My mother-in-law was also a "Rosie the Riveter", my great-aunt was at Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 41 (that was on my mother's side of the family -- the young side, on my Dad's side - my grandfather was a bugler in the War Between the States).
Input from a pastor with both a Christian School and with homeschooling church families. My wife has home-schooled and taught in Christian.Schools for over 25 years. I am a HUGE home-school advocate (consider it preferable) yet realize that some (single parents, those struggling to correct early financial blunders, health disasters, etc) CANNOT and need a school available. This decision is a matter of prayer and open discussion between you and your husband. A word of warning on the C.S. --- MANY are Christian in theology and practice but have allowed the overall influence and atmosphere to be similar to a public school. My wife just walked in and I told about this. She highly recommended that if the children go to the C.S. you should offer to volunteer to help in the C.S. It will help to alleviate some of the "failure syndrome", allows you to have a finger on the "pulse" of the school and RARE is the C.S. that can't use some extra help. They may not use you in a teaching capacity but I'm sure they could use help in paperwork, etc. Someone lurking may pounce on this like a chicken on a June bug BUT as for failing your children educationally, not too likely unless you stuck them in the public indoctrination cesspool called Public School.
I'd never heard of geocaching before (I'm about as tech savvy as an 80 year old with a rotary dial phone -- new fangled thang ain't got no crank nor operator). I like the idea, especially the getting the younguns in on it. Our teen group used to go into stores and put tracts in clothing pockets, basketball boxes, suitcases of beer, etc.(think of shoplifting in reverse) Most any package that you can place the tract in without tearing or opening the box.
HaHa, could be a lot worse. I was in a church that was started in the old Elks Lodge building. I was in one that the building had formerly been an old redneck bar. The one I pastor is in what used to be the Mormon Church's building -- talk about talk of the town!
Noah Webster wrote an American dictionary, I highlighted the difference in common American usage and traditional English usage. This wasn't an American (including Webster's 1828) but English dictionary. Both Geneva and King James use words within an English context of usage and definition.
Cooking is a matter of economics, my wife can cook - I cannot. When she cooks it involves less money, more mess and our kitchen. When I cook it involves more money, less mess and the restaurant's kitchen.
shall (shăl) aux.v. 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.b. An order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.c. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.[Middle English schal, from Old English sceal; see skel- in Indo-European roots.]Usage Note: The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern of use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall (not will) have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise ("I will see that you get your money"), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction. Such, at least, are the traditional rules. The English and some traditionalists about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use will to express most of the senses reserved for shall in English usage. Americans use shall chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as Shall we go? and in certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. In speech the distinction that the English signal by the choice of shall or will may be rendered by stressing the auxiliary, as in I will leave tomorrow ("I intend to leave"); by choosing another auxiliary, such as must or have to; or by using an adverb such as certainly. · In addition to its sense of obligation, shall can also convey high moral seriousness that derives in part from its extensive use in the King James Bible, as in "Righteousness shall go before him and shall set us in the way of his steps" (Ps 85:13) and "He that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Mt 23:12). The prophetic overtones that shall bears with it have no doubt led to its use in some of the loftiest rhetoric in English. This may be why Lincoln chose to use it instead of will in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." See Usage Note at should.
If you make a birthday cake for a homosexual but won't make a wedding cake for the same IT IS NOT discriminating against homosexuals but against the event or message. If you make a wedding cake for a black couple but not make a cake in honor of MLK Day, same situation. If you refuse to place a decoration (or even order said decoration) with a hand containing only an extended middle finger, you are not discriminating against the individual but rather the message.
This is the distinction the media is INTENTIONALLY ignoring, or denigrating as a lie. The problem is that too many people are swayed by drama and not reason.