GOOOOOOO, Denver!!!

I endorse their First Amendment right to picket.

I'm having trouble with the last photo.

Those kids should be in school and NOT exposed to those pictures. (No kids should be exposed to those pics...)
Apathy does NOT equal hatred.

Does the little kid even know what the word "apathy" means? My advice: don't hold up a sign if you can't understand what it means (or if you can't read what it says).

Does the little kid even know what the word "apathy" means? My advice: don't hold up a sign if you can't understand what it means (or if you can't read what it says).

Posted by: JKeller at September 28, 2007 8:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My favorite example (taken at a pro-Bush/Iraq war rally):

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm

That last photo is very disturbing to me for multiple reasons, mainly because those kids are far too young to be exposed to politics imo, let them realize when and how they want to involve themselves in whatever causes they choose to, don't indoctrinate them at such a young age. Not to mention, if conservatives (which many RTLs are) say tv is too gory/violent/etc, how is allowing your kid to see a bloody fetus any better?

They have every right to picket, etc, I just wonder why any parent would show their kids a picture of a bloody fetus at such a young age. Hell, Jurassic Park traumatized me at that age if I remember correctly, or at least gave me horrible nightmares where raptors chased me down. I can't imagine what those kids must dream of.

Laura,

LOL!

Dan,

I totally believe that you shouldn't use your children as a signpost for your cause until they are old enough to know what it is that they are supporting/denouncing. Look at the Westboro cult. They make their children hold signs that say things like "God killed you because you're a fag". They don't know what a "fag" is or why they are "supposed" to hate them, and they don't know why people are offended by them and why some people drive by throwing things and shouting obscenities.

Ever hear of home schooling?

BTW their Mom may be an admirer of Anne Frank.

Ever hear of home schooling?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some who believes that "apathy = hatred" is homeschooling?

(My Michelle Duggar nightmare just flashed by...)

If my 3 yo can use "adaptation" and "camoflauge" in a sentence, I don't see why those kids wouldn't know what "apathy" meant.

-And, the kids could be homeschooled.

-Several districts in CO are on a year round track they could be off of school right now.

-Mom may have pulled them out for a lesson on Constitutional rights.

-In our district, it was Progress Report time. They could be out for a teacher work/inservice day.

The photos aren't any worse than what can be seen at the dinner hour on CSI. I'm not saying they are not graphic, but lets get real here and not pretend that America's children are never exposed to graphic things! (Hello, Obama and Kindergarten sex-ed, doesn't even begin to describe the culture our children live in!)

My own children know we are boycotting Outback Steakhouse, for example, and they know why.

Laura,
If Michelle Duggar gives you nightmares, I can understand why these signs are too graphic for you.

I can at least admire her for owning her house - and the stuff inside- free and clear!

Conservatives are against violence on TV dramas and "comedies". That is fictional violence which exists just to appeal to perverts. The violence of abortion is real, and should not be ignored by anyone.

I wouldn't let a child watch an R-rated movie, but if I thought they could deal with it, I would show them the reality of abortion. It is ironic that you would ask that such photos of "choice" be hidden from view. Why should they be hidden if they're nothing but photos of the result of the exercise of a wonderful human right?

Why should they be hidden if they're nothing but photos of the result of the exercise of a wonderful human right?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at September 28, 2007 10:27 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boinking is wonderful, but I don't show porn to kids.

Milehi,

I doubt many 3 year olds outside of your own can incorporate the words "adaptation" and "camouflage" in a sentence. That would be remarkable.

Three cheers for the Denver pro-life stalwarts.

To Laura and the others who criticize the children participating with their parents in this picket:

Mind your own business. Their parents are responsible for their welfare. Children understand what abortion is. Why don't you?

Jurassic Park traumatized you, Dan? Poor baby. What about abortion traumatizing women for life?

I don't think it is all that remarkable (Oh, that it were and I were raising a bunch of geniuses!).
It just depends on the vocabulary they are exposed to as they learn to speak. My 6 yo uses words like "frolic" which she picks up from the books she reads and fairy tales. Any 4 yo that is interested in dinosaurs can use words like "Tyrannosaurus Rex" or "Velociraptor" in a sentence.

BTW - I think that girl is older than three. The little one with no sign looks about 3, the one with the sign looks about 4 or 5.

Why are you so prejudiced against the illiterate? They aren't allowed to protest unless they can read their signs - not just have someone tell them what they say?

