PDA

View Full Version : California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education




Pages : [1] 2

FrankRep
03-01-2008, 08:19 AM
Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

World Net Daily
February 29, 2008

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

The ruling came in a case brought against Jonathan and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.

"We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.
....

Full Story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679

tommyzDad
03-01-2008, 10:12 AM
Time to move outta Cali.

kyleAF
03-01-2008, 11:48 PM
nm

Doktor_Jeep
03-01-2008, 11:53 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019723.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, why not? They're anti-social, aren't they?

The California Court of Appeals thinks parents aren't willing to meet a "primary purpose of the educational system," which is:

"to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

Of course, this could have appeared verbatim in the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic. Or, if that doesn't scare anybody, how about Hitler?

Don't mention 1984 or Brave New World, government schools outlawed them long ago. You know how they hate competition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF


http://books.google.com/books?id=yTPyU5Zz7e0C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=nazi+germany+%22education+policy%22&source=web&ots=4fJ9PZIJDo&sig=HpsghtQg5GsLjS0k1n RLYILPsmg&hl=en#PPP1,M1


Sometimes you can hear 10 million death camp victims screaming out of the ground. Something about "before it's too late".

seapilot
03-02-2008, 12:18 AM
The real reason is the California public schools are mad that homeschoolers keep winning all the spelling bees and science competitions. Once the government is completely broke.....more kids will end up being homeschooled. With luck a few will end up being judges.

clouds
03-02-2008, 12:36 AM
holy crap... I feel like I'm reading an ayn rand book or something.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 01:28 AM
I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by parents to resist tolerance teaching.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 01:45 AM
I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by
parents to resist tolerance teaching.

To paraphrase Peter Schiff, he said "I learned Austrian economics from my father.
In college, I spent most of my time arguing with my professors." He attented the
University of California, Berkeley. I feel the same way in college.

My microecon professor ask wether or not the government has too much
regulation over us. I argued that the government mandates parents to send their
children school, although parents may not want to send their children to school.
He replied by saying that "Parents CAN homeschool their children." I replied,
"Yeah, but with PERMISSION from the government." He got the point. :cool:

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 01:57 AM
I replied,
"Yeah, but with PERMISSION from the government." He got the point. :cool:

That's very much justified. The government gave itself an obligation to maintaining basic literacy in children, and provides a well-intentioned service for parents who cannot afford to send their children to private schools. Even those that can will use the public schools. Withholding a child from public school is cause for concern, when the parent does not say anything about it. The child could have been murdered, as an extreme example.

ams5995
03-02-2008, 02:02 AM
“For the hand that rocks the cradle - Is the hand that rules the world”


William Ross Wallace

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 02:06 AM
“For the hand that rocks the cradle - Is the hand that rules the world”


William Ross Wallace

This would be a cause of concern, and the Nazis would be a better comparison if we had more Federal mandates on education curricula. Public Education, at this moment in time is extremely localized.

Edu
03-02-2008, 02:07 AM
The fact that everyone I talk to thinks gas prices are going up lately and have no idea the dollar is dropping like a rock, shows how well the public fool system is working.

gutteck
03-02-2008, 07:05 AM
This would be a cause of concern, and the Nazis would be a better comparison if we had more Federal mandates on education curricula. Public Education, at this moment in time is extremely localized.

You don't give a crap whether kinds learn math or geomerty.

All you want is for the kids to watch this movie at school:
http://www.glaad.org/images/eye/brokeback_mountain.jpg

And that teachers teach Children that this is ok:
http://www.actupny.org/Vancouver/vangifs/kissin.gif


All TDCCI cares about is that kids are told that gay is good.

rpfreedom08
03-02-2008, 07:21 AM
best thing is to just put him on the good old ignore list...

allyinoh
03-02-2008, 07:47 AM
It's funny the "diversity" among RP supporters. Most think it's the parents right to decide whether they send their children to public, private schools or home school.

Then you'll get the occasional "Kids should be forced to go to public school" types like TDCCI. I'm glad RP supports the choice of the parent.

