From: MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: A definition of f.v's?
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:55:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-To:         christia%asuacad.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU

Subject: Re: A definition of f.v's?

MAKS> I saw this and a couple of points made my heart jump into my
      throat. I haven't caught the whole thread there, and this darn
      network makes it hard to see someone's facial expressions or
      see the tone which something was written in. I'm not angry or
      anything, but some of these points hit close as I home school,
      am Pro-Life, Pro Family.

      Fritz responded quite well to this post, but there were areas
      that I felt strongly about, and want to respond on them as well.

Tom Witherspoon -------------------------------------------------------->
In article <19AUG92.09077114.0037.MUSIC@LAFAYACS>,         "Fritz Block, LCF
Summer President" <BD32@LAFAYACS.BITNET> writes:
Fritz--

:Let me see if I've got this straight.  Family values entail the
following:

> Vetoing the Freedom of Choice Act,
--> so there can be more families, whether or not the mother is capable of
    handling the responsibilities of raising a family
MAKS> I know you're not saying this, but if children become a burden,
      then let the state come and take them away. If a family is not
      capable of handling the responsibilities of an aging parent living
      with them, let's assist in a honorable death to that aging
      parent. (I use assisted suicide because the choice above for
      this mother "not capable of handling the responsibility" is death
      to her unborn child, not adoption.)

> giving parents the right to choose
> between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
> choosing the latter),
--> so there can be more families rooted in strong religious values (mostly
:chrisitan, let's face it) and have the rest of the country to pay for
:children to go to a school that is outside the taxpayer's faith
MAKS> This one hurt. I home school. This talks about "the rest of the
      country to pay for..." and I pay all the school taxes and receive
      none of the benefits, and it almost sounds like "So what? That's
      fair. You deserve what you get." Books this year will cost in the
      neighborhood of $500-900 for 3.5 kids, which is quite reasonable.
      I've got a 14 year old testing at a college grad level in reading
      and writing skills. If she were allowed, this girl could get her
      GED TODAY! But, "Tough. You don't deserve any breaks..."
         I admit this might have just been an "oops" on the poster's
      presentation of his thoughts, so no harm done.
         My daughter was watching 700 Club off the VCR last night as
      her and I were getting ready to go to Civil Air Patrol. She's
      doing fantastic there. They say she shows great intelligence
      (surprise, surprise) and shows respect to those in authority,
      etc. Anyhow, she was watching 700 Club and said to me, "I'M SO
      GLAD I'M A CHRISTIAN." and I said "Praise God."
         YES, WE RAISED HER WITH STRONG CHRISTIAN VALUES. IS THERE
      ANYTHING, ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD THAT REALLY MATTERS????
      This is a Christian list, a Christian nation, or at least we have
      freedom to be Christian. Even if I don't get tax breaks to Home
      school, my children are God's gift to me. What I can help make of
      them are my gift to God. If she is poor, and has Jesus, she is
      rich. If she is rich, and doesn't have Jesus, she is poor.

      Now, on "the rest of the taxpayers", think about this. If "no-faith
      school 1" is teaching new age meditation, "values judgement", and
      things like this, and "no-faith school 2" is teaching reading,
      writing and arithmetic. You have coupons now. Which school do
      you choose? I may not want to know.

> banning the distribution of condoms in public
> schools,
--> so there can be more children raising children, ergo, more families; and
:let's not forget more sexually transmitted diseases, more babies born
:with aids and other diseases, ergo, more dysfunctional families
MAKS> Quoting from Dr. Day on this one, and then commenting.
    Day: I can tell you what the government really thinks about condoms.
About 2 years ago, UCLA was given 1 million dollars to do a study on the
prevention of AIDS from one gay man to another by the use of condoms
during sex. One courageous National Institute of Health researcher spoke
up and said "We're removing the million dollars from UCLA because our
pilot studies have shown that condoms are so ineffective we would give
too many gay men AIDS who don't already have it.

      Another thing Day had commenting on was to the effect of what
      giving condoms says to our kids. "You have no self control. We
      expect nothing but the worst from you. We don't believe you have
      any integrity, so here, take a condom. It won't necessarily
      protect you, but you might manage to live a few more years if
      you use one. Good luck." Also, as Josh McDowel says, and is
      similar to what A. E. Wilder Smith says...

    Josh: And then they'll say, "Well look. It's unrealistic to expect
them to wait." Dr. Ruth was speaking to 1,500 students at the University
of Cincinnati, and before 1500 students, Dr. Ruth made this statement,
said "Young people, it's unrealistic to expect you to wait, your libido"
in other words your sex drive, "is too strong." And they applauded her.
1500 students that are supposed to have both oars in the water, they
didn't even have the boat in the water, they applauded her.

    Do you know what that's saying? I wish Dr. Ruth and Planned
Parenthood  and some of the other sex educators would get one thing
straight. When we talk about young people, we're talking about my
children, your children, and other people's kids. We are *NOT* talking
about animal sexuality. We are talking about human sexuality. We're
talking about young people, who have the capacity to make right moral
decisions and abide by them.

    And what I tell young people is, "The moment you surrender that in
your life to Dr. Ruth, Planned Parenthood, or anyone else, you have lost
your humanity, and you're no different than an animal."

(...)
> and developing stricter FCC regulations, to name a few.
--> so that families will watch a controlled media, so that families will be
    influenced correctly.
MAKS> Most of us are just concerned that what TV shows goes against what
      we see in real life and the values we hold dear. As one of our
      posters said, "What programs, other than Cosby, show a family with
      values, the parents are not jerks, the children not in control and
      ruling the nest, and Christian individuals are not jerks that need
      counseling?" (paraphrased)

:This really isn't meant as a flame, but as reminder that "family
values" can mean anything you want them to mean.  I mean, what does banning the
"Joe Camel" ads have to do with the american family??  Where is the increased
support for daycare?  What about better maternity leave?  What about better
insurance coverage for families that have children?  Broader inoculation and
immunization programs?  Restructuring the basic educational system so that
_all_ children are taught the same things at the same time?  What about support
for scholarships for college and other higher education?  What about financial
assistance for families that have fallen on hard economic times?  (I'm not
speaking of welfare, something different must be done.)
MAKS> There is another problem here. The government is almost broke. How
      do you expect us to carry on all these programs under these
      conditions? Many are saying that we have 5-9 years before we are
      facing a major depression. Some of the government programs cost
      I think it was $0.83 on the $1 to operate. I think I heard that
      if the admin costs could be cut, welfare could give each family
      almost $30,000 plus.

      I don't understand it all, but Larry Burkett's book and one other
      I have say that welfare hurts the society and tears it down. Also,
      as a Christian, does life owe us anything? Really? I want tax
      breaks for taking the time to home school my children, but then
      again, am I "owed" those breaks? I doubt it.

      I must admit I don't understand it though. The Bible says, "Let
      him who does not work, not eat." and the book(s) try to explain
      how a works program could be put into effect. I guess I'll
      have to read it again.

:There are so many facets to the family, and the family is changing.
It is time to put away the slogans, and deal with the issues at hand, and the
problems that have to be solved.
MAKS> Agreed, but just how do we go about doing that? I don't think the
      government is necessarily the best place to start.

Love and good walking,

Tom Witherspoon

In His Love,
Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU