dupeeconqr wrote:
And you as a citizen of this country should be bound by the religious standards the founders of this country adhered to.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
Trickle Down?Follow
lolwut?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
dupeeconqr wrote:
And you as a citizen of this country should be bound by the religious standards the founders of this country adhered to. See how that works.
...words fail me.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
dupeeconqr wrote:
I was responding to Pensives contention that because I was born in this country I should be FORCED to attend a government school. Where I would then be forced to put aside my religious beliefs in favor of a state determined curiculum.
They don't allow public school kids to go to church on Sunday anymore?!
Quote:
Why is it a parent's right to send their child to a school that conforms to their own views?
Rather, I should ask, why is it their right to deny their children exposure to other paradigms by choosing such an environment?
Rather, I should ask, why is it their right to deny their children exposure to other paradigms by choosing such an environment?
1. It's called the First Amendment -- freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion.
2. The Supreme Court of the United States says so: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (536 U.S. 639), Mueller v. Allen (463 U.S. 388), Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205) and two Dec 06 cases, Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.
Quote:
Public school should be mandatory. You, as a citizen of the country are part of this country, no matter how much you may try to pretend that you can try living alone and isolated in a little world of your own and subsisting on your vegetable garden, you can't. The ideal of liberty simply isn't possible, and the best we can come up with is something like mills harm principle to justify our infringements of liberty.
"Shoulds" are wonderful. But the law is the law. Damn those activist judges.
You are obviously an expert on liberty. And by liberty I mean submission to totalitarianism.
Quote:
Ahkura wrote,
some good stuff.
some good stuff.
Now I have to kill myself.
Ahkuraj wrote:
Quote:
Ahkura wrote,
some good stuff.
some good stuff.
Now I have to kill myself.
Quote:
Simply taking one phrase in an obscure letter to a pastor to validate an entire government shift in ideology seems a bit capricious.
Except that the letter was written at a time when the ideology was being formulated. It's not a "shift" if it happened at inception.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
They don't allow public school kids to go to church on Sunday anymore?!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
They don't allow public school kids to go to church on Sunday anymore?!
What is this world coming to??
Republicans have ruined America. Supply side economics has ruined our economy.
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 11:36am by Annabella
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 11:36am by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
dupeeconqr wrote:
Samy,
That's my point. Where was the discussion, the debate where the leaders authoritatively said this is how the govn is going to treat religion? All we have is an small reference in a letter to an obscure pastor.
That's my point. Where was the discussion, the debate where the leaders authoritatively said this is how the govn is going to treat religion? All we have is an small reference in a letter to an obscure pastor.
I'll take "first meeting of Congress, 1789" for 400, Alex.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
If we're going to educate the poor unfortunate masses shouldn't they be privy to the same learning tools the founding fathers of this country used?
Nope
The learning tools and historical ideology of our founding fathers was undeniably enlightenment, a main point of which is to think for yourself and to utilize human reason on your own in order to come to conclusions about the way the world should work. Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave to hear someone worshiping his (ostensible at best, and anything but modern protestant) Christianity as the foundation on which to build a country.
Quote:
But the law is the law.
Don't care. Many laws are contradictory, illogical, incoherent, obsolete, oppressive, and most importantly, misunderstood and vague. That's why we change them
Quote:
You are obviously an expert on liberty. And by liberty I mean submission to totalitarianism.
Hahaha no. I simply recognize (as should anyone with braincells) that the ideal of liberty is simply ******* impossible. You can not do whatever you want, because it eventually hurts other people, get it? Harm principle. Recognizing that there are certain social obligations that you have is anything but capitulating to a totalitarian government; the difference is in who the government is, and in a democratic and socially minded one, it's the people.
Quote:
It's called the First Amendment -- freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion.
Lets examine the relevant text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Do you see how it is impossible that both of these clauses can be enacted in every religious situation? If you do not, I will be happy to provide examples.
Quote:
Where was the discussion, the debate where the leaders authoritatively said this is how the govn is going to treat religion?
You are also only reading half of the first amendment. Stop reading what you want to see and read what is on the page.
I always appreciate people like Varrus who thinks he's better at interpreting constitutional law than the supreme court.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
dupeeconqr wrote:
Anna,
As do I appreciate that you think we need attorneys to define the most basic concepts of freedom and libery.
As do I appreciate that you think we need attorneys to define the most basic concepts of freedom and libery.
