then expect that their child should be given any substantial responsibilities or rewards for supporting the society that supports them. And if they choose to subvert the educations of others in order to sneak their dogmas into society, they ultimately degrade the society in which they live. If society can support parasites, then the parasites can believe whatever dogma they wish.

Pretty fair report Tim. (From a homeschooling IDiot, me).

Flint said: But we need to consider the importance of compartmentalization. ...

This is a divorce proceeding. It appears that the divorce may have arisen at least in part because of the church this mother is going to and their home schooling obsession (all of the children who attend this church are homeschooled). I can't possibly guess how much of this is getting even with the mother for her newfound religiosity and how much is real concern for the kids. I'm not even sure if the father can.

And a parent has a right to direct the religious upbringing of a child, including the right to teach a child ludicrous religious dogma instead of science.

Wouldn't a science tutor be a more practical and less invasive solution? Assuming of course, that the news story is correct.

Mike Elzinga said: If society can support parasites, then the parasites can believe whatever dogma they wish.

Wouldn’t a science tutor be a more practical and less invasive solution? Assuming of course, that the news story is correct.

Obviously you are right that it's best to be skeptical. But as a person who grew up with extreme religious fundamentalism forced upon me from a young age, I disagree that such an environment is not abusive to children.

We clearly don't know what is really going on here. But I firmly believe that it is NO ONE's right--not even a parent's--to indoctrinate another person, especially a helpless and trusting child, into any kind of belief. People of all ages need to be free to make their own decisions about what they do and do not believe. If the judge ordered the children placed in public school to relieve them of constant exposure to religious indoctrination from their mother, then I applaud him for standing up for the rights of these children to be individuals and to make up their own minds.

But I suspect that it's really something else going on.

Oh, I meant to add this bit as a response to your question about when religious instruction becomes abuse. If it's meant to terrify the child into obedience--such as threatening with eternal punishment in Hell, or with missing out on "the Rapture," and thus having to suffer through years of unrelieved torment on Earth--this last bit was my particular form of religious abuse--then it's abuse. If a child is ever being intentionally frightened or made to feel insecure by his or her parents, that child is being ABUSED, whether or not the parent has the child's best interests at heart.

Due to my religious abuse as a child, I shut off my ability to play and had to re-learn how to have fun as a pre-teen, when a fortunate divorce separated me from the crazy half of my family. Even after I learned how to lighten up and enjoy life once in a while, I still suffered from near-crippling anxiety that was just generalized; my brain had learned how to be in a constant state of anxiety (fearing the wrath of God) and so that was my default mode. Some days I would just randomly throw up because a wave of anxiety would overcome me out of nowhere--I suppose it was a "panic attack." Once I ended up in the hospital when a random anxiety attack made me pass out. Most of my memories of my life before high school are of crying, hiding, and being afraid of God. Pleasant, huh?

Today, as an adult, I am on medication to control my anxiety attacks. I feel certain that I would not have to treat myself with meds if I weren't exposed to the emotional abuse of religious terror as a child. And I want to make it clear that in all other ways, my family was quite nice and pleasant. No other form of abuse took place. It was entirely a forced fear of God that did it to me.

I don’t think anyone would accuse the Amish or Mennonite communities of Pennsylvania and other states of “parasitism,” but their insular practices of raising their children have been called “child abuse” by some. Is it “child abuse” to deliberately only partially educate a child so that they will remain in a centuries-old time bubble?

— Paul Burnett

Wouldn’t a science tutor be a more practical and less invasive solution? Assuming of course, that the news story is correct.

— Michael

The problem is, when does religious instruction become abuse? That line can often be blurry–but if it’s just a dispute over evolution and creationism, it’s clearly not abuse."

Tell it to the father whose children are being brainwashed to believe in an alternate reality that serves a lifelong delusion, in most cases, where ignorance and prejudice are embraced.

It's never "just creationism."

So so long as you believe in evolution you won't hold any prejudices? In other words you're perfect? What about Herbert Spencer & HG Wells with their desire to massacre "inferior" races?

Sounds like certain small churches which say you can't sin after they've baptised you.

Novparl said: So so long as you believe in evolution you won't hold any prejudices? In other words you're perfect?

What about Herbert Spencer & HG Wells with their desire to massacre "inferior" races?

Sounds like certain small churches which say you can't sin after they've baptised you.

When I first came across this news story I was appalled. That was until I read this one line

"In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he "objected to the children being removed from public school." He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church "where all children are home schooled."

Where all children are home-schooled.

That indicates the possibility of a problem like they are hiding children from reality of their teachings.

I looked a little into this church, they make some doomsday cults look like nurturing environments. When googled the ministry was on another apologetic ministry website blog (think adult version of campus crusades for christ super evangelical and fundamental) and even they think these people are misguided and as the analysis goes on to show total brainwashed wackjobs, The title "Sound Doctrine Church: Will they pour the Kool-aid soon" speaks for itself.

Then in looking at the church ministry's manifesto, I was shocked to find they admit that some of their teachings may be considered brainwashing. Essentially this church teaches that your own opinions and/or thoughts are evil and complete hogwash. And in order to be a true Christian you must allow God to "crucify your mind" and that individuals need to "pour contempt on our own opinions and hearts' desires". And just to put a nail in the these people need their head examined coffin "Only those who hate their lives, deny
themselves and pick up their cross to follow
Jesus are Christians."

As much as on the surface this may look to be a science issue it really is not. And as much as I ususally can disagree with Mr Sadefur he is right the issue here is when does religious instruction become abuse? This church is abuse and that judge did the right thing putting these children into public schools. Honestly I can't believe he will allow them near such a destructive environment period especially when the father clearly objects. If the mother wants to believe fine she is an adult, but the children are going to be brainwashed into thinking thier own thoughts are evil and sinful which sounds like a path to self-loathing which Oh wow no shock is one of the values this "church" preaches.

Novparl,

Read those articles yet? Revised your opinion yet? Should anybody care yet?

This thread is not very enlightening.

Child abuse is legally defined.

Statements like "meat is murder", "property is theft", or "religion is child abuse" have no legal meaning.

The standard for taking children away from their parents is set high, and it should be.

Merely homeschooling a child in a creationist milieu may be misguided, and detrimental to the child's long term interests in some ways, but it does not constitute abuse.

Obviously, if we decide to break up loving families on the grounds that they can't provide what we see as an ideal environment, enforcement will become arbitrary and sometimes cruel. Many non-creationists will be affected.

Therefore, the standards for child abuse focus on things like physical or severe psychological harm. No competent judge is confused about that.

However, this is a divorce case with a custody element. The issue is not whether or not a parent is abusive - it is implied by the fact that there is even a controversy, that neither parent is overtly abusive.

In a custody case, the question of which parent can provide a more "ideal" environment may be of relevance.

Home schooling is not an easy thing to do well. The feelings of the children matter, too. They may prefer to attend school.

Putting aside scientific issues, it is reasonable for a judge to consider home schooling versus school attendance as a single factor in a custody decision, along, of course, with whatever other factors are of relevance in that individual case.

As a biology grad student in the '90's, I taught introductory biology and also genetics to undergrads. I taught a number of students who had been homeschooled, and some of them had not been taught evolution by natural selection. I learned that this did not matter; in all but one of those cases, the students were much better readers and writers than their public school educated peers, and thus did very well in these classes. They were well-prepared to understand the theory of evolution even though most of them were encountering it for the first time, and they often had a more sophisticated understanding at the end of the course, because they could read and write well.

I suspect that you are right, Tim, and that this decision has more to do with the divorce and other issues than it does with the teaching of evolution. However, I'd much rather teach a high school or college undergrad who can read and write and do math well, than students of the same age who are deficient in these areas, but can parrot back what they learned and misunderstood in high school about the theory of evolution.

Also, I did homeschool my son during middle school due to concerns I had about how the schools in my area were not addressing his needs (he has a form of autism called Aspergers Syndrome). We did discuss evolution, but I spent more of my efforts teaching him basic physical science (especially Newton's laws) and also working on measurement, units, significant figures, accuracy and precision, because I knew how well these skills would prepare him for doing science in high school. We also did quite a lot of natural science in our mountain environment, because I was interested in inculcating into him a love for the natural world so that he would ask good questions, as well as good observation skills. Finally, we really worked on teaching him what science actually is, and how the scientific method really works. Now that he is in high school, he is doing very well in science, loves it, and can think about it in more sophisticated ways than can his peers.

Child abuse is legally defined.

poor argument. legal definitions change on an almost daily basis.

...or would you have us actually go through the history of what defines child abuse on a state by state basis for the last 100 years?

maybe just a smack on your knuckles with a ruler will suffice?

I taught a number of students who had been homeschooled, and some of them had not been taught evolution by natural selection.

you need to recall, or learn, that not all homeschooling is done for reasons of religious indoctrination.

however, in this case, that is EXACTLY what the purpose of the homeschooling is.

and no, I have never seen someone homeschooled by evangelical xians, that had a better grasp on ANYTHING, let alone science, in my years of teaching.

It's decidedly a handicap to be homeschooled in a tradition of ignorance.

Merely homeschooling a child in a creationist milieu may be misguided, and detrimental to the child’s long term interests in some ways, but it does not constitute abuse.

The formal teaching of anti-scientific lies to a child is a very good sign that some form of serious psychological abuse is or will occur.

Does anyone here think that Casey Luskin wasn't abused as a child?

Home schooling is not an easy thing to do well. The feelings of the children matter, too. They may prefer to attend school.

This has nothing to do with "home schooling". The formal teaching of bald-faced lies to a child as if they were remotely credible is not "schooling." It is brainwashing.

If anyone tells you it's not brainwashing, they are liars as well. Liars for Jesus. Liars for "the intent of the Framers."

Same difference.

I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]. It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement.

"ecallaW mailliW" said: Lying turds.

Although other issues may complicate this particular case, it’s quite clear that most of the “Darwinists” on this thread agree that parents have a right to home-school their children. So we should expect the DI to praise our fairness about that, right?

Most home-schooled child learn Biblical creationism (usually the YEC variety these days), however, and not the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” that the DI advocates. Thus at least some home-schooled children must notice the weaknesses of YEC and not the “weaknesses” of “Darwinism.” But that is exactly what the DI is trying to prevent with its “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy. So we should expect the DI to discourage home-schooling regardless of the parents’ rights, right?

Who else thinks that the DI will once again decline to back up its pathetic “distancing” from “creationism”?

You have the right to remain ignorant, anything that you don't learn can and will be held against you in reality. You have the right to learn from science and to have a trained scientist present during learning. If you so desire and cannot afford one, a trained scientist will be provided free of charge. Do you understand these rights as I have described them to you?

Child abuse is legally defined. poor argument. legal definitions change on an almost daily basis

Flint said: But we need to consider the importance of compartmentalization. I spent my life working with brilliant engineers, who have had important roles in designing, inventing, and developing many of the technologies we're using to have this discussion. ... Hey, creationists wouldn't be regarded as nearly so threatening if they applied creationist-type dogmatic idiotic thought processes to their goal of rallying political and financial support, and crippling targeted scientific disciplines. But in fact, they are as intelligent and creative in seeking their goals as they are relentless. They are far from idiots in their zeal to impose and enforce specific idiocies. Compartmentalization is real.

ecallaW mailliW said: Lying turds.

I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]. It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement.

Judge is probably a member of the NCSE and got his text from the ACLU, just like Judge Jones. Stinking communists.

@ DS & Stanton. Did you even read the 1st sentence of E. of S.R.? Clearly not. So how can you complain that I haven't read your irrelevant links? (But you will...)

@ Harold. Welcome to the world of Panda's Thumb. 80% on message isn't enough.

@ Phantom 42. Your usual erudite contribution.

Johnny and Suzy simply not understanding where species come from. High schoolers exposed to “balancing” of evolution instruction in biology class are being denied an understanding of what science IS. That’s ALL of science. They are being taught that the scientific method, peer review, and empirical observation, are not necessary for science. “Science” essentially becomes anything you want. It sounds “sciency”? Then its science. They are also being taught that the culture and historical suspicion of the scientist/wizard is correct. You can’t trust Dr. Frankstein. You must always second guess him.

— Mike Elzinga

Having been brought up in this kind of environment, I will say that a dispute between evolution and creation is not abuse, however making one feel "guilty" or trying to if they are "sinning" is abuse.

Children are not capable of undertanding these things, at least if they are very young.

I quit going to school because I didn't like what they were teaching (and they would have lost their licence to instruct if I had told them what the instructor said that I didn't like)

Catholic people are going to hell isn't something children need to be hearing.

@ Harold. Welcome to the world of Panda’s Thumb. 80% on message isn’t enough.

Frank J said: Exactly! And that's why, especially in this "me" era (the "me decade" did not end in 1979), the twin lies of "teaching the controversy is fair" and "'Darwinists' want to censor us" sell to an audience much larger than the hard-line fundamentalists. And why I find it maddening why so many fellow "Darwinists" obsess over the fundamentalists - who'd still deny evolution if all the anti-evolution activists went away - when the focus should be on the rest of that audience, which can, and often does, listen to reason.

So many voices, shouting so many things in all different directions. And in the end, I don't feel I've learned a thing. This is why I don't like the political posts here -- even if they are more relevant to the actual purpose of this website.

Wallace: Just a friendly word of advice. Antics like your backwards-written name are like many little tricks I've seen performed by members of the evangelical committee, such as "God is nowhere"/"God is now here." You may think it's clever, but it's not -- it annoys people. Now, I'm not writing to condemn you -- if anything, I'm writing to condemn myself, because I was like you, once, just reaching out for people to admire me for my cleverness. Fortunately, I had a teacher who was willing to whack some sense into me. And I'm now trying to do the same for you. Stop the antics! Say what you want to say, don't get defensive, and listen to what people tell you. Acknowledge you don't know everything, and try to learn -- even if it's just to understand why these people believe what they believe. Because until you understand the mindset of your opponent, you probably won't do much convincing.

mharri said: Because until you understand the mindset of your opponent, you probably won't do much convincing.

ecallaW mailliW said: Lying turds.

I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling]. It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement.

Judge is probably a member of the NCSE and got his text from the ACLU, just like Judge Jones. Stinking communists.

Mike Elzinga said:

mharri said: Because until you understand the mindset of your opponent, you probably won't do much convincing.

The main difference in science is that we rely on objective evidence instead of attempting to surmise the “mindset” of an “opponent”. Science is not a choreographed debate in front of an audience doing exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and other word games. In science, things have to check out, not simply overwhelm or use some kind of jujitsu on someone’s “mindset”. EVIDENCE

I don't think the argument is that global warming isn't real, the argument I would make is that it is a matter of physical laws that are not understood enough to be debating. Nature has it's own way of doing things, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, etc. are not harmful to the environment people just get in the way of them and lose their lives, and people are dabbling in things they might not ought to be dabbling in because it is financially rewarding to SOMEBODY.

What would you consider evidence? Hallucinations are evidence of something, it is just as real to the hallucinating person as any other experience they may have. The brain does things people can form whatever opinion they want of it, telling someone else that they are delusional doesn't help, and telling someone they are being attacked by Satan is even worse. even if they are having delusions, maybe they are capable of knowing their thought processes are being disrupted and are having anxiety attacks.

lissa said: What would you consider evidence? Hallucinations are evidence of something, it is just as real to the hallucinating person as any other experience they may have. The brain does things people can form whatever opinion they want of it, telling someone else that they are delusional doesn't help, and telling someone they are being attacked by Satan is even worse. even if they are having delusions, maybe they are capable of knowing their thought processes are being disrupted and are having anxiety attacks.

Right, and evidence is useless if people refuse to consider it. So, I figure if we get a person to examine the evidence to understand how someone could get to thinking that way, curiosity might kick in, and cause the person to start examining his or her own arguments. I figured, if Mr. Wallace might start looking in-depth into the evidence and asking questions meant to elucidate rather than irritate, even if for the ulterior motive of looking for a chink in the armor, we would be one step toward making this place less flame-prone. Call me Don Quixote.

mharri said: Call me Don Quixote.

lissa said: I don't think the argument is that global warming isn't real, the argument I would make is that it is a matter of physical laws that are not understood enough to be debating. Nature has it's own way of doing things, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, etc. are not harmful to the environment people just get in the way of them and lose their lives, and people are dabbling in things they might not ought to be dabbling in because it is financially rewarding to SOMEBODY.

The presumption that all believers of a higher power reject evolution is a serious mistake to make.

I know what Darwin observed I read it myself, it is proof that people are animals get savage when they are threatened, and they should also.

Playing mind games doesn't help a soul.

In fairness, where I say above "the denialist will say...", I meant to edit that into "the denialist will often say...", because not all denialists do all of these things.

Dale Husband said: Normally, I would agree, but have you tried discussing global warming in public only to be verbally assaulted by some denialist loon who says its all a scam because global warming stopped in 1998, that we will be cooling for 30 years or so due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and that Al Gore is expecting to make huge profits off the scam even while his mansion continues to use up too much energy? Because that's how gullible and scientifically illiterate some people are, to buy that B S!

Global warming is real, perceptions are personal and have nothing to do with denial.

I prefer to stick to facts

People concerned about things they can't control aren't healthy people.

Everything people do has some sort of effect on the environment.

Agriculture has an effect.

messing around with the genetics of crops has an effect.

Would I eat a cloned cow? yes I don't see how it is harmful....but in the end it's about money.

There are not enough resourses in the world to take care of everybody. People who think otherwise are the ones who are denying facts.

I’m sure creationist engineers and programmers can do just fine while they’re engineering and programming, but these very same people are deciding other things that require a clear understanding of the scientific process. What are they going to do when asked to decide? They are going to agree with whomever they hold to be authoritative in the subject - any science subject, and its not going to be the scientific community. Think the confusion is limited to just biology? Fine. I don’t agree, but fine. What’s the relative importance of basic biology research today compared to, say, 50 years ago? How much influence does the average voter have on it? Answer to both is: huge.

But these same types of individuals I have known are also extremely egotistical about their prowess, and they tend to see themselves as authorities in areas in which they are extremely ignorant.

Flint said: My experience is that very smart people commonly fall into this category, but that very religious people are not overrepresented among them. When most everything has come easy to you all your life, it's very hard to see that something is NOT coming easy to you. It SEEMS easy. Your intelligence always bulled through successfully before...

lissa said: Would I eat a cloned cow?

One of the more dismaying examples I encountered was a mechanical engineer who touted a PhD from MIT. He was debating creationism....

Give em hell, Lissa!

You can call anything you want "child abuse", but that is not relevant to a legal case that is going on right now.

nor was my argument, which was exploring just what people would agree on IS abuse.

the legal definitions are irrelevant to that discussion.

as was most of your post.

the hard core atheists have to take umbrage.

screw you and the fancy horse you rode in on.

I didn't even raise the issue of atheism OR religion. I raised the issue of ignorance and isolation from reality.

NOW I'm taking umbrage, and it ain't because of religion, it's because of your goddamn army of strawmen.

I also strongly support your right to make up your own mind and privately live and believe as you see fit, as long as you obey the law and respect the rights of your fellow citizen.

two words harold:

herd immunity

apply the same logic you used above to antivaxers.

do you really think the kind of instruction in creationism we are talking about here constitutes respect for the rights of your fellow citizens?

really?

stevaroni said: Most of us learn early that you ignore the simple, easily demonstrated laws of nature at your peril.

Global warming is real, perceptions are personal and have nothing to do with denial.

— lissa

You were responding to the other Mike, not me. But I agree. I think Flint’s point about the brilliant engineers and compartmentalization is essentially that they can do their jobs and are not parasitic to society. I agree with that also.

— Mike Elzinga

I'm rather sad that nobody's thought to ask the obvious questions here before jumping to conclusions:

Is this church safe? Is there a safety issue here for the children?

Is this ruling based on the judge's opinions, or a request from the father? How much say does the father have in the children's lives, what is the state of his custody?

At what point during the proceedings was this ruling made, is it temporary or a final decision?

There really isn't enough information here for us to say 'this is a bad decision' or 'this is a good decision.' Judges usually don't do things from the pulpit without legal cause, so there is quite clearly a lot more going on here than what's reported.

In response to the first question, I haven't read this info yet (I don't have time this morning) but here's some information on the mother's church: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sounddoc.html

If you being creative is a sign of ignorarance, it's your right to believe that.

Limiting one's education to "science" is IMHO more narrowminded than taking required courses in philosopy, or theology if a person feels like taking them.

lissa said: What would you consider evidence? Hallucinations are evidence of something, it is just as real to the hallucinating person as any other experience they may have. The brain does things people can form whatever opinion they want of it, telling someone else that they are delusional doesn't help, and telling someone they are being attacked by Satan is even worse. even if they are having delusions, maybe they are capable of knowing their thought processes are being disrupted and are having anxiety attacks.

Actually, this is easy to call. Religious indoctrination of any kind, when imposed on a child, is child abuse. Children have not developed the critical thinking skills to be able to withstand this kind of assault. Anyone capable of independent thought knows that it is child abuse. Because of this sort of mental abuse as children, most adults are incapable of hearing any criticism of religion and it is therefore impossible to even discuss this rationally within society. If the child were being indoctrinated in any other cult, it would be immediately recognized for the abuse that it is.

Flint said: You just can't be a competent engineer if you're not good at collecting data, forming hypotheses, testing them and discarding the failures while collecting more data, and iterating until a problem is solved. That's how engineering works.

Science, I've always throught, is not just another subject in school. It's how students learn to ask questions so that they can be answered empirically.

lissa said: If you being creative is a sign of ignorarance, it's your right to believe that. Limiting one's education to "science" is IMHO more narrowminded than taking required courses in philosopy, or theology if a person feels like taking them.

lissa said: If you being creative is a sign of ignorarance, it's your right to believe that. Limiting one's education to "science" is IMHO more narrowminded than taking required courses in philosopy, or theology if a person feels like taking them.

The presumption that all believers of a higher power reject evolution is a serious mistake to make.

I also strongly support your right to make up your own mind and privately live and believe as you see fit, as long as you obey the law and respect the rights of your fellow citizen. two words harold: herd immunity apply the same logic you used above to antivaxers. do you really think the kind of instruction in creationism we are talking about here constitutes respect for the rights of your fellow citizens? really?

If you being creative is a sign of ignorarance, it’s your right to believe that. Limiting one’s education to “science” is IMHO more narrowminded than taking required courses in philosopy, or theology if a person feels like taking them.

Frank J said: I too agree with the compartmentalization, but I would still be hesitant on recommending Egnor as a surgeon or Behe as a biochemistry teacher. ...

harold said: Science flourishes where all ideas can be expressed, even wrong ideas that don't stand up to the evidence. However, again, it is a subjective decision as to which of these alternatives is "better".

Frank J said: Apologies to the other Mike, who also writes as well as I wish I could.

However, the waiting area at the facility in which he works is strewn with fundamentalist literature, and that made me nervous. It’s a cardiac health care group with many doctors, of which he is the leader, so I don’t know which specialist, if any, is responsible. I don’t even know if he subscribes to any of this, but I do know that he is in terrific physical condition and has a black belt in karate. He is generally a pretty cool guy.

There's a lot more child abuse going on in this country by our so-called judges than is even relevant to this discussion.

I don't have a problem with people having a religious viewpoint or a nonreligious viewpoint.

I do have problems with discrimination of any kind. There is a difference between faith statements and scientific data. I am perfectly capable of critical thinking and have been doing it since I at least 2 years old, however other people have been thinking they should make all my decisions for me, because they made me ill.

I can tolerate a LOT of abuse believe me, but after a while someone might cross the line one too many times.

Please give the cite for the case. I would like ot know if indeed religious teaching was the only reason for the judge's decision.

I think a number of people on this thread are missing and/or ignoring the key elements of this case. First, while you can argue that the mother has a "right" to teach her children as she sees fit, the father has an equal "right" to teach those children as he sees fit. The mother and her supporters are presenting this as a religious rights case when it is, instead, a parental rights case. Unless the father is denied all access to the kids, he has equal, competing rights to determine how they will be educated. Odds are good, without having the ruling to read, this is a compromise, mom gets custody, dad gets visitation, kids go to public school because dad doesn't want kids programmed into mom's cult.

That is the second point that has been brought up already but hasn't apparently sunk in. The father objected to the home schooling from the very beginning and the religious organization that she joined was one of the reasons for the divorce in the first place.

Ichthyic said: the only thing separating religion from cult is the 501c3 status.

My personal opinion is government is evil.

Civil rights are violated on a daily basis, because judges are not qualified to determine who is fit to be a parent and who isn't baseed on Religion, Mental illness, or any other thing where discrimination may become an issue. Especially when their motive is funding.

Stress and hallutionations and paranoia aren't relevant to religion unless they involve angels and demons...

Transcendental meditation is safe for most people and for others it is an extremely difficult thing to go through.

I don't even want to go to group therapy because it's too damned depressing.

people are killing themselves over it.

It's not a light issue.

Paul Flocken said:

Ichthyic said: the only thing separating religion from cult is the 501c3 status.

I needed a way to distinguish between a cult and religion in an argument and settled on this: the object of veneration of the cult is still living.

A cult is a "religion" whose sole purpose for being is profit.

Or a person in a particular religion who believes their way of life is the only way of life has a cult mentality.

I don't believe all ministers are bad, but they are run by an organization that may not be altruistic.

P.S.

I'm beginning to get that impression from my therapist.

She sure isn't teaching me anything I don't already know, I was very negative at the last meeting...shame on me. I gotta be happy all the time. I don't think I do.

LOL

Telling someone they have to have supervised visitation when they are in a rehabilitation program, have been in a rehabilitation program, are only refusing medications that disable them more than the illness is discrimination and there is no other way to perceive it.

BTW I am not talking about myself here, although it pertains. I haven't been back it upset me too much.

I agree that there are a lot of things to take into consideration with a custody decision. But when "mental illness" is the only reason for saying someone needs supervised visits. and requiring drug testing for a person who has already tested clean is just plain fascism in action. it's baby selling, plain and simple.

I'm equipped to discuss biology if that's what you want to discuss.

I'm also epuipped to discuss law if that's what you want to discuss.

Family law is just a means to divide the public.

I have no idea what this person's issue was. background checks involve a lot of things.

But double jeapardy is also a legal issue.

Maybe I shouldn't go this far with it but I will.

Dr. _________ who worked for the County of Los Angeles, told me "Mental illness is hereditary (like any educated person wouldn't know this)and you should have an abortion OR we won't let you keep your baby"

Don't even begin to believe I don't know what that suggests.

“Mental illness is hereditary (like any educated person wouldn’t know this)and you should have an abortion OR we won’t let you keep your baby”

Generally speaking, everything is hereditary. but the genetics involved can't be predicted.

But "clear and convincing" is a higher standard of law than even reasonable doubt.

There is a clear conflict of interest when the government is deciding these things for itself.

You may be able to predict it in some cases, not in others. if the line is pure it can be predicted, otherwise not. I think abuse causes it in a lot of cases, because people were turn to religion hoping to find an answer. If they do find it then leave them alone.

You can't help people who don't want help either. But continually abusing a person who is and has been getting help is going to make them violent (hopefully they have enough control over themselves to not hurt someone.

If a giant gave birth to a pygmy it probably wouldn't hurt them, but I don't what might happen if a pygmy gave birth to a giant.

LOL.

probably not much babies have their own way of deciding when it's time to come out.

You really don't want to go into an african pygmy's territory unless you know what the heck you are doing.

It might be more accurate to say animals have a "predispositon" towards illnesses (not just mental illnesses)

Plants also can be manipulated and you can predict the outcome reasonably.

But germ warfare is a disgusting practice, but you can't deny it's existance.

When I was in the hospital one of this doctor's patients was brought in OD'd on the med I said I wouldn't take anymore.

One of two things. The doc is incompetent. or she is deliberately overdosing people. it doesn't matter to me one way or another because I only saw her once. it might matter to other people, but then it's up to a person to decide who their doctor will be....so far, but then even that is getting more and more limited.

I won't take drugs that make me dizzy, I won't take drugs that paralyze me, I won't take drugs that are obviously doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

I've never out and out refused medications altogether, but it is still my right to not take them if I don't want to until a legitimate court says I have to.

I mean I already know what causes mental and physical illnesses.

Stress on an organism causes illness. stress management is more crucial to a person's health than any other thing, but people want to believe a pill will fix their problems.

It's not hard to figure out really. I think pills can take the edge off.

An illness might be acute or it might be chronic, but the more a person is having the stress the more chronic it will become.

If child abuse was addressed in a Criminal court instead of as a purely social issue we wouldn't be having these problems.

Insane is a legal issue. Ill is a Medical issue.

I wouldn't recommend anybody who has had busy social workers and corrupt politicians in their life for an extended period of time engage in self-hypnosis unless they are very much in control of themselves.

It is not in itself harmful and it isn't unhealthy either, but it can throw a person out of touch with reality if they aren't careful.

Perhaps if people had stayed out of James Jones business it would have saved some lives.

But we will never know I guess. It's sickening.

Is there no unedited court transcript of the proceedings? I find alleged quotes from the judge online, but there is no way to know, without a transcript, if the quotes are correct and from what context.

I have no way to know either. I don't necessarily believe that it would be a wrong decision.

I don't even know if the mother is contesting it. But exercizing one person's right in lieu of another person's right would IMO be a civil rights violation.

Our politics are getting too complicated. People who don't have a lot of experience with it aren't going to understand it.

But when a religious fanatic put you in the hospital, and the doctor says you have 2 choices go to a Christian church this person wants you to go to or stay in the government's program a civil right was violated, and with me it's been a neverending thing......most of my hospitalizations involved nothing more than a panic attack.

Well, the religious fanatic didn't put me in the hospital, the panic attack did, it involved a lot of other things besides religion, but she sure didn't help the situation by pestering me about a school she knew about and wanting to drag me to church

http://www.biochemj.org/bj/417/0029/4170029.pdf

The question is addressed here also.

the question of whether judges are qualified to decide it also is addressed.

Unless they are experts in astrophysics, chemistry, biology, etc. they aren't the least bit qualified to determine whether it is even a religious argument.

I personally think it should be offered as an elective course in public schools.

I think only Christians are being harrassed about it.

Nobody would dare attack a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any other "religion" for believing in such things.

Why don't you want to go into a pygmy's territory?

I'm afraid some religions still engage in human sacrifice.

The problem isn't "religion" the problem is communication.

With people and with animals.

A threat is a threat until proven otherwise to an animal.

Let's consider a space shuttle taking off and exploding during liftoff.

Accident? Sabotage? Poor engineering? Safety code viloation?

Who knows? the general public isn't cleared to know these things when they happen.

Who knows? the general public isn’t cleared to know these things when they happen.

Yeah. The coverup is worse than the crime. Security breeches are also happening all the time though.

I used to work for JPL, I knew what I was cleared for and what I was not cleared for. Did it matter to them? no, they just want to get the job done. And waste money in the process.

Aircrafts (be they planes, shuttles, or UFO's are easily understood) Patents are also easily understood. Lawsuits involving them are easily understood also.

lissa said: I think only Christians are being harrassed about it. Nobody would dare attack a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any other "religion" for believing in such things.

Religious persecution is religious persecution regardless of what "religion" is being persecuted.

The Vatican has a very long history of persecuting people who don't follow their own course.

So do Muslims, Egyptians, Nazis, and a whole slew of "religions"

I mean I honestly feel like somebody tried to put me through a concentration camp of some kind.

That never works either, because people do happen to have minds of their own.

Did judges go around telling Hippocrates how to do his job when he was treating ill people?

I don't know I wasn't there, but when a doctor tells me their way is the only way I know they are feeding me something they shouldn't be feeding any person.

Maybe in some instances it might more accurately be called a hypocrytic oath.

Obviously I've had good doctors and bad doctors, but I can read as well as anybody else, and when a paper says "you have the right to refuse medication" it is non-negotiable.

If they want to call it "against medical advice" they can call it whatever they want.

they might as well call it AWOL. LOL

The first time I was hospitalized I was sitting there minding my own business talking to another patient, and they forced a shot on me when I refused their meds.

Was my right violated? that's a tough call, I was leaning towards violence at the time. But putting conditions on my release is most assuredly a violation of my rights.

And if it wasn't bad enough that they thought they could force me into their program, they thought they had the right to decide who I can associate with and who I couldn't associate with.

I'm sorry but they did not even close to have the right to tell me who I could associate with, or tell other people not to associate with me.

interfering in a person's relationships with others is purely ridiculous.

It isn't always ridiculous, it depends on the situation.

If the people are engaging in an obviously unhealthy relationship and hurting themselves or other people then I can see stepping in.

People like that are usually already committed by a court though.

So basically divorce court, or Child Protective Services is a battleground of hearsay evidence being allowed to be submitted.

The police might come to a domestic violence case and unless they talk to everybody involved they don't have a clue what's going on.

I've been in situations where I was in a fight with someone and people trying to stop it were the first suspects. Why, because they discriminate and profile automatically.

So if she says "yes he did it" he's going to jail whether it's true or not.

It's not even a domestic issue at all. Even the prosecutor decides what to prosecute and what not to prosecute....that is wrong too. It is up to the citizen to decide if they want to prosecute someone for an alleged crime in some cases.

My ex-boyfriend's ex-wife was a teacher's aid showing up to work drunk and was fired. It wasn't in their interest to do anything but fire her......but you know she is of course the victim.

She wasn't feeding her own kids because she was too drunk to do much of anything. But she's still the victim.

He on the other hand is forced to give half his money to "somebody" because "somebody" or "somebodies" are fascist pigs.

Would you like to hear it on tape? We got it on tape.

"how much is owed to the state and how much to her?"

"we don't know but it doesn't matter you owe it to somebody"

uh-huh.

I wouldn't have tolerated it, I would have disputed that I owed anything at all. He was supporting the kids the whole time, and they know it, but hey they aren't interested in prosecuting obvious welfare-fraud either if they have a better way to receive federal-funding when someone has ripped them off out of hundred's of thousands of dollars.

A woman may be being abused, may have been abused, or may have felt like they are being abused.

But they often become sneaky controlling snakes, just because our society wants to believe they are helpless.

I'm not helpless, never have been, and never have pretended to be.

I was told that young children who masturbate are almost always abused.

that is 100% false.

Young children masturbate when they are experiencing a stressful situation, because they are experiencing anxiety.

you could view it as trapped energy. It could manifest itself in various ways.

My ex-husband was abusing my daughter, and he was disobeying a specific order that said no condensending of the other parent, but he wasn't sexually abusing her.

So you know when CPS comes around talking to a 4 year old about their masturbating in school they don't even know what's going on.

The only solution is to get the heck out of the state who thinks they know everything about things they don't know anything about because they aren't doctors doing the questioning.

Even children who experience a severe physical trauma will masturbate to relieve the stress.

have I ever experienced a physical trauma or a concussion?

I've had at least two concussions.

falling headfirst onto pavement off a 6-foot slide at 2 years old probably gave me a concussion.

and I remember every detail of it.

Social workers and the police use similar techniques in questioning people.

But the administrative process is so full of corruption I'd feel better if we just left it up to the police.

Because the lawyers are so full of crap it's not in anybody's interest to let them do their dirty work in a closed-court system.

Do I have brain damage? No. It's a chemistry issue.

You can detect brain damage on a scan most of the time. Not always though. if the damage was caused by lack of oxygen I'm not sure it could be detected.

My mother is about 100x worse at taking care of herself than I am, and she has still felt the need to criticize me.

I don't quite understand that, but oh well, I let the police handle it when it got too out of hand. her coming into my house when I don't want her there is trespassing.

She would sit and die before going to a doctor unless somebody pushed her to go.

Thyroid gland dysfunction is a very serious illness. she knows it is a serious illness, and the symptoms of it are easily detected as scary as heck, but some people are so afraid of what they will find out when they go, they will die before they will go to the doctor.

On numerous occasions she has yelled at me when I was suffering a bit of confusion.....I think that just aggravated things, especially when all I was doing was asking if I could call her later, or telling her I didn't feel like talking.

Other people in the same boat will kill a person. that's what is called insanity, temporary or permanent. People on drugs do it all the time, people not on drugs also do it.

You can fight or you can flee. It's silly to think an adult doesn't know when they are in danger.

Children might also know it, but unless you teach them how to defend themselves, they don't necessarily have the senses to do it.

I literally locked myself in the bathroom to get away from it. the medication wasn't working properly is about all there was to it.

But when there's guns in the house and people are paranoid they will either take the gun and shoot someone or they will seek a safe place to go.

I think the biggest problem is people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions, or the law not making people face the consequences of their actions in a reasonable manner.

Some people spend their entire life in Prison for no other reason than being stupid and not wanting to do the time when they violate probation, while others get off scott-free when they are clearly guilty and may even have admitted their guilt, but we will just say they were "insane"

Some people might even retreat into catatonia, I guess it's as safe a place to be as any when the government wants to abuse process over and over again.

Believe it or not, some people even go so far as to kill people over their social security settlements specifically. Little old men who think they are helping someone out.

Sadly enough some children aren't even beyond purposely injuring themselves and saying their parents did it just because they don't like the rules.

Neither are elderly people, but I think they can already be presumed to be possibly demented due to aging.

That's why you call the police and not a social worker. A social worker can say anything is child or elder abuse. The police have more sense than that.

For example my ex's mother who was diagnosed with dementia, repeatedly caused problems. She would injure herself, she would fall and all sorts of things.

But she was causing it herself. It might have been in her best interest to get her own apartment, but evicting him also because of it was purely illegal.

I wouldn't have tolerated that either. but unfortunately some people don't handle their legal problems correctly because they "assume" the process is done when they are served with papers.

I would have gone even farther than fighting the eviction, I would have sued them for libel because they were saying things that they had no proof of.

They had been slandering me for a long time as well.

It was not at all surprising when I found these stupid people on a court show suing someone for damaging their property.

Who knows how much damage a molotov cocktail will do to a truck.

But you know people who are in other people's business all the time get these things done to them, right or wrong.

How about a lawsuit against the state for slander, breaking of confidentiality, discrimination, etc?
LOL. Good luck with that.

Did they have the right to go talk to my babysitter? No, they didn't have the right to talk to anyone at all about a confidential medical issue.

The babysitter was watching the kid because i was ill.

It's not even a similar situation where a babysitter suspects abuse.

They also talked to my bf, his ex-wife, my neighbors and so on.

If CPS comes to your door tell them to get out of dodge until they come back with a Search Warrant.

It's not like my ex was the one calling the police over everytime they weren't happy with their situation in the first place.

Even if he did they'd more likely put him in jail than anyone else, because after all he allegedly owed money to "somebody"

Did I get along with his ex? For the most part I did, until she decided to send the kids to us to take care of HER DUI and then allowed the state to give her money she was never entitled to.

OMG! it's 2:00 pm. I'm flat on my back with a vodka bottle next to me and the food in the oven is burning, How dare you kick me to wake me up?

Tim,

Please move all off topic posts by lissa to the bathroom wall. Thanks.

Exercizing's one's freedom of speech is also something far-left-wing people like to believe they can suppress....but then, they are the only people on earth with all the solutions to all the problems in the world, in their minds.

not very long ago a supreme court judge was rejected for the sole reason of refusing to say how he would decide a case without having enough facts to decide it.

That pretty much says it all.

"That line can often be blurry–but if it’s just a dispute over evolution and creationism, it’s clearly not abuse."

this is the topic of discussion, my posts are not even Off-topic.

Perhaps you should take a look at the Americans with Disabilities Act, before criticizing my posts.

And the ACLU is also nothing more than a club for lawyers who decide for themselves what is a class-action-suit and what is not.

Frankly the "drugs" they want to feed people disable people.

And that's a known fact, there are thousands of cases to suggest it, if not prove it.

I don't want this one because it paralyzes me and causes parkinsonism. I don't want that one because it causes liver damage, I don't want that one because it causes pacreatic damage, I don't want that one because it causes the symptoms we are trying to prevent.

What is a person to do?

I forgot the one that had no apparent effect at all.

If your doctor told you well, sorry to tell you this, but we gave you diabettes, we knew it could happen and it did but hey we MADE you take it because we think you are incompetent although we have no evidence of the fact, I don't think you would be very pleased.

Frankly I'm getting tired of looking at people around me having to go to cardiologists, neurologists, and having surgeries because the belief is the med is better than the illness.

They want me on a cholesterol med now. I think they are jumping the gun, cholesterol can be controlled with diet alone really, but somebody's gonna make a buck if I get the prescription filled.

I think I'll take aspirin instead.

"mental illness" can be controlled with diet also.

but they will go WAY out of their way to suppress that fact.

It's really an endless cycle of madness. "situational depression" is never a consideration. Neither is losing your appetite and stopping eating or eating very little, you become deficient in certain vitamins and minerals and start having other cognitive symptoms.

Alcoholics have an especially hard time with it.

Tim. Hello Tim. Earth to Tim. Please put a stop to this.

I don't think I'm any more ill than the average cop on the beat could get when he/she over and over again sees their friends and strangers getting killed.

http://camhpra.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=16

b. The right to refuse treatment.

Voluntary patients have an explicit right to accept or refuse treatment after being fully informed of the risks and benefits or such treatment. Title 9, C.C.R. §§ 850-856 sets out the specific criteria which must be met in order for facilities to meet their duty to properly inform voluntary patients of the risks and benefits of a proposed treatment plan.

c. The right not to be placed in seclusion and/or restraint absent an emergency situation.

The law intends that voluntary patients not be subject to seclusion and restraint. Any use of seclusion and restraint must meet the legal criteria for emergency and be accompanied by an evaluation of appropriate legal status.

DS said: Tim. Hello Tim. Earth to Tim. Please put a stop to this.

I thought it was a discussion board for biology.

Do you have any knowledge in biology? or just knowledge in how to complain about others?

lissa said: I thought it was a discussion board for biology. Do you have any knowledge in biology? or just knowledge in how to complain about others?

How'd you like to see your mother "on the edge of the cliff" with a shotgun in her hand and your brother thinking throwing holy water on her is going to help?

Not a pretty sight.

It was a little bit more pleasant than brother deciding worshipping Satan would help him gain power over the thugs in the bathroom with the knife though.

Do devil worshipper's get bashed for raping people, spreading blood around everythere and so on?

Not on your life.

lissa said: How'd you like to see your mother "on the edge of the cliff" with a shotgun in her hand and your brother thinking throwing holy water on her is going to help? Not a pretty sight.

a person that is suffering an enormous amount of stress will or could at some point go "over the edge" and hurt themselves or somebody else.

some people have more tolerance for abuse than other people do, but unless they are practicing some sort of relaxation techniques they will ultimately experience an episode of some kind or another, it might be physical or psychological.

But it's all about brain waves really.

Creationism is more of a philosopy than a "religion" anyway. I wouldn't even call it a religion.

Judaism is a religion, Christianity is a religion, Islam is a religion and so on.

Manson got very lucky they decided executing wasn't appropriate at just the right time.

Timothy McVeigh didn't get so lucky.

I guess if you want to commit a crime like that you need to be careful where you do it.

I don't think you could possibly find any more flaws in a text about Creationism, than you would find in a text about History.

All textbooks are condensed to begin with.

I don't see the government controlling what can be taught and what not to be taught as very much less than trying to wipe out cultural diversity.

I've read enough of Churchill's books to know that the school isn't going to tell you very much.

If you want to learn anything go to the library or the book store.

Christians view things the way they view them solely because they are reading a book that people have decided is what should be in it. And translations often become difficult.

It's actually rather sad. But if they want to limit their knowledge that's their perogative I guess.

I have bibles in my home.

What the Church has a tendency to do is say this is the book of ______ it was written by______.

Even when it couldn't possibly have been written by that person they will lead people to believe it was.

And I believe they do it purposely.

Jewish people also have a Canon. But as far as I know they don't suppress books that they don't consider Canon.

How is the Government regulating books any different than a church regulating books?

It isn't really.

Actually there is a term for it.

"Censorship" is the word.

The laws vary from state to state but in some states they have regulated that Religious schools must teach evolution. That is fair enough I guess, but all of these types of decisions boil down to biased judges or legislators.

Seeing my brother move a quarter without touching it was totally awesome. But when the voices starting telling him to kill people it was not cool.

I might be bipolar, schizoaffective, BPD, PTSD or any other thing "doctors" just want play guessing games about and treat symptoms of.

They don't KNOW is all it amounts to.

My brother is clearly schizophrenic, among other things.

My "illness" (if it even is an illness at all) is very different, it's of an affective variety, but they assume I have no control over how I feel and behave.

I have a lot of control over how I feel and behave. I just don't really like them telling me how they think I should feel and behave.

IMO a peace treaty is all well and good, but if you are expecting all the world's or races leaders to think it is a fair deal well I'm afraid it never is.

My ex isn't a particularly religious person. He has studied martial arts but that isn't exactly a religion. But when he's going over a social studies text and finds Moses in it, my only question is "why do you care?"

Administration:

If you refuse to moderate this thread please close it. This individual is either just trying to be disruptive or is mentally unstable. Answering your own questions is a strategy to use if no one else will respond to anything you post, but that should tell you something.

Geez. That is exactly why I have problems with know it all people who believe they can force their beliefs onto other people.

Expressing an opinion is expressing an opinion, call it whatever you like.

I don't think Mussolini was a favorite of one of my ancestors.

I don't think White Man was very much a favorite of others of my ancestors.

It's not really even a difficult thing to understand.

I'm not really looking for a response, could care less if people respond really.

hmmmmm. I wonder what this guy would have done if someone suggested he was mentally unstable because he begged to differ with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk

LOL

So basically a person of any religion can have dreams, visions, or whatever, but if it's in the "BIBLE" it's all nonsense, according to who?

Thank you President Johnson for commending Gramps for being a traitor and fighting for his people's freedom.

LOL

Could I describe my own dreams and visions to you? I could, but I'm not obligated to discuss it with anybody but my doctor.

lissa said: Could I describe my own dreams and visions to you? I could, but I'm not obligated to discuss it with anybody but my doctor.

O.K. I'll go post elsewhere.

I find narrowminded, prejudice, simpletons boring myself.

Actually they aren't all that boring, sometimes they will give me a laugh, because they remind me of little sheep who can't think for themselves and have to rely on "judges" or "Congressmen" or "prime ministers" to do all their thinking for them.

And they even dare to assault other people accusing them of the "me" generation, when they themselves don't really seem the least bit concerned about these things along as they aren't affecting THEM.

Do I think people tend to be selfish? Why shouldn't they be really when it's obvious nobody really gives a damn? and people who do are the only ones I intend to associate with.

You can give and give and give, and it will tire you out. So really the best thing to do is just to stay healthy and if not worrying about global warming, evolution/creation, Democrats, Republicans, Muslims and so on is what it takes, that's what it takes.

Of course Muslims are something to be worried about. Have been something to be worried about for centuries, but if I said so, I'd probably get attacked for discriminating or something.

Effect of stress on the brain

http://www.brainsource.com/stress_&_health.htm

The only thing that really bothers me about the whole thing is the presumption that when I've become ill due to chronic stress or other things that I need to be subjected to poverty for the rest of my life. the government actually INFLICTED some of my stress on my by being unreasonable, and in fact they were violating Federal Codes the whole time, with both my case, and then again with my ex's child support issue.

Negative feedback never did a child any good, it sure isn't going to do an adult any good either.

I have enough confidence in myself, but I don't exactly need other people coming over here trying to bring me down, because I'm causing them stress.

I wasn't causing my mother stress at all, she was causing it herself by insisting on thinking she has to guard over me.

"Relaxation through meditation, biofeedback, and a variety of other activities and techniques promotes lower blood pressure, slower respiration, reduced metabolism and muscle tension. These counteract the effects of stress."

The reason this could cause a problem for someone in my situation, is pretty basic. I've had other people attemting to control all my activities for so long, that I haven't even had a chance to live the way I would like to live.

If a person isn't used to (or in my case not even allowed to) dealing with their problems the way they would like to, when they meditate they will acceess parts of their brain they aren't used to using

I've been engaging in these things for as long as i can remember.

Like the article said it's a natural response to stress. But when I start suffering the symptoms and I decide to crash and rest until I feel better and then someone calls me up and yells at me, I'm just going to get agressive with them, until they leave me alone.

Is it my mother's fault she does this? Not really, her response is just as natural as mine. But she leans more towards panicky than I do. I generally just go with the flow and don't make mountains out of molehills.

Leaving this nut job alone doesn't seem to help. Over 220 off topic posts with absolutely no responses. Even after promising to stop they still don't get the hint. Close the thread now and ban the address from all other threads. If you don't you're just asking for trouble. It's easy to ignore all this nonsense, but why let it trash up the site? If a dog crapped on your lawn 220 times you would put up a fence wouldn't you?

First of all I didn't promise to leave the site. Secondly, I don't have to leave the site, because some stranger suggests I leave the site, thirdly, I'm as free to speak my mind as a person who has nothing to contribute but an attack on another person.

Why are you here anyway? if it's not to learn something then why don't YOU leave the site?

go to sweden

Whether or not people respond to it, you are overstepping yourself in presuming it might not be useful to somebody. Just because you don't want to read it doesn't make it invalid, or anything but you being a pain in the butt.

see the loveli moose

Why would I want to go to Sweden? I'm perfectly comfortable right here in the USA. Especially since I'm not in an area where I was having to dodge bullets daily.

moose are very common in sweden

Why don't you go to Los Angeles, I'll call my friends and let them know where to meet you. LOL

my sister was bitten by a moose once

Are they? I saw them in Alaska. I don't need to go to sweden to see them

moose can be very nasti creatures you know

lissa said: Are they? I saw them in Alaska. I don't need to go to sweden to see them

I'm not at all bitter. Bitterness is a waste of time and energy. That's why I said not worrying about these things too much is a better avenue to health.

you must be careful when you are in moose country

No, I will never move to Alaska, last time I went there I got sick.

But you know docs. They will just want to give you medications that make you even sicker when you are suffering from nothing more than SAD.

do not approach a moose very closely

Moose are pretty big animals.

I would worry more about the bears though.

if you have a moose in your house it can be veri troublesome

Pretty much any animal can be troublesome when they are in your house and frightened.

there are small moose that can be kept as pets however

Even moms......LOL

they are easy to housebreak

I haven't heard of small pet moose.

I think breeding animals to make them smaller as pets leads to genetic defects.

Same thing with people. A lot of congenital defects are caused by nothing but an unsuitable breeding match.

dwarf moose are very good around children

But telling a person they should have an abortion because of a "chance" (whatever that chance might be) is a highly unethical thing for a doctor to say.

Some people have Children knowing the risks. It's certainly not up to a Dr. to decide whether they should or not.

they are very easy to train

My daughter would probably like to have a dwarf moose.

But I don't think her dad would let her have one.

I don't think he even likes the cats very much.

some people train them to guard their homes

She was very upset when her porcupine had to be euthenized.

go to sweden

Some animals that are trained to guard, or bred to guard are good.

But some "people" will become so used to them alerting them they will ignore a real danger when it presents itself. But only really ignorant people would do that.

see the loveli moose

I probably would go to Sweden if I could. I'm sure it is a very lovely place to go.

My mom went to Italy last summer. I would probably prefer a place like Sweden.

moose are veri common in sweden

I'd love to see a Doctor tell a black person they should have an abortion, because of Sickle Cell Anemia risks.

Would they get sued? probably, but hey that would be a matter for the lawyers, they aren't interested in protecting people the ADA says are protected.

my sister was bitten by a moose once

Did it swell to huge proportions, and get infected?

Or are you just pulling my leg?

moose can be very nasti creatures you know

I don't know about moose bites. Horse bites can get pretty nasty though.

if you are in moose country you must be very careful

All creatures have a tendency to get nasty under certain circumstances.

It's really too bad people want to mess with the ecosystem to benefit themselves, but it's not a thing we can do much about when they decide to do it.

I'd be seeing an orthomolecular doctor if I had any choices, but they don't really like to give people choices.

My clinic won't do "meds only"? Why not? Simply because they won't have money flowing in if they do.

I would prefer to just see a psychiatrist if I had my way about it. Therapy doesn't help people who already know everything they are "supposedly" teaching them.

do not approach a moose closely

I don't believe I would. Even little Reindeer can get nasty if they weren't happy about something.

if a moose gets into your house it can be very troublesome

Go to Hawaii and take a look at what they've done over there by thinking importing mongoose was a good idea.

Even trying to control the environment naturally has a poor effect most of the time.

however dwarf moose make very nice pets

Sometimes you don't want to approach Lissa very closely. Lissa can be a very nasty creature, especially when it is a matter of some silly whacked out on drugs person having a "perceived threat" in their head and coming at her like a Banshee.

LOL

go to sweden

mrg,

Tim will be back tomorrow. I suggest you let him deal with this crackpot. Until then it can be safely ignored.

ok

mrg. Mr. Stanton is a lot of talk, but I'm not a Crackpot. he would probably more likely sit and cry and complain, than fight when the need arose, or get hisself killed.

All I attemted to do was explain the biological effects of stress, and he butted his little busy nose in and attacked me.

If anyone should be dealt with, methinks it is HE.

lissa said: mrg. Mr. Stanton is a lot of talk, but I'm not a Crackpot. he would probably more likely sit and cry and complain, than fight when the need arose, or get hisself killed.

Stanton said: So says the troll who has been posting 220+ comments of unrelated, useless inanity.

So let's start over with the lesson, pay attention this time please.

http://www.brainsource.com/stress_&_health.htm

Negative feedback never did a child any good, it sure isn’t going to do an adult any good either.

I have enough confidence in myself, but I don’t exactly need other people coming over here trying to bring me down, because I’m causing them stress.

I wasn’t causing my mother stress at all, she was causing it herself by insisting on thinking she has to guard over me.

“Relaxation through meditation, biofeedback, and a variety of other activities and techniques promotes lower blood pressure, slower respiration, reduced metabolism and muscle tension. These counteract the effects of stress.”

The reason this could cause a problem for someone in my situation, is pretty basic. I’ve had other people attemting to control all my activities for so long, that I haven’t even had a chance to live the way I would like to live.

If a person isn’t used to (or in my case not even allowed to) dealing with their problems the way they would like to, when they meditate they will acceess parts of their brain they aren’t used to using

I’ve been engaging in these things for as long as i can remember.

Like the article said it’s a natural response to stress. But when I start suffering the symptoms and I decide to crash and rest until I feel better and then someone calls me up and yells at me, I’m just going to get agressive with them, until they leave me alone.

Is it my mother’s fault she does this? Not really, her response is just as natural as mine. But she leans more towards panicky than I do. I generally just go with the flow and don’t make mountains out of molehills.

many people experience hallucinations due to stress, it's pretty simple. If someone was experiencing a migraine they might have an hallucination, but they wouldn't get attacked for having any type of religious beliefs.

...and the relevance of your diary entries to the particular event of the posted topic is...???

Judge Orders Children out of Home School Because of Creationism?

I think it is pretty clear what it is.

A belief in a higher power, does not suggest an unhealthy situation.

If I saw the devil, or I saw god, or I saw people who weren't allive anymore I would just be experiencing a situation in a realm that "darwin" freaks wat to decide for themselves whether or not it existed.

It exists for the simple reason that I saw it. It's not up to a Judge, you, or anybody but me to decide how I want to interpret the events.

Suggesting a person go away when offering tips to combat stress, is pure stupidity.

Please BW these, I have a response that is not appropriate here. Thank you.

I personally don't think it's anymore inappropriate than others thinking they should be the moderators of the site.

But that's just my opinion, and it wasn't exactly directed at you anyway.

I'd rather be called stupid than all the names these people have been calling me.

But frankly, if it REALLY bothered me I'd be whining and complaining like they are.

I think it's kind of sad that I would have to point out the relevancy to the specific topic, when I've already done it over and over again.

Every one of my posts was relevant to the discussion at hand.

It is a form of critical thinking.

you start with a hypothesis and you see where it leads.

It led me to the conclusion that the Government regulating these things isn't any different than a Church regulating them.

And if I happened to be starving because the government didn't give a damn, I'd probably go to a church and get fed.

LOL

Believing eternal medication is the answer to MY specific problem has always been a PRESUMPTION.

It's pretty obvious that without all the stressful situations I have endured that may not be the case.

I know how to deal with stress, my body does it automatically, I'm actually quite good at it, it's more a matter of other people letting me do it in my own time, if they left me alone to practice my specific stress reduction techniques for a while maybe I could get them to stop forcing pills down my throat.

Tim,

Are you back yet Tim? Hello Tim. Please close this thread immediately and block the lissa, ps address permanently. Thanks.

Why should Tim block me? I'm the one getting harrassed for having an opinion.

Tim obviously doesn't think you guys are his boss anyway.

You folks are almost as bad as the government is about these things.

If you can't distinguish between a philosophy that believes in Universal Principles and a Religion, you probably shouldn't even be expressing an opinion yourself.

And if you aren't familiar with certain laws that I have challenged, you also shouldn't have an opinion about that.

DS: I sent a polite email to TS suggesting that he look into the matter. In the meantime, I counsel patience.

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

you can take a look at, you don't have to, but I have been discriminated against, and if you don't like me thinking it's BS, that's your problem

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

lissa said: Why should Tim block me? I'm the one getting harrassed for having an opinion. Tim obviously doesn't think you guys are his boss anyway.

Thanks Stanton.

I know it isn't my personal message board. I'm not posting about the government ruining my life, I am posting about LAWS that have affected my LIFE, that were straight pure and simple discriminatory acts.

Along with violations of my medical records remaining private.

Believe me Stanton, if CPS went and took all you medical records, and then straight out made up lies, and never even once addressed your medical problem specifically it would enrage you.

By law 3 doctors would have to say I wasn't fit to be a parent before they could even consider it.

But it doesn't work like that, because they will just do whatever they can do to get the most money.

The pills and the doctors aren't the problem, and I never said the pills and the doctors were the problem.

I said the PRESUMPTION that I need pills forever, or the PRESUMPTION that I'm incompetent because I'm ill is a problem.

And it would be a problem for YOU just as much as it is for ME.

However SOME pills are a problem, due to adverse side-effects. Basically I just don't take those pills, and like I said, don't have to.

I don't have to take any at all if I don't want to. I do take a few because they help me, but that doesn't mean I need them forever.

lissa said: Thanks Stanton. I know it isn't my personal message board. I'm not posting about the government ruining my life, I am posting about LAWS that have affected my LIFE, that were straight pure and simple discriminatory acts.

1. You attacked me first, I don't ask for people to be sympathetic to my "plight"

I don't have a "plight" I deal with my problems according to how I want to deal with them, could care less about how you perceive me to be "miserable" that's in your head.

Frankly I'm more concerned about other people going through similar things.

I don't have any legal problems myself, don't worry about past legal problems I've had very much either.

It's not even about "me".

I'm not overmedicated, didn't say I was overmedicated, have been overmedicated, but hey you are reading plenty of things that I never said.

If a person drinks a little too much and drives and gets a dui and is sent to diversion the form goes something like this.

How long have you been an alcoholic?

(LOL, I'm not a durg addict myself, but they don't like to make a distinction between, I once experimented and I'm an addict)

blah blah blah

The system is just set up to be discriminatory.

It's really rather offensive to an "individual"

I don't think profiling is necessarily a bad thing, because it's necessary to a point from a Criminal Justice point of view..

But flat out "assuming" someone has a drug problem just because they discussed "past" issues in a Confidential Therapy meeting is DISCRIMINATING.

As would "assuming" someone is a bad parent because they are a Christian, Jew, Atheist, or whatever.

But like I already pointed out, Christians get it put on them the most in this country.

Christians don't teach their kids to ignore what's been discovered so far.

If they did, I wouldn't have had much of an education.