Who says I am prejudiced against the illiterate? These are small children, they are different from the illiterate in that it is okay if they can't read or understand big words because they're not supposed to yet. You want to stand on the side of the road all day holding pictures of dead fetuses and signs declaring your position to the world, thats free speech, thats fine. Small children might be able to repeat words that they've heard others use, but ask a five year old to explain their particular position on a political issue and watch the blank stares. Children should be given ample time to figure out exactly why they believe what they believe before they are thrown to the front of the picket line to score some kind of sympathy vote. ("Look, these are my children, I'm not a murderous scumbag!")

Laura, the reason why you don't show porn to kids is that the Law of God that fornication is wrong is written on your heart. Just as surely as God's hand wrote the Commandments on stone tablets, so too did He write them on the heart of every single human being.

It just depends on the vocabulary they are exposed to as they learn to speak. My 6 yo uses words like "frolic" which she picks up from the books she reads and fairy tales. Any 4 yo that is interested in dinosaurs can use words like "Tyrannosaurus Rex" or "Velociraptor" in a sentence.

Milehimama, good points. I've read that one good indication of how well kids in a family will do in reading and in learning to a large extent is simply how many books are in the household, especially books kids would be likely to read.

"Frolic." Great word.

Doug

Laura, the reason why you don't show porn to kids is that the Law of God that fornication is wrong is written on your heart.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah- I fornicate all the time.

I save pictures of pole dancers for the children:
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa77%2Froseycheeks_erickson%2FPuppyPoleDancer.jpg&searchTerm=puppy%20pole%20dancer&pageOffset=0

Puppies!!!

they are different from the illiterate in that it is okay if they can't read or understand big words

That sounds like prejudice to me! LOL

But it's not okay if you are an adult and can't read. OK.

Of course you fornicate, Laura. That should be obvious to everyone here. Why else would you defend the killing of unborn humans?

But you understand that children shouldn't see it, because you can't completely hide from the Word of God written on your heart. You have not completely shut yourself away from the truth, and so there is hope for you.

Paul, what about pregnancy traumatizing women for life?

Illiterate is a real word, its the term used for an adult who can't read. No one looks at a small child and calls them an illiterate, because they haven't reached school age where they are taught to read. Calling a person illiterate when they are actually illiterate is not prejudicial or an insult, it is what they are and there is no shame in it. Actually not once did I say something disparaging about an illiterate person this thread (or any thread, for that matter). I believe I was questioning whether or not that 4 or 5 year old child in the picture knew what the phrase on their sign meant, which, I would add, is not prejudicial either.

You implied that being illiterate was *not okay*.
You said that [the children] are different in that it is okay for them to not be able to read.

GASP! That's a *judgement*!

BTW, I looked it up on dictionary.com for the official version of the definition. It is:

il·lit·er·ate /ɪˈlɪtərɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lit-er-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. unable to read and write: an illiterate group.
2. having or demonstrating very little or no education.
3. showing lack of culture, esp. in language and literature.
4. displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular field: He is musically illiterate.
–noun
5. an illiterate person.

To say nothing of the blind people, who couldn't read such a sign. Should they be denied the right to protest with signs, since they can't read them either?

John L: Of course you fornicate, Laura. That should be obvious to everyone here.

:: laughing ::

John, you're a card.

Doug

All this is beside my point. Did I say a damn thing about people who can't read? No. I'm saying you shouldn't use your children as a signpost for your causes, because they probably don't really understand the position they are supposed to be taking. How did this turn into a "I hate people with learning disabilities, oh yeah, and blind people"? Any pro choicer says something and the first thing you turn to is to accuse us of bigotry. "You respect a woman's own judgement, you must hate black people", "You don't think children should protest things they don't understand, you must hate illiterate people and blind people".

Jeez.....

My advice: don't hold up a sign if you can't understand what it means (or if you can't read what it says).

This may not be the point you were trying to make, but this is what you wrote.

Which is why I asked you if illiterate people (and blind people, etc.) should be allowed to picket and protest.

I didn't accuse you of anything, simply asked questions for clarification. Your own projections are your problem.

And, how do you know that child doesn't understand what apathy, hatred or even what abortion is?

My advice: don't hold up a sign if you can't understand what it means (or if you can't read what it says).

This may not be the point you were trying to make, but this is what you wrote.

Which is why I asked you if illiterate people (and blind people, etc.) should be allowed to picket and protest.
I simply asked questions for clarification. Your own projections are your problem. Prejudice is not bigotry anyway - the words mean different things and are not interchangeable.

And, how do you know that child doesn't understand what apathy, hatred or even what abortion is?

You know, you're right, every 4 year old I know has an amazing vocabulary and I can chat for hours with them about the complicated issues of the day. I've had especially enlightening conversations about free trade with some Central American orphans.

If you understand why you are taking a certain position you should be able to protest. If you are holding a sign because your mommy says "here hold this sign because we don't want the bad people in our town" then you shouldn't be doing it, you should grow up and make up your own mind.

