:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: This is what I've been taught. Not often easy, but always right. Others can "hurt" me, but what I do with that hurt is my responsibility. Geo

.:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:..That is SO true! But no biggie, nursing doesn't bother me a bit. I actively nursed for a total of 16+ years. I could push a grocery cart (usually containing both toddler & groceries) with one arm while holding a nursing a baby... I never drew stares because I was good at it. On the other hand, I may have just had the benefit of the doubt...the general population wouldn't even imagine that such a thing was possible. :lol: Geo

How weird are you willing to be? Never really thought about having a choice in it...teehee. Geo

A friend of mine has one of these...but failed to mention the name. I understand why. They are clever and attractive (for those who want to use them), but MY, the name! Two steps forward, one step back. Geo

Ah, I see. Well, I admit that my ps education did nothing to prevent that misunderstanding. :001_huh: I don't agree that the word is racist, colonial -yes, but not necessarily racist. Indeed, it may have been used by many racists, but no fact that the word intentionally maligns a people (or religion) is lacking. While waiting for your reply I did some googling too. I found a message board that discussed "Change of names of religions". Obviously, this is not an academic discussion. However, it does reflect the hearts of people grappling to understand the changes in society and the world...especially as quickly as they have been changing lately. I'll leave the link and close with saying, No offense intended, but I apologize for any given. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_March_8#Change_of_names_of_religions_-_Mohammedan_to_Muslim Geo PS: I usually use a Websters 1828 Dictionary...It have found it to be morally superior than modern day dictionaries, especially where words like holy, marriage, purity, truth, etc are concerned.

Whoa! Wait a second... :chillpill: I am unaware of this. A little benefit of the doubt would be nice. Why is it racist? How is it disrespectful? ...maybe you could enlighten me. I ask that you not rush to judge my intentions though. I just looked up the term on Webster's Dictionary: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:GmRLjS7vmbkJ:www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Mohammedism.html+mohammedism&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us How is this offensive? Geo

Osmosis Mom, What were you referring to when you wrote this (to KingM): "So, were you saying that all problems in the world are due to Islam and that the apparent proof to behold is initially the burqa?" I must be daft, but I can't seem to pinpoint where that was implied, could you help me? BTW, you are intelligent and lucid, please don't get offended and withdraw your input. I have appreciated your perspective in these dialogues.If your sudden silence was due to other duties...then please forgive my assumption.:001_smile: Geo

Mohammedism...would be the practice of the teachings of Mohammed. Geo

No, I was not aware. I am not affiliated with the anabaptists. Geo

Big ditto there! Geo

In the strictest sense, communism has yet to be realized. The original definition of communism was described as: socialists striving for the utopia of communism in which there is no government and all live according to the rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Remember the "communes" of the 60's & 70's? Socialism is an economic and political system under which virtually everything (and thereby...everyone?) is owned and controlled by government agencies. Russia was socialist... "United Soviet Socialist Republic". It always had government. True communism was never achieved. I believe the comparison arose from the term "socialistic" that I used to describe France. I apologize, that is incorrect. For decades, the socialist party of France, "Parti Socialiste Français" dominated local and national elections. I am outdated and out of touch with politics today (my grandfather would have a fit), my statement was careless and wrong. Though I believe there is still a strong socialist sentiment in France.....IMO.

Maybe, but not so sure. From what I know, the socialist countries are not under a single organization which provides a uniform program of "protocol". The idea: "forging of some idea of national identitiy" actually further's my point in a small way: The greater good over personal freedom. It wasn't an attack on France, just an observation of the fruits of socialism. America has diversity too,... even borne offense from radical Islam yet has not banned headcoverings. Geo

No, absolutely not! We embrace modesty in our own family. I have worn a headcovering in the past...but it has always been voluntary on my part. If the Burqa were a purely voluntary practice and the woman didn't fear reprisal (or even ostracism) for not wearing it, then I would thoroughly appreciate...indeed, defend it as an expression of one's personal faith. I guess it's when the practice is imposed that it irks me. Geo

Jut came to me...France is socialististic. Socialism always puts the "greater good" of society over individual freedom. Yep, that's probably it. Well, probably a mix of both, acually. Geo

I have no knowledge as to why that would be the case, except...could those countries be trying to discourage mohammedism, therefore avoiding the presence of extremists? Geo

Sequins and bobbles are permitted because in all honesty, that is not what men lust after. I can respect modesty, but I have always struggled with the Burqa. The men in those societies believe that it's the woman's fault if he lusts after her (fear). There seems to be no male responsibility in it, except to keep the women covered up so as not to bring him shame (guilt). As far as the double standard, that is to be expected when the rules are made by those who are motivated by self-interest. I have no doubt that many of the women have embraced this cultural/religious practice as an expression of their personal holiness and are truly noble women at heart. For the rest, it is an extreme legalism that is imposed upon them and is a symbol of their oppression. Geo

No, never do cheesy...I have "lack"-tose intolerance.:lol: Go ahead and indulge, I'll just watch from a distance.:ack2: Geo

I have it. We will be using it this school year. Even though we haven't actually used it yet, I have really looked it over. First, it is recommended by the author for grades 2-5. Second, from what I observe, is that even though the experiments are simple enough for a first grader, I am not sure how much they would actually internalize. Some for sure, but keeping charts and filling out observation sheets...I'm not so sure about. I'm not saying it couldn't be gotten through, but to what benefit? If your first grader is the primary student and not a tag along, It's probably better to wait. However, if you were doing this with an older child and was wondering if your younger could go along for the ride, then I would say go for it...what's the harm? Actually, I was going to use it with my 10yo and let my 7yo "audit." :001_smile: No expectations, just let him glean what he can. Geo

Years ago, I saw a sign on the door of a Denny's that said: "We have braille menus" *snort* Geo

Oh, I see now that you were referring to SOTW and short trips specifically. Well, personally, I haven't found listening during short trips very conducive to retention...or enjoyment. In fact, as much as we love audio books, we didn't care for SOTW on CD at all. Sorry, Geo

We live about 20-25 minutes from town, this has been wonderful for audio books. They do listen at home, but distractions are a bigger problem there. I found that bedtime is good when there is a need for greater consistency. When really caught-up in a book, we have listened during our lunch time. Geo

ALL of my 17yo dd's friends completely hounded her to read these books. I mean, they were almost frenzied in their pleas. We had never heard of them...so, we went to amazon.com and read the book description. It ended with the cheesily coined phrase: "Love with a bite." That was it. There was absolutely no way she was going to read these. No problem though, her mind was made up before she got that far. I am proud of her. Ridiculously cheesy read. Geo

Gotcha! Geo

YES I have been actively mothering for 35 years and my youngest is only 7yo (6 kids, 7-35yo). I've been homeschooling for 22+ years and still have at least 12 years to go...I'll be in my 60's by the time I'm done. Yep, I feel the need quite regularly. Not that I get it. Don't misunderstand, I love being a mom and homeschooling...but I am tired. At this point, QUIET is more important to me than anything else. :closedeyes: Yep, I would adore having a week or two just to repair my central nervous system. :blink: Geo

A good all-in-one resource for using the Principle approach is "A Guide To American Christian Education" by James B. Rose. It outlines 4-Ring, the seven principles, thinking governmentally, etc. This can often be found used on www.addall.com It is a "Big Red Book" a nickname for a core resource in the Principle Approach method. There are two other "Red" books, but these are more focused on the teaching of America's christian history: Teaching and Learning America's Christian History by Rosalie J. Slater Christian History of the Constitution by Verna Hall Geo