Posted on 08/08/2005 8:49:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
THE GOD VS. Darwin debate went to the White House last week when President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools. It's a move that has undoubtedly pleased the president's conservative religious base. However, it has also caused much unhappiness among those conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right, including such strong Bush supporters as columnist Charles Krauthammer and University of Tennessee law professor/blogger Glenn Reynolds.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Are you saying that there is evidence that adult-child sex is not harmful to the child? NAMBLA has tried to make this case, with extremely limited success.
They have statistical studies to prove that the children of divorce are happy, or that abortion doesn't hurt anybody, but it doesn't make it so.
I've seen evidence both ways when it comes to divorce, but the general consensus among researchers of all ideologies is that divorce makes children less happy. As for proving that abortion doesn't hurt anybody, there is no statistical test that could show that, one way or the other.
We know that children who have sex with adults are harmed.
NAMBLA would say they disagree. They would point to kids who say it is great! (FOR THE RECORD I AM DEFENDING THE LOGIC, not the activity).
They believe that their own idea about morality can be used as the standard, but they don't allow that right to someone who has other opinions (i.e. that man/boy love is harmless).
Without the absolutes given to us by our Creator, we just wander around in a netherworld of guesswork and self-absorbtion when it comes to determining right from wrong. And these otherwise very smart people can't seem to see that.
I suggest you not try using that as a legal defense.
It's a fully defensible, objectively rational position.
But NAMBLA disagrees and feels the kid should be free?
NAMBLA are sickos with an obvious conflict of interest.
On what basis, outside of personal opinion, can it be wrong?
That people should not be forced to have sex without their consent is a principle of every system of ethics I'm aware of. If you want the Kantian position, for example, it's a maxim that can be universalized; and any contrary maxim cannot. Rape also violates the second categorical imperative (that humans are ends in themselves, and not means to an end.) That children are not capable of giving informed consent is a scientific fact, as well as a basic principle of jurisprudence.
"Free-to-be-me" in no way describes my moral code. So, your question is irrelevant since my progeny will be taught my moral views, not some strawman you have created.
Rome proved such a situation does disintegrate, and the U.S. is well on its way in its own right.
The Roman Empire fell apart after it adopted Christianity as its state religion. What does that say, I wonder? the late Western Roman Empire period was characterized by a moral and religious revival.
Your local school board is a government entity. Its members are either elected by the voters, just as your city, county, and state official are, or they're appointed by some other government body, such as your county commissioners (or local equivalent). When the school board, or the state Department of Education, sets curriculum standards, that is an action of government. The probability of every resident of the community's agreeing on what should be taught (and how, using what materials, etc.) approaches zero.
It is a fundamental right of the citizens of a community to have students taught both sides of this argument, rather than having one side forced down their throats as fact, when it is not.
I don't think there can be any "fundamental rights" to a government service's being delivered in a particular way. The deal with government is that the government forces all taxpayers to contribute to the cost of a good only some want, and in return, the consumers lose control over the nature and quality of the good.
So if, for some reason, you decided you weren't a Christian anymore, you'd have no moral compass?
I feel sorry for you.
'We', as in our society. Don't be obtuse.
What do we do with people who come up with opposing moral views? In our society, we let them make their case. If the morality they propose works better for our society than what is currently practiced, they will be able to make their case and persuade us to change our ways.
But you admit that they have tried. As I first said, statistics are used to defend every point of view in this country. You can't depend on them to be right.
As for abortion being harmful, you can show statistically that millions of babies are dead, and I would argue that death is 'harmful.' And there is plenty of evidence to show that having abortions hurts women both physically and emotionally.
So, there ARE statistical tests to prove that abortion is harmful.
Sure. And other than a very, very small percentage of the population, they have not been able to persuade people that they are correct.
They would point to kids who say it is great!
I'm sure they can find some exceptions to the rule, but the evidence against their position is overwhelming.
I've seen the result of what you'd suggest in Mexico. In Mexico their are no truant officers, kids on the street don't go to school, and we all see the result. No surer way to end a third world fascist kleptocracy.
I'm not being 'obtuse.' We, in our society don't agree on these things. Who is the 'we' whom we believe? (e.g. you don't believe me as to what is moral, because I adhere to Biblical standards of morality. Am I not part of our society?)
Who makes the determination as to which standards work?
"To end up as a third world"
Sure I do. If they can show that their system of morality works better, I'm open-minded enough to change my views.
Without the absolutes given to us by our Creator, we just wander around in a netherworld of guesswork and self-absorbtion when it comes to determining right from wrong.
My morality is not religion-based and yet I have no problems determining right from wrong.
You make absolutely no point in the debate on logic or reason, but you definitely deserve points for creativity, sir.
Ah, I see you are starting to get into these. Let me warn you now they are very long, very tiring, and very frustrating.
Also kind of fun, though you never win
Wow. I wish I could have put it that well. I'll have to remember that for future threads.
We as a society all follow pretty much the same moral code. There is not a significant portion of our society calling for a change in our morals that would allow for murder and theft.
(e.g. you don't believe me as to what is moral, because I adhere to Biblical standards of morality. Am I not part of our society?)
We don't share the exact same moral code, but we probably agree on 95% of what is wrong and right.
Who makes the determination as to which standards work?
History. We can look at the moral codes of various historic societies and see which ones worked and which ones didn't.
That children are not capable of giving informed consent is a scientific fact, as well as a basic principle of jurisprudence.
And NAMBLA is of course trying to push the envelope and expand these two concepts for their own benefit.
Present their studies as scientific fact, and
Change the jurisprudence.
In truth, they are hiding in the shadows and pounce upon our culture.
Scientific studies and jurispurdence will NOT convince or stop them. They must stop themselves, based upon a revelation of a higher morality than themselves. Be it the surrounding culture or government. But where does it boil down to?
God and the Decalogue. "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions...but the Scripture shut up all men under sin...therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Messiah" and the need for a Savior that we may live by faith in life, as opposed to under each of our own laws (or God's law). I am "not under Law but in grace".
that localities be required to ensure that all children of that locality receive a minimum education, and that they have the power to tax to achieve that goal
Although I disagree with this philosophically, it's feasible constitutionally. However, the problem then is the definition of "minimum education." This will be determined politically - does it include Darwinism? Intelligent Design? Chinese? Cooking? Or does it exclude all of those but include reading, writing, and math?
Another issue is quality control. At this point, courts have ruled that the schools are not, in fact, responsible for educating children. If a child fails to learn, the system cannot be held accountable. (In the same way, the police cannot be held responsible for failing to protect citizens from crime.)
These are problems that are going to come up with any government system, no matter what product or service it provides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.