I wonder, JKeller, if you are of the camp that says parents should not take their children to church.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with that one, I am genuinely curious.

I don't know about JKeller, but I think parents should not take their children to church. I've never taken mine to church.

No, I'm not in that camp. Parents should take their kids to church if they choose to, as it helps instill the values they wish to instill in their children, especially if the parents are strongly religious. However, I don't believe you should continue dragging your kids to church if they are of age and they have good reasons as to why they don't wish to continue going to church.

One of my high school teachers was raised by two passionately religious parents, I think her father may have been a minister. But anyway, growing up she was taken to church by her parents every Sunday, but she grew to realize that church wasn't for her and she really hated going, so since she turned 18 she has never been back to church. However, when she had her first daughter she decided that she would send her daughter to church every Sunday with her church going parents until her daughter was old enough to decide whether or not church was for her.

Anyway, I thought this was a very wise decision on my teacher's part. I think it is important to expose children to all different viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them, so they can make the best informed decision about what they believe or believe in once they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Well I think a child's spirituality should certainly be open and not indoctrinated from birth, but in a way I feel there needs to be a basis somewhere, whether taking them to various services, or reading them stories from different cultures, etc, I think there should at least be something somewhere, and then the child can choose where they wish to gravitate, if anywhere, when they are able to choose to.

I didn't mind going to church, for awhile anyway. But then I ended up researching other religions, etc and came up with my own views, and then Catholics (my family essentially) got a new pope, and honestly I think he's terrible. Even my staunch, ultra-conservative grandmother dislikes him greatly. He's taking catholicism back to the medieval days, as she put it. Paul the 2nd was a step forward, and benedict is a step or two back. He also really isnt helping religion's case at all

as for church, I am required to go on christmas eve. I can deal with having to go once a year, but I really dont like the way the church has been pushing itself forward, politicizing itself, and essentially turning into a lobbying organization. It's ridiculous imo.

I think you can go to church every Sunday and not be blindly indoctrinated. I kind of view it (religion/churchianity) from a third person perspective, knowing that people aren't infallible you sometimes notice contradictions in what they say. Knowing all this you kind of begin to search out things for yourself, not depending on the knowledge of others to sustain you. That's one of the big issues with religion that I have, it's like someone tells you something that may or may not be true and you base everything you do in your life upon something that you have never (or barely) researched. Some of the strongest, most knowledgeable Christians I know are the ones that take their faith into their own hands, they are always wanting to know more, and are not blindly accepting doctrine because they think they are supposed to.

Dan,

I have a bad feeling about this pope, as well. I know how this might sound to some of you, but I'll go ahead and say it: there is something about him that just does not bode well. I'm pretty sure its in his eyes.

Anyway, interesting bit I heard about just today....Apparently one of the former popes was a prophet who prophesied that there would be a pope called John Paul II and after him would be only two more popes, the second being the antichrist. I know this doesn't really fit my theory about the ill potential I see in Benedict XVI, but I thought I would share anyway.

Dan,
I can see how if you are going to a Catholic church because you like the Pope, how the election of a new one would throw you for a loop.
But I don't go because I like the Pope. I go because I believe it has the fullness of the Gospels, and is true. Why would I *choose* to be a Catholic otherwise? It's not like it's a load of fun and games, all about entertainment and feel-good fluffies! If I relied on mere feelings, I'd go to my husband's church which has a band and a pastor who tells jokes.

The prophet you are referring to is St. Malachi, who lived in Ireland 850 years ago. He left a list of different popes, but described them cryptically. I have heard that prophecy, but I suggest you read it (not someone's interpretation of it). It uses a lot of symbolic imagery, which some people have attributed to mean JPII.
The last three Popes on his list are:
De Labore Solis (The Work of the the Sun)
Gloria Olivae (The Glory of the Olive)
and Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman)

De Labore Solis has been attributed as meaning JPII but no one knows for sure. The prophecy goes on to say that under Peter the Roman (who is not identified as the anti-christ), there will be tribulations, the city on seven hills will be destroyed (that's Rome), and the people will be judged.

And, according to Scripture, the "anti-Christ" is actually anyone who opposes Christ. I'm guessing you are talking about the "Big A" from Revelation, though?

Really, if you are going to rely on esoteric prophecy to inform your decisions on religion, and by extension, your immortal soul, I suggest a little more research may be in order.

Most people don't hate the Catholic church, they hate what they THINK the Catholic church is.

BTW - I'm happy to continue this discussion or answer any questions re: Catholicism. E-mail me or hit my blog (don't know if Jill wants us hijacking her site for this! LOL)

Sorry, the part of my comment re:prophets was for JKeller, not Dan.