Baron von Annabella wrote:
I always appreciate people like Varrus who thinks he's better at interpreting constitutional law than the supreme court.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Baron von Annabella wrote:
I always appreciate people like Varrus who thinks he's better at interpreting constitutional law than the supreme court.
Now there's a guy who appreciates a good trickle down.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Lets examine the relevant text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Do you see how it is impossible that both of these clauses can be enacted in every religious situation? If you do not, I will be happy to provide examples.
So let me get this right ... your argument is that people often have conflicting religious liberties, so the ideal of liberty is impossible. That's great but hardly useful and hardly dispositive of my post.
The argumentative question I was responding to was "Why is it a parent's right to send their child to a school that conforms to their own views?" The answer is the 1st Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in, for example, the cases I listed. Your reply doesn't change it, but I'll respond to your point:
Our consitutional system reflects a balance between the ideal of liberty and the necessary evil of government. Supreme Court decisions are often a matter of balancing competing liberty interests or balancing liberty against legitimate exercises of state power.
Quote:
Recognizing that there are certain social obligations that you have is anything but capitulating to a totalitarian government; the difference is in who the government is, and in a democratic and socially minded one, it's the people.
I have no argument with the first part of the sentence, where I disagree is where that balance lies. To go back to some of the previous posts, when we, the people, foster over-reliance on the government and weaken self-reliance, liberty is reduced and government power is dangerously increased.
As for the second part of the sentence ... never heard of tyranny of the majority? I suppose you're quite satisfied with the majority decision in California to define marriage as excluding same-sex couples?
Since the ideal of liberty is impossible, the government (the people) have the last word?
Call the Supreme Court and tell the Justices to start looking for new jobs!
A hardship is a situation that is difficult to endure. When government acts violate personal liberties, especially those protected in our constitution, I find that a hardship.
Quote:
The argumentative question I was responding to was "Why is it a parent's right to send their child to a school that conforms to their own views?" The answer is the 1st Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in, for example, the cases I listed.
I don't honestly care that the supreme court happens to agree with you. There is no reason that truth should defer to a political body. Secondly, sending your child to a school that conforms to your own values is directly antithetical to the rule of government; it's subversive. Neither of those things are compelling though, see next paragraph.
Thirdly, you don't have any more right to make decisions for your child than anyone else does, just because he or she happened to fall out of your ******; coercing your child into believing the same things that you believe is one of the most heinous dismissals of liberty that i've ever heard of. Your child is not your child; s/he is his or her own damn person and should be able to make his or her own decisions. When they are unqualified to make their own decisions, the parent should not have direct control over them, rather, the parent should defer to the will of rationally informed democracy.
Quote:
Since the ideal of liberty is impossible, the government (the people) have the last word?
You're not using the same concept of the democratic process that I am. A social government that is well informed with the principles of liberty would never have restricted same sex couples in california. Tyranny of the majority emerges when people are doing it wrong.
Just because liberty is impossible does not mean we have to stop trying to make it happen either. Once you realize that things like the first amendment are self-contradictory, it is important not to simply despair and capitulate to contradiction, but to continue to pursue liberty by being aware of the contradiction. Doing so ensures the least possible amount of infringement upon liberty.
Look it's really simple what I'm saying about school. Every child is entitled to exposure to the most rationally informed science math and philosophy, and even religious studies of our society, and if the parent and child together decide that they are good to add to that education with particular religious or philosophical upbringing, then they can and should. What is not right, however, is a parent forcing their child to believe what they believe. That is no more right than tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
A social government that is well informed with the principles of liberty would never have restricted same sex couples in california. Tyranny of the majority emerges when people are doing it wrong.
Funny that you preach about reality instead of impossible ideals with respect to the 1st Amendment, then you hold up a fantasy about another impossible ideal (a society where we can count on people not to do it wrong) instead of reality to justify your position.
Quote:
Funny that you preach about reality instead of impossible ideals with respect to the 1st Amendment, then you hold up a fantasy about another impossible ideal (a society where we can count on people not to do it wrong) instead of reality to justify your position.
You know that there is a difference between practical impossibility and logical impossibility right? Do you see which is which and why it is not contradictory to dismiss the latter but to fight against the former?
Quote:
You know that there is a difference between practical impossibility and logical impossibility right? Do you see which is which and why it is not contradictory to dismiss the latter but to fight against the former?
Logically yes, but practically no.
Recent Visitors: 566
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (566)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC