Posted on 07/02/2002 2:11:50 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
It seems that the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" are being claimed by Bush, as often happens in history, by the powerful in order to obtain even more power. What do you think?
Well, the problem we run into is who gets to define "Nature's God" or just plain old God in general? Not everyone defines God the same way or even believes in a god at all. What if somebody believes Amen Ra is the one true god? If that doesn't jive with the president's beliefs will that person be disqualified from service on the judiciary?
The fact that this discussion is even taking place points to a serious problem. Whenever government controls something the people possessing the most political power are the ones who get to impose their ideas on others. And while the people in power today may share your views the people in power tomorrow might not. This is why it is so very important to remove government from areas where it doesn't belong and keep it so small that it can never meddle again.
I also don't blame Christian groups for fighting back against organizations which promote sexual deviancy. I don't approve of that kind of behavior and that's why I don't watch certain TV shows, or even certain networks.
But, the problem here is that NBC is private property. They produce programming which they believe consumers want. Are you suggesting that government silence NBC? How about offering a superior alternative instead?
I guess you'd like them to just be mute sheep and let themselves be slaughtered. In an ideological sense. I suspect that even Thomas Jefferson would not favor preventing them from exercising their right to self-defense.
No one is stopping Christian groups from forming TV networks of their own to compete with NBC. Are you familiar with PAX TV? Their programming consists of no sex, violence, or profanity.
Ever seen the show 7th Heaven? It's quite excellent. How about the Cosby Show and Family Ties on Nick? Two of the most popular sitcoms of all-time.
I agree. But they should duke it out in the free-market. Not through the force of government.
It's interesting that you mention Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ. He is a smart guy as you say. It's unfortunate that he doesn't use his smarts to defend liberty. Instead he spends his time and resources suing government to force religion into government school. And while some may think that's a noble cause it doesn't help the schools or the religious people on behalf of whom he is suing.
...not every point of view will get an equally "fair shake".
Well, life isn't fair. We have to do the best we can with what we have.
NO,of course NOT! That's not the point! The basic elements of Free Speech are being denied. If schools want to have prayer time each day as a collective group that is fine, however it is not right to force someone to do the same. I will certainly agree with you on this point as well as fight for there rights not to pray just the same.
How many people advocating prayer-time, Bible-study clubs, graduation prayer, and the 10 Commandments on the walls in government schools think the same way as Texasforever?
Texasforever is obviously pushing something contrary to our constitution. I hope only them, but I will tell you that I've met a few that are very legalistic in their views...which smacks of ilrighteousness.
You can not FORCE anyone to pray, listen, or participate in religious activities...bottom line. However, those who want too should be allowed, collectively or not. Speaking on any subject is a basic tenant to Free Speech.
My child is free to speak of Jesus anywhere she wants, public schools, public buildings, townhall, and if people want to fight over her right to free speech, so be it!
Common Sense: It works!
He did? Are you sure? Can you provide details?
You have freedom of speech only on property you own or on property where you have permission of the owner to speak. If you speak on property in defiance of the owner then the owner has every right to have you removed from the property. On property "owned" by government the rules are decided by whoever has the most political influence. And government property is financed by coercive means. Sometimes your taxes are used to finance the advancement of ideas you do not share or may even object to. This is wrong and it must change.
In a free-market system no one could ever force you to finance the advancement of ideas inconsistent with your own values.
You can not FORCE anyone to pray, listen, or participate in religious activities...bottom line.
Philosphically, you're correct. However, we have government schools which are financed through coercive means. Some places have mandatory attendance laws which are often so cumbersome that they make homeschooling difficult. And while no child has to participate in a prayer or pledge the child is being forcibly exposed to it. Would you like it if your child was forced to attend a school assembly on deviant sexual behavior?
My child is free to speak of Jesus anywhere she wants, public schools, public buildings, townhall, and if people want to fight over her right to free speech, so be it!
Your time and resources would be better spent removing government from as many places as possible.
I certainly agree with most of the points in your post, but let us concentrate on the above. NO one now can force a child to do these things. In this country if we set a standard and others do not want to adhere to that standard then let them leave. I do not agree with the exuberant amount of TAX I pay each year, but I have made a choice to agree in principle with the system we have set up to allow such theivery, I think it is the best government system in the world and would not go to another country to live...The best I will do is MY part to change people's understanding.
It is somewhat ridiculous for an AMERICAN to complain about being Exposed to the pledge.
1) You are forced to finance government school wether or not you want to. 2) Government has increased the cost of living in many areas making it difficult for parents to send their children to private school. 3) Mandatory attendance laws contain criminal penalties for non-compliance. 4) Although no child must speak the words the child is exposed to whatever is being said in the classroom or at the school assembly. 5) An impetus is placed on children to participate out of fear of being teased or ridiculed by other students. Even the teacher may give the child dirty looks or make comments.
In this country if we set a standard and others do not want to adhere to that standard then let them leave.
I think the people who want to live under a system of coercive force should leave. I want to live in a free society.
It is somewhat ridiculous for an AMERICAN to complain about being Exposed to the pledge.
It would seem that you've completely missed the point.
No, I haven't missed any points, maybe misspelled a couple of words here or there, but I understand your view.
4) Although no child must speak the words the child is exposed to whatever is being said in the classroom or at the school assembly.
So? that doesn't mean the child has to listen or agree.
5) An impetus is placed on children to participate out of fear of being teased or ridiculed by other students. Even the teacher may give the child dirty looks or make comments.
OH for goodness sakes, my child's not some wimpish pussy!
"dirty looks" LOL!!
I've raised my child to have enough brains and self esteem to know better, and not act like some mushy, bleeding heart, tearjerking, pansy. My child would stand up and recite the full text of the Constitution and inform the "evil eyes" of her rights as a citizen of the U.S. The teachers and principal would be heading for cover faster than a longtailed cat in a room full of rockin' chairs.....
"Teased and ridiculed," although your points are well taken they do not rise to the level of being "FORCED" to do anything.
[It would seem that you've completely missed the point.] AC
No, I haven't missed any points...I understand your view.
Your comment above is your opinion and you're entitled to it. But, what you believe to be ridiculous isn't relevant. Others may think your religious beliefs are ridiculous. Would you like it if they used the force of government to make your child sit in a class which debunked Christianity and the existence of God? You wouldn't have to worry though. Your child would not be required to listen or agree.
The point is that it isn't your place to determine what others should or shouldn't be exposed to or for which worthy causes their money should be spent. It is wrong to force others to finance the advancement of your ideas and equally wrong for others to force you to finance the advancement of theirs.
[Although no child must speak the words the child is exposed to whatever is being said in the classroom or at the school assembly.] AC
So? that doesn't mean the child has to listen or agree.
Wether or not the child has to listen or agree is irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference what is taking place wether it's the Pledge, a prayer, recitation of the alphabet, or jumping-jacks. The child may be there against the wishes of the parents and the school may be advancing ideas inconsistent with their values. I'm certain many parents do not approve of what their children are exposed to in government school and would prefer to have them elsewhere. The kind of education children receive should be up to the parents alone.
[An impetus is placed on children to participate out of fear of being teased or ridiculed by other students. Even the teacher may give the child dirty looks or make comments.] AC
OH for goodness sakes, my child's not some wimpish pussy! "dirty looks" LOL!!
You should be free to put your children in government school if you wish. But, you should be prepared to pay for it yourself. Government school runs around $10,000 annually per student. In some places it's substantially more. But, other parents may want their children in a different kind of environment, such as a private or home school, where their children will get exactly the kind of education they want at considerably less cost. They may want their children to learn different things than you want yours to learn.
I've raised my child to have enough brains and self esteem to know better, and not act like some mushy, bleeding heart, tearjerking, pansy. My child would stand up and recite the full text of the Constitution and inform the "evil eyes" of her rights as a citizen of the U.S. The teachers and principal would be heading for cover faster than a longtailed cat in a room full of rockin' chairs.....
That's wonderful but it isn't particularly relevant.
...and this isn't being tried every day in schools across America? Every day my child has to contend with those that do not beleive as she does and hear opinions different than hers, but she is not forced to beleive those opinions and act upon them, in fact she would be able to defend her beliefs with a multitude of evidence and facts that would make Voltier's head spin. That is the difference in our views I think.
She is not "FORCED" to believe. You are using the word "force" and I am trying to tell you that my child our any other child is not "forced" into subugation of any tenants expressed in the public school system..it's just not that bad yet. Overall, I will tell you that I certainly agree with you premise, I just don't think it's that strict. Or at the very least I don't see evidence of it in the community I live in.
If I had it my way everyone would be Christian and live under the precepts of Christianity, but something would be inheritly wrong to FORCE ppl to live that way and even Christianity agrees.
Actually, the hardest thing about replying to your post is that I agree with your overall theme, it's just not quite the way I think your expressing it.
Other than the taxation going to Gov't schools, which I agree, we have no control over where our dollors are sent and particularily what they are spent on, I know of one example that might fit your genre. I've read stories about kids having to recite the Koran, and try to act like muslims, to see what the cultural diversity is and how they live. Now, I don't know if the school children had to do this as a school project, or if it was part of something voluntary. If they were to do it as part of a ciricular activity then I say FOUL! I would gladly join you in your rant and futhermore take it DOWNTOWN!
I never said anyone was forced to believe something. What I said was that children are forced to participate in certain activities and parents are forced to finance the advancement of ideas which may be inconsistent with their own values.
...in fact she would be able to defend her beliefs with a multitude of evidence and facts that would make Voltier's head spin.
You keep telling my what a wonderfully bright daughter you have and that's terrific. But, what does that have to do with the fact that politicians are taking peoples' money and making decisions for them which people should be making for themselves?
If I had it my way everyone would be Christian and live under the precepts of Christianity...
How would you accomplish this?
...something would be inheritly wrong to FORCE ppl to live that way and even Christianity agrees.
I would think so.
The issue isn't only the fact that people are having to finance the advancement of ideas with which they may disagree. There are many other problems with government school. It costs too much. It's inefficient. The schoolday is too long. Some schools are unsafe. It works from a "one-size-fits-all" premise which effectively lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. Some students are faster learners than others. Some parents may only want their children taught the basics while others may want a more comprehensive curriculum. Some may want religion and some may not. Some may want different religions. Some may want their children to learn several different languages.
The point is that these choices should be made by parents and not politicians.
Would you rather that Bush pick judges who believe our rights come from men and therefore are not unalienable?
Just how is his statement any different than our founding fathers' statements with reference to God and our rights which come from God?
That may be true but it isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.
He never said only Christian judges need apply.
I never claimed he said that.
Would you rather that Bush pick judges who believe our rights come from men and therefore are not unalienable?
No. I'd rather he pick judges who understand the concept of rights, that rights belong only to individuals, and that government is merely an extension of their exercise, and not an addition or substitution.
Just how is his statement any different than our founding fathers' statements with reference to God and our rights which come from God?
GWB wasn't arguing with people about the origin of rights. He said he intends only to appoint judges who believe in the same god as GWB believes in. The question should never come up. Not only because Article 6 says so, but because it is irrelevant.
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.