Juvenile Killers on Drugs

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
http://www.cbnnow.com/newsstand/stories/990707.asp

"Psychiatrist David Larson says, for the sake of the kids, we might lower the wall keeping church and state apart."

Yeah and if we just turn the US into a police state then we wouldn't have anything to worry about, right...

Time to go to the bathroom and retch...


------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
why does everyone seem to think there can be NO MENTION of religion concerning government? as i read the the constitution, it says the state cannot MANDATE a religion, it doesn't say it can't acknowledge religion's existence.
seem's to me, mandating NO RELIGION IS THE SAME,IE: supporting atheism over all others?
if they truly wanted NO religion, there would be no mention of it, no reference in constitutional oaths, or on our coinage etc.
where is the tolerance and equality we are supposed to stand for?
your beliefs are just that;yours. there is room for all save intolerance.

what we truly need is a return to the family,with values learned at home.
there used to be a popular slogan" GOD, GUTS AND GUNS MADE AMERICA FREE".
this was true at a time when the family was a given, maybe it's time to go back there.
cmore
 
Could someone please tell me where I can read about this separation of church and state? The only thing I've been able to find on the subject is in the bill of rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems to me as long as congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion then no rights have been violated.
 
walkin man,
Im no xpert, but I think that is the only reference that exists in the founding documents, allthough I havent looked for it and could be wrong.........I think the problem comes in the interpretation of the so call implied meaning by our august body of supreme ct judges......fubsy.
 
RE: Separation of Church and State...

Here are some references

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0183_Separation_of_Church.html lots of citations
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ lots of citations.

If you read these, you'll see that this issue is very clouded and hence, easily interpretable for either side of the issue (depending on your position).

Personally, I see no consistency in the "modern" pro-separatists position...i.e they are anti-Judeo Christian, yet pro- other religions.
Part of the reason this issue has become "important" in schools has to do with the contentious issue of evolution vs. creationism in science teaching. In my opinion the pendulum has swung too far to the other side as certain "religions" are (i.e animism, naturism and Wiccan) brought in when dealing with environmental aspects of biology. Before the "Greens" co-opted the word "environmental", it was a neutral and respected word that described a particular aspect of biological science..i.e climate, rainfall, temperature, population dynamics and pressure, etc. As education has become politicized, "environmentalism" has become corrupted and perverted into a religion of sorts, and the practioners bring in idealized notions of anti-technology and of living in harmony with nature like ancient cultures allegedly did. They are doing the same exact thing they sought to prevent "Christians" from doing.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching kids respect, morality, ethics, etc...

But to say that the federal government should be involved with choosing which particular brand of religion is foisted on all the kids is quite another story. If a local school district thinks that having the 10 commandments up on the wall will reinforce positive values, that's fine with me.

------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited July 09, 1999).]
 
You fail to recognize how far the seperation of church and state has been taken. Some schools are not even allowing kids to pray togethor if they choose. How about this, try telling your school that your child is not going to do a report on evolution because it conflicts with your belief in creationism. If I remember right, evolution is a theory with A LOT OF HOLES in it. A child that carries his Bible to school to read during breaks or lunch is penalized. The same child can check out a book from the library that promotes homosexuality or premarital sex advice or nudity in the name of art. Seperation of church and state was ment to keep both from interfereing with the other. This is why this country was founded. People running from government enforced religion in Spain. People should be able to practice what ever religion they want as long as it doesn't cause anyone else harm. Children need to know that there is one supreme being that governs us all. No matter if your the President or a just a parent. There is an ultimate right and wrong and it is not based on group consensus. I do agree that the government should not tell us one way or the other what we can or can't do when it comes to religion. That should be determined locally. This is why our schools should be returned to local control not government control. I remember hearing Jeffery Dalmer say that it was easier for him to kill his victoms after being taught that evolution was fact and that we all make our own standards of right and wrong. It's easier to kill someone who is a descendant of a monkey than it is a devine creation of God.
This is what the Dr. you quote is trying to say.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
re: my earlier post:
the only place i've found it is the bill of rights, (1st 10 amndts to constitution).
as i read this, it is saying that the govt. is not to favor one religion over another( recognise, or give special status to, etc). it does not deny the existence of religion, or prohibit prayer at official functions,nor does it require participation by anyone. IMHO, lawyers have used a very narrow logic to twist this for the benefit of a few, and the courts have galloped along the same path until they are biting their own tails. by establishing non-recognition as the official position, they are favoring atheism(belief there is no supreme being) over all other religions. this, i think, is not valid. if it is , why does the house and senate have a chaplain?
i feel that so long as we do not require religious affiliation, then those not desiring to take part in a prayer or who don't wish to swear an oath on a bible or "in God's name" or "with his help", shoud simply do so, and quietly respect the rights of others to ask blessing or give thanks in public. leaning over backward to accomodate everyone usually results in landing on your butt . a little courtesy would go a long way in keeping relations civil.we demand tolerance,ergo we should be willing to give it.
not saying govt. should tell people what to believe.

[This message has been edited by cmore (edited July 09, 1999).]
 
I'm sorry, but I think the real issue here is whether prescription drugs are a significant factor in recent school shootings.

Since guns are not really more accessible now (in spite of the constant drumbeat of BS we all hear), and violent movies / TV have actually been around for quite a while, these drugs seem more likely to be the variable that has more recently changed.

If more people truly gave a damn about why we suddenly have a higher incidence of such violence, then I think we would all be looking harder at this variable. But, of course, that's not really the point, is it?

Sarcasm aside, I look forward to reading more about the potential link between drugging our children and possibly related psychotic behavior. Ken Hamblin has been beating this drum for a little while now.
 
The articles focus was on giving kids prescription drugs to control their behavior. My wife (former teacher's assistant) and I (Boy Scout leader) have both seen this first hand. In every single case either of us has seen, the kids behavior, attitude and intellegence drasticly improved after they STOPPED taking these drugs! These drugs aren't for the kids, the're for the parents so that they don't have to deal with the kids. These parents accually drug their children, usually on a doctor's advice, because they are the ones who can't deal with the problem!
DAMN, THIS CRAP REALLY PISSES ME OFF!
 
Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid here, but I think there's a very serious situation (I hate using the word "conspiracy") involving the rampant spread of drugs prescribed to children/adolescents in order to control their behavior. I use the word "control" because it is no less than that. The only thing these drugs accomplish is the transformation of a person with a few behavioral problems into a mindless, complacent, happy idiot. There are much better ways of altering a childs behavior than loading him or her up on Prozac, but these mostly involve actually...Ready for this? It's kinda tricky...Parenting! But alas, too many people with children(I will not call them parents since I regard that as a title to be earned) have greater concern over wether or not their BMW is better than the neighbor's Mercedes. Or they'd rather spend the day kissing the boss' arse at the country club. Ahhh. I can already hear their flawed logic and feeble minds at work attempting to justify their behavior... "Isn't it enough we gave him his life and spoiled him rotten with material goods? You expect us to be teachers? That's what school is for! You expect us to be role models? Why? We have all these wonderful athletes, celebrities, and politicians that ought to be idolized! (I could have just said "that's what TV is for", but that sounds more dramatic, and gets to the heart of it.) You expect us to help him with problems? Why are we paying a kazillion dollars an hour to some guy whose name we can't even pronounce? How dare you suggest we put aside our valuable time to interact with this child who, for some unknown reason, does not respect us for all we've done for him?! I guess my point is...Gee...I forgot. I must be thinking too freely for my own good. Guess they'll try to load me up on Prozac next.
 
Boy, I wouldn't want to be around for that double blind study.

Take 100 kids, give 1/2 of them prozac, etal, 1/2 a palcebo.

Give 1/2 of each of that group "easy" access to handguns.

Sit back and watch the results.
 
Interesting. Chemical baby-siters, junk diet, lack of parental attention/involvement - could maybe be a recipe for disaster? I keep seeing all these silly-assed rules & laws "for the kids" e.g. about keeping them from falling thru bleechers, no racy TV programming before 10 PM, etc. trying to eliminate risk exposure to the little brats, and all I can figure is that it means that parents aren't watching their kids, so they want laws for everything, rather than paying attention. Maybe it isn't "for the kids" at all, but for the lazy parents. Barf.
M2
 
If you really want to get spooked, consider our race to enact more and more and more laws. Then, read up on fascism. I guess it's not just one of those obsolete terms, eh?
 
Back to the original link:
Child psychiatrist Larry Silver should be incarserated in a school full of his drug controlled automotons. Unarmed of course. He would sing a different tune in record time.



------------------
Want to feel your age?Check it out. http://web.superb.net/boy/age1.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top