If I have kids they will never step foot in a public school. They will be home schooled and hey, that's my flippin' choice, not the governments.

Truth Warrior
03-02-2008, 07:59 AM
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

rpfreedom08
03-02-2008, 09:19 AM
Thanks for the link. Everyone should read this book. the link is here to read it for free.

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 01:31 PM
That's very much justified. The government gave itself an obligation to maintaining basic literacy in children, and provides a well-intentioned service for parents who cannot afford to send their children to private schools. Even those that can will use the public schools. Withholding a child from public school is cause for concern, when the parent does not say anything about it. The child could have been murdered, as an extreme example.

It's justified for the government to assume guardianship of our children if THEY
feel it's in the children's best interest? What makes the government better than
any parent? How do we know the government isn't malintentioned? How do we
know the government isn't training our children to send them to war to conquer
another nation?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 05:41 PM
You don't give a crap whether kinds learn math or geomerty.

At least they would be learning English ;)


All you want is for the kids to watch this movie at school:
http://www.glaad.org/images/eye/brokeback_mountain.jpg

I would like kids to watch that movie, to show them the destructive effect of homophobia. It's deep.


And that teachers teach Children that this is ok:
http://www.actupny.org/Vancouver/vangifs/kissin.gif

Yes! If they are taught that it is wrong, they will be ashamed of themselves and their feelings, which they shouldn't be! This is social progress. Just a century or two ago, they were taught heterosexual kissing before marriage was wrong!


All TDCCI cares about is that kids are told that gay is good.

It's not all I care about, it is one thing I care about. The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeschooled kids are being indoctrinated with Christian hate and violence.


How do we
know the government isn't training our children to send them to war to conquer
another nation?

I'd rather our children be sent to war to conquer another nation than fight arabs for Israel.

gutteck
03-02-2008, 05:55 PM
The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeschooled kids are being indoctrinated with Christian hate and violence.


Christian hate and violence? Do you mean teaching children that God forbids homosexuality?

That is not “hate”…..

Why don’t you grab all the parents that follow your pagan god and make a little Gomorrah School to tech your kind whatever you want.


Leave Christian kids alone because they belong to God. You pervert pedophile.

Independent Operator
03-02-2008, 06:03 PM
That's very much justified. The government gave itself an obligation to maintaining basic literacy in children, and provides a well-intentioned service for parents who cannot afford to send their children to private schools. Even those that can will use the public schools. Withholding a child from public school is cause for concern, when the parent does not say anything about it. The child could have been murdered, as an extreme example.

well, there you have it, all home schoolers parents are simply waiting to murder their children, and to hide their devious plans to torture and dumb-down their kids.

btw, your literacy leaves much to be desired. you are obviously a product of a some kind of system.

you are stupid!!

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:03 PM
Christian hate and violence? Do you mean teaching children that God forbids homosexuality?

That is not “hate”…..

That among other tales of rape, murder, and child abuse in the bible.


Why don’t you grab all the parents that follow your pagan god and make a little Gomorrah School to tech your kind whatever you want.

I'm not a pagan. It's shocking to you, I know, but some people can get by without adhering to any religion at all.


Leave Christian kids alone because they belong to God. You pervert pedophile.

Typical.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:04 PM
well, there you have it, all home schoolers parents are simply waiting to murder their children, and to hide their devious plans to torture and dumb-down their kids.

I didn't say that. You're the ones saying that the system exists to dumb down kids.


btw, your literacy leave much to be desired. you are obviously a product of a some kind of system.

you are stupid!!

lol

Independent Operator
03-02-2008, 06:07 PM
I didn't say that. You're the ones saying that the system exists to dumb down kids.



it does, and we have you as the prime example.

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 06:15 PM
Tdcci, I often times wonder if you should really be supporting the candidate in your picture--some of your statements and philosophies are out and out collectivism, which, by the by, if you haven't caught on by now--Ron Paul completely and utterly opposes.

Also, just because someone is personally against something doesn't mean they automatically "hate" that. I'm against homosexuality, I'm against drugs, I'm against getting drunk (fine with drinking alcohol though), I'm against evolution....HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I'm going to impose my views on others or that I automatically hate all those things. Now, if I talk to someone about why I personally oppose "X" issue, and they agree (where as they, before disagreed), it doesn't mean I'm indoctrinating/brainwashing/forcing them to believe in those things--I proposed something and provided evidence to back up my position, and they thought about it and agreed.

Likewise, someone could approach someone to be pro-issue "X" and convince someone...I might not like it, and feel they are in the wrong, but so long as they don't harm an individual and it's not forced down their throat, then it is not indoctrination.

Once upon a time, in the 1800's, school was optional, and not forced...last I checked, we were still the most prosperous country in the world, during that time period...Man, we really farked up with that one, society nearly collapsed since education wasn't forced.... [/sarcasm]. The Constitution doesn't guarantee public schooling or anything else--it merely protects our rights and let's us pursue happiness.

gutteck
03-02-2008, 06:19 PM
That among other tales of rape, murder, and child abuse in the bible.



I'm not a pagan. It's shocking to you, I know, but some people can get by without adhering to any religion at all.



Typical.

Are you a registered sex offender?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:28 PM
it does, and we have you as the prime example.

As a shining example of humility and tolerance among a sea of Christian hatemongers? Why thank you.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:28 PM
Tdcci, I often times wonder if you should really be supporting the candidate in your picture--some of your statements and philosophies are out and out collectivism, which, by the by, if you haven't caught on by now--Ron Paul completely and utterly opposes.

How is what I said collectivism? Singling out gay people seems more like collectivism to me.


I proposed something and provided evidence to back up my position, and they thought about it and agreed.

This has me curious. Show me your 'evidence' to back up your position on homosexuality.


Once upon a time, in the 1800's, school was optional, and not forced...last I checked, we were still the most prosperous country in the world, during that time period...

We still are.


Man, we really farked up with that one, society nearly collapsed since education wasn't forced.... [/sarcasm].

I did not say or imply that society would collapse if schooling was not mandatory. You Christians are the ones saying society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized (despite MANY countries showing the contrary)


The Constitution doesn't guarantee public schooling or anything else--it merely protects our rights and let's us pursue happiness.

Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee political parties either, but it does not expressly forbid them.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 06:31 PM
I'd rather our children be sent to war to conquer another nation than fight arabs for Israel.

............................... Huh? Well, according to the logic in your other posts, the fact that you do not want our childen to fight Arabs for Isreal makes you an anti-semite, hate-mongerer, and a bigot. lol :rolleyes:

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:33 PM
............................... Huh? Well, according to the logic in your other posts,

Don't try that, you'll twist it. Here is a proper application of my logic:

Sending our children off to kill to please a god is bad, because there is no benefit, except to the Military-Industrial-Church complex.

Sending our children off to conquer other nations is better, because America profits from the natural resources of the nation, taxing the natives, etc.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 06:36 PM
You Christians are the ones saying society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized (despite MANY countries showing the contrary).

What countries are predominately gay?


Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee political parties either, but it does not expressly forbid them.

Yes it does. They are expressly forbidden at the federal level.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:39 PM
What countries are predominately gay?

None :confused:


Yes it does. They are expressly forbidden at the federal level.

Where?

gutteck
03-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Yes! If they are taught that it is wrong, they will be ashamed of themselves and their feelings, which they shouldn't be! This is social progress. Just a century or two ago, they were taught heterosexual kissing before marriage was wrong!



It's not all I care about, it is one thing I care about. The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeschooled kids are being indoctrinated with Christian hate and violence.



I'd rather our children be sent to war to conquer another nation than fight arabs for Israel.


Here are my observations:

Why do you want children to learn tolerance towards gays?

You want acceptance.

Why do you have a problem with Christianity?

Because Christianity forbids homosexuality therefore Christians don’t accept your lifestyle.

Why children? Why not adults?

There is the real concern. Children are just Children and somehow you see them as equally intelligent and mature to understand your needs and sexual deviations. The problem is that you see them as equal and that is a sign to keep you away from them.

A bet my shoes that you are a registered sex offender.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 06:43 PM
Sending our children off to kill to please a god is bad, because there is no benefit, except to the Military-Industrial-Church complex.

Sending our children off to conquer other nations is better, because America profits from the natural resources of the nation, taxing the natives, etc.

Fine. If this is the proper application of your logic, then they are both unconstitutional. That's the point of "How do we know the government isn't training our children to send them to war to conquer
another nation?".

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:54 PM
Here are my observations:

Why do you want children to learn tolerance towards gays?

You want acceptance.

Why do I want children to learn tolerance towards blacks? Not because I'm black, but because I want to see a better world.



Why do you have a problem with Christianity?

Because Christianity forbids homosexuality therefore Christians don’t accept your lifestyle.

That's not the reason I have a problem with Christianity, though it doesn't help. The primary reason is that it's dangerous for society (as well as other Abrahamic religions). If people don't see death as the end of everything, they will have no problem with suicide bombing, or dealing death to others.


Why children? Why not adults?

You could just ask me without giving me your answer. My answer is: Children are very impressionable and susceptible to obeying authority. The evolutionary reason for this is that parents know more, and would help the child survive. Unfortunately, the Christian parents are wrong on a number of things.


There is the real concern. Children are just Children and somehow you see them as equally intelligent and mature to understand your needs and sexual deviations.

I don't think that. I remember discussing this with you in another thread, and I explained that teaching homosexual tolerance is not about teaching them sexual intercourse, but how some humans are wired differently; to be attracted to the same sex, instead of the opposite. Just like how some humans are born with blue, or green eyes instead of brown and you shouldn't fear them :)


The problem is that you see them as equal and that is a sign to keep you away from them.

A bet my shoes that you are a registered sex offender.

I think you should be kept away from children, that kind of hatred is poisonous. I am not a "registered sex offender" by the way, I didn't answer the first time you asked because it was an attack on my character instead of an attack on my argument.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Fine. If this is the proper application of your logic, then they are both unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution prohibit colonialism?
I suspect you're throwing around "unconstitutional" without knowing what it actually means.

Independent Operator
03-02-2008, 06:56 PM
There is the real concern. Children are just Children and somehow you see them as equally intelligent and mature to understand your needs and sexual deviations. The problem is that you see them as equal and that is a sign to keep you away from them.

you hit the proverbial "nail on the head." they somehow think that children are like reasoned adults, and that they have the intellectual capacity to decipher all of the craziness thrown at them - they do not. i mean that is what learning is supposed to be about: you raise and teach a child so that when he is confronted with these issues he has the capacity to make a correct and healthy decision. you don't just throw a child into the cauldron and expect him to understand anything.


A bet my shoes that you are a registered sex offender.

that is probably going a bit too far, but i will add that the above philosophy you stated is the same philosophy held by NAMBLA. NAMBLA sees children as equals - fucking sickos!!!!!

i think that stupid is more of an apt description of Tdcci . Tdcci is simply not that intelligent.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:02 PM
Where does the constitution prohibit colonialism? I
suspect you're throwing around "unconstitutional" without knowing what it
actually means.

Damn it. I just finished reading your posts on other threads. You need to realize
that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution is retained by the states.

To quote from the John Birch Society: "Shall not. Shall not. Shall not. Shall not. All
the way to the tenth Amendment. And if we forgot anything, you (the federal
government) can't do that either."

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:04 PM
you hit the proverbial "nail on the head." they somehow think that children are like reasoned adults, and that they have the intellectual capacity to decipher all of the craziness thrown at them - they do not. i mean that is what learning is supposed to be about: you raise and teach a child so that when he is confronted with these issues he has the capacity to make a correct and healthy decision. you don't just throw a child into the cauldron and expect him to understand anything.

There are two conflicting opinions here. One is

1) Teach children that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be condemned and do not deserve equal rights. Dehumanize them to hold the child's empathy, just as it was done to blacks back in the day.

2) Teach children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are people just like you and I, and that homosexual hatred is irrational and the bigots should be condemned (last part optional).

Doesn't it seem like option number 1 would require that you teach children exactly what homosexuality is as the church defines it? Because the church defines it by sex, and the normal scientific world defines it by attraction.


that is probably going a bit too far, but i will add that the above philosophy you stated is the same philosophy held by NAMBLA. NAMBLA sees children as equals - fucking sickos!!!!!

i think that stupid is more of an apt description of Tdcci . Tdcci is simply not that intelligent.

I don't think any reasonable adult can conclude that children are "equal" (otherwise, why would we use a different word to describe them?), do you have their mission statement or an equivilant?

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:04 PM
i think that stupid is more of an apt description of Tdcci . Tdcci is simply not that intelligent.

i wouldn't go that far. i think ignorant and misguided are more appropriate.

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 07:04 PM
How is what I said collectivism? Singling out gay people seems more like collectivism to me.

Gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, men don't have rights, heterosexuals don't have rights--only the individual has rights--singling out a single group for "rights" is collectivism.




This has me curious. Show me your 'evidence' to back up your position on homosexuality.

I'm a believer in the Bible, that's all the evidence I personally need---I likely suspect a counter-attack on this, but I really don't care...that's the beauty of this country- I'm free to believe whatever I want, just so long as I don't coercively impose my ideas on others.


We still are.

Nnno, we are not--we're broke, our military is a mess, and we're on the blade of a knife (with destruction on both sides).




I did not say or imply that society would collapse if schooling was not mandatory. You Christians are the ones saying society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized (despite MANY countries showing the contrary).

Actually, you're making an assumption here--I n ever stated that society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized--I merely said I'm personally against the homosexual life-style. Last time I checked, you can be against someone doing something, but not want to use legislation or regulation to force people to do something.


Correct. The Constitution does not guarantee political parties either, but it does not expressly forbid them.

And this has nothing to do with what I pointed out--since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must be abided by and enforced, therefore, forcing someone to go to school is completely unconstitutional.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:06 PM
i wouldn't go that far. i think ignorant and misguided are more appropriate.

I would go as far as I needed to say that you are the ignorant and misguided ones, probably as a result of your Christian upbringing. Guttek has made many false and outrageous statements about who I am, what I think, and what my character is, and attack these strawmen! You choose to go with it and laugh amongst yourselves instead of reading my replies and what I actually say, or pick and choose which points you will address.

Independent Operator
03-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Damn it. I just finished reading your posts on other threads. You need to realize
that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government in the
Constitution is retained by the states.

not to mention the fact that the writers of constitution explicitly sought (however poorly written) to prohibit standing armies and to defend the country with a citizen militia.

you can't send an army around the world if you don't have one.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:09 PM
I would go as far as I needed to say that you are the ignorant and misguided ones, probably as a result of your Christian upbringing. Guttek has made many false and outrageous statements about who I am, what I think, and what my character is, and attack these strawmen! You choose to go with it and laugh amongst yourselves instead of reading my replies and what I actually say, or pick and choose which points you will address.

My Christian upbringing? How do you know I'm not Muslim or Jewish?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:13 PM
Gays don't have rights, women don't have rights, men don't have rights, heterosexuals don't have rights--only the individual has rights--singling out a single group for "rights" is collectivism.

When only men could vote, what do you call what the women yearn for, the right to vote? They are speaking of women's right, specifically, a woman's right to vote, just like the homosexual's right to have their marriage recognized under the state. You're playing with words.


I'm a believer in the Bible, that's all the evidence I personally need---I likely suspect a counter-attack on this, but I really don't care...that's the beauty of this country- I'm free to believe whatever I want, just so long as I don't coercively impose my ideas on others.

