Replies

The essence of taking into consideration fellow human beings is pure socialism? You must be fun to live with.

I didn't say that and neither did you. You agreed with the notion that people should be forced by the State to fit a State conceived ideal based on the concept of "for the good of society". That I disagree with to point of being willing to pick up a gun and lay down my life if called to. It is unAmerican to the enth degree.

I would also object to your new twist on things as well though. To be forced at the point of a gun (every thing the State mandates is backed by a gun muzzle after all) to be considerate of others is as fascist as being told who to associate with.

No one owes "society" anything other than to live ones life to the fullest and to do no harm to others. If I choose to be kind and generous that is to my merit. But if the State tells me to open doors for cripples and give money to orphans I am simply a slave even if I praise them for making me do nice things.

Being law abiding isn't always the most beneficial thing to do for one's country either. Civil disobedience does occasionally have its place. Take the civil rights marches of the 60's for example.

To claim that an uneducated man is a detriment to society is to assume too much. Who defines 'educated'? Who defines 'detriment'? The State of course. Moreover, where in the Constitution are the rights of and debts to 'society' defined and enumerated?

I am as considerate a human being as you will find. You might note that I didn't impugn your character because I disagreed with you and even though you did try to insult me I won't return it in kind. On any given day I might, however, because you have lost any cause for that due consideration by your own actions.

You can act all indignant and sling your subtle arrows but I'm far from the first one on this thread to suggest your espoused philosophy is socialist. I'm sure a 'find in forum' on you for a couple of days would turn up many more identical accusations.

You can ask my wife if I'm any fun. Ask her if she thinks the State should take custody of children whose parents refuse to recognize the State's authority over their parenting decisions while you're at it.

Dear Sarah, not only is my husband, TigersEye fun to live with, he is also the most considerate, compassionate, gentle man that I have ever had the priviledge of knowing intimately. I am familiar with other gentle men, Jim Robinson and MeekNMing on this forum for instance, but God has given me TigersEye as my closest companion, best friend, and leader of this household. It is a joy and blessing to live under his loving guidance. What he says about giving respect to those who are worthy of it is true: Even God will not throw pearls to pigs.

Regarding the other point, when you allow the State to own your children - and you must allow it, for it is not a God-given thing - you end up with Hitler Youth. No thank you. Obviously, this Waltham couple is not going to allow it, and I praise God for such parents!

I'm happy that your wife has come to your defense. I guess I'll just have to take you all's word for the fact that you are the just nicest guy on earth.
Anarchy is what you are preaching. Laws and respect for the law are what separates man from animals.
If you have a difficulty with any given law, as is expected, change it, don't just think you can disobey and there will be no consequences.
Home schooling, after much struggle, was accepted by law. Minimal testing being the only requirement. (Much of what we find offensive in Public School Education is not neccessary.)
Then this couple comes along and decides to risk all the hard work of the home school movement by refusing to recognise the laws on the books.
I call that selfish and irresponsible. You call that patriotic.