At least you're honest about it. I could go on to say that Bible is full of lies and you only choose to obey the Bible when it's convenient, but my time is better served against the arguments closely removed from the Bible. Still BS of course.


Nnno, we are not--we're broke, our military is a mess, and we're on the blade of a knife (with destruction on both sides).

You can think that, but if you look at the raw numbers (GDP) you will come to a different conclusion.


Actually, you're making an assumption here--I n ever stated that society would collapse if gay marriage were legalized--I merely said I'm personally against the homosexual life-style.

No, I didn't. You said that when schooling was not mandatory, society did not collapse. I countered saying that I never said that society would collapse without mandatory schooling, and the society collapsing argument came from those against gay marriage.


Last time I checked, you can be against someone doing something, but not want to use legislation or regulation to force people to do something.

My problem is with those who use legislation to force or prohibit people from this natural progression of society.


And this has nothing to do with what I pointed out--since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must be abided by and enforced, therefore, forcing someone to go to school is completely unconstitutional.

Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional :p

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:16 PM
My Christian upbringing? How do you know I'm not Muslim or Jewish?

How do you know I'm a human, not an Octopus?

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:17 PM
There are two conflicting opinions here. One is

1) Teach children that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be condemned and do not deserve equal rights. Dehumanize them to hold the child's empathy, just as it was done to blacks back in the day.

Equal rights in what sense? The government shouldn't discriminate against nor in favor of homosexuals. Likewise, the government shouldn't force any one else to discriminate in favor nor against homosexuals.


2) Teach children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are people just like you and I, and that homosexual hatred is irrational and the bigots should be condemned (last part optional).

If that's what you want to teach your children, go ahead. The problems lies where the government interferes in this issue and causes more hate towards homosexuals.


Doesn't it seem like option number 1 would require that you teach children exactly what homosexuality is as the church defines it? Because the church defines it by sex, and the normal scientific world defines it by attraction.

The government shouldn't be in the business of teaching what sexual preferences are right or wrong. It's a family issue.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:19 PM
How do you know I'm a human, not an Octopus?

I don't. That's why I haven't ruled out that you are an octopus. You assumed I have a Christian upbringing.

Gadsden Flag
03-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Well, I thought I should weigh in here...

I was homeschooled. My parents were Christians.

The textbooks we used were even bought from a Christian publishing company, and most were taught with a theological perspective added.

I was not taught to hate anyone, ever. Nor was I taught to 'dehumanize' anyone, or that anyone was less than human. In fact, I remember many instances of explicitly being told by my parents that people of all races are equal. Likewise, people of all sexual preferences are equal--Although their lifestyles were sinful according to our religion, we should not treat them with less respect than anyone else. The same goes for people of all other religions--Jews, muslims, wiccans, etc. I was not taught that our values should be made into law, or that other viewpoints should be banned.

This was all explicitly stated in what I learned while being homeschooled.

I no longer consider myself a religious person, however, I don't have any contempt for people who are. It seems that some people possess a genuine fear of Christian ideals and values. I saw that fear expressed several times in this thread, and I hope that by posting this message, I can show that Christian people are not quite as dangerous or 'borg-like' as you may think.

clouds
03-02-2008, 07:34 PM
Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional :p

Not to be rude, but the supreme court has made a metric ton of obviously wrong rulings that were obviously unconstitutional since the moment they were formed.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:37 PM
When only men could vote, what do you call what the
women yearn for, the right to vote? They are speaking of women's right,
specifically, a woman's right to vote, just like the homosexual's right to have their
marriage recognized under the state. You're playing with words.

And you're mixing issues. Besides, what difference does it make if a government
recognizes homosexual mirriage or not? What, taxes? The federal government shouldn't tax our income in the first place. Custody/guradianship? Again, the government should have no say as to what children of ours we are ALLOWED to keep.


You can think that, but if you look at the raw numbers (GDP) you will come to a different conclusion.

the GDP numbers also tells us that 70% GDP is consumer spending. that's not a good thing.




My problem is with those who use legislation to force or prohibit people from this natural progression of society.

Exactly, so why do we need legislation that mandates that our Children be taught that homosexuality is okay or not okay? If the issue is a natural progression of society, why do we need legislation to enforce it?



Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional :p

The purpose of the SUpreme Court is not to INTERPRET the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT open to interpretation.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:44 PM
Equal rights in what sense? The government shouldn't discriminate against nor in favor of homosexuals. Likewise, the government shouldn't force any one else to discriminate in favor nor against homosexuals.

If we have this dichotomy, discrimination for homosexuals, in the form of Affirmative Action is much less offensive. But this isn't the issue.


If that's what you want to teach your children, go ahead. The problems lies where the government interferes in this issue and causes more hate towards homosexuals.

Bullshit. Teaching tolerance does not cause more hatred toward homosexuals, it causes the opposite. That's why Christians are so afraid of it :)


The government shouldn't be in the business of teaching what sexual preferences are right or wrong. It's a family issue.

No, it isn't. It's a societal issue. It isn't about right or wrong either. You're all wrong about this. Teaching that something is not wrong is not teaching that it's right, there is no such thing as "right" in this case, that kind of black and white thinking only occurs in religion.

Independent Operator
03-02-2008, 07:45 PM
There are two conflicting opinions here. One is

1) Teach children that homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be condemned and do not deserve equal rights. Dehumanize them to hold the child's empathy, just as it was done to blacks back in the day.

2) Teach children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are people just like you and I, and that homosexual hatred is irrational and the bigots should be condemned (last part optional).

Doesn't it seem like option number 1 would require that you teach children exactly what homosexuality is as the church defines it? Because the church defines it by sex, and the normal scientific world defines it by attraction.

non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

btw, you confuse me with a religious american. i assure you i am not. i am an atheist even though i attended parochial school (probably the reason), but i will fight for the right of every american to lead the life he chooses. that is what it means to be american.

homosexuality is NOT unavoidable. it is not "hard wired" as you say. it is purely a sexual fetish, period - plain and simple (i'm attracted to big asses and hairy pussies - i guess i should teach children about that, huh?). it is not to be lauded or condemned from my standpoint, but i will not castigate a religious person for saying that it is wrong - that is up to them. it is a choice.

also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:48 PM
Well, I thought I should weigh in here...

I was homeschooled. My parents were Christians.

I'm so so sorry. If you need a therapist recommendation, send a private message.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:49 PM
And you're mixing issues. Besides, what difference does it make if a government
recognizes homosexual mirriage or not? What, taxes? The federal government shouldn't tax our income in the first place. Custody/guradianship? Again, the government should have no say as to what children of ours we are ALLOWED to keep.

As long as we are given tax breaks for marriage, the government should not discriminate between homosexual and hetersexual marriage.


the GDP numbers also tells us that 70% GDP is consumer spending. that's not a good thing.

Sure it is. Maybe it isn't moral according to your religion, but I have nothing but contempt for your religion :)


Exactly, so why do we need legislation that mandates that our Children be taught that homosexuality is okay or not okay? If the issue is a natural progression of society, why do we need legislation to enforce it?

Because Government is part of that society, and can do extremely good or bad things to help advance society. It can help advance the science and the arts, by subsidizing it, or it can hinder science and the arts by taxing it.


The purpose of the SUpreme Court is not to INTERPRET the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT open to interpretation.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is open to interpretation. My last two sentences, however, are not open for interpretation ;)

clouds
03-02-2008, 07:51 PM
Well, they've done a scandalous job of interpreting it so far.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 07:53 PM
non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

....

also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

Likewise, I'll end this debate with TDCCI by calling her/him/it/octopus a Marxist. :cool:

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:54 PM
non sequiturs abound with you. teach the simple facts.

The facts are not in religion's favor. That's why Christians homeschool their children, to shield them from the facts and teach them to reject the facts. This is child abuse.


btw, you confuse me with a religious american. i assure you i am not. i am an atheist even though i attended parochial school (probably the reason), but i will fight for the right of every american to lead the life he chooses. that is what it means to be american.

If you say so. I still have my doubts.


homosexuality is NOT unavoidable. it is not "hard wired" as you say. it is purely a sexual fetish, period

No, it isn't.


- plain and simple (i'm attracted to big asses and hairy pussies - i guess i should teach children about that, huh?).

Teaching children that some people are attracted to men as some are attracted to women are not the same as teaching them about "big asses and hairy pussies".


it is not to be lauded or condemned from my standpoint, but i will not castigate a religious person for saying that it is wrong - that is up to them. it is a choice.

There are limits to choice, as there are limits to free speech.


also, you seriously need a course in logic and argumentation. you are a horrible debater. you do not have the ability to make logical distinctions.

(at this point you're supposed to show me examples of this)
(otherwise this is a baseless accusation)


so as of this point i am through with you. you are a waste of any further time.

One down, 75% of the American population to go.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:55 PM
Likewise, I'll end this debate with TDCCI by calling her/him/it/octopus a Marxist. :cool:

At least you've ended with your posts being consistently lies :cool:
That's something I can admire.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 07:57 PM
Well, they've done a scandalous job of interpreting it so far.

They have better credibility in interpreting the Constitution than you do, regardless of what your interpretation is. What if the Founding Fathers' beliefs did not align with yours? Consider that thought.

clouds
03-02-2008, 08:01 PM
They have better credibility in interpreting the Constitution than you do, regardless of what your interpretation is. What if the Founding Fathers' beliefs did not align with yours? Consider that thought.

We have seen their opinions, we haven't seen mine. The supreme court should be (in)famous for desegregating and then resegregating in the 1960s, ruling that corporations are one person, ruling against property rights, against state's rights and so on, and all around legislating from he bench.

And the founding fathers' beliefs might not align with mine, who knows? What's important is they didn't censure the people of opposing beliefs, obviously. But maybe we should reassess our foundations if they didn't provide for a public school system at the federal level.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 08:02 PM
At least you've ended with your posts being consistently lies :cool:
That's something I can admire.

NO! YOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUU are lies!!! :rolleyes:

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional :p

judges are just as corrupt as the congressman, senators, and presidents we've had...they're going to interpret it according to how they want it to be interpreted, now how it originally (and properly) should be interpreted--and that's strictly.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:06 PM
NO! YOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUU are lies!!! :rolleyes:

It's simply the truth. If we were debating evolution vs. creationism, and I sided with evolution, you would be wrong, and I would be right. Our ideas are not on equal footing because mine are based in observable truths, and yours are based on lies perpetuated over the centuries. You try to play dirty tricks like manipulating language and ad hominem (twice I was called a sex offender and a pedophile in this thread alone) to make up for the fact that you can't logically defend your position and you know it. Religion is not compatible with logic.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:09 PM
judges are just as corrupt as the congressman, senators, and presidents we've had...they're going to interpret it according to how they want it to be interpreted, now how it originally (and properly) should be interpreted--and that's strictly.

Why don't you strictly interpret the Bible in your own life, stoning adulterers and children who swear at their parents?

clouds
03-02-2008, 08:11 PM
It's simply the truth. If we were debating evolution vs. creationism, and I sided with evolution, you would be wrong, and I would be right. Our ideas are not on equal footing because mine are based in observable truths, and yours are based on lies perpetuated over the centuries. Religion is not compatible with logic.

Can you be religious and be logical?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:13 PM
Can you be religious and be logical?

In other areas of your life that do not concern religion, you can be. Just shows how powerful the brain is in compartmentalizing things.

clouds
03-02-2008, 08:17 PM
In other areas of your life that do not concern religion, you can be. Just shows how powerful the brain is in compartmentalizing things.

I disagree. I don't know what your definition of religion is, but it helps inform me on my moral views(although I find it hard to disagree with natural law) and it shapes the reasons behind why I support what I do. If it's illogical, a real religious man simply cannot be logical. i say real because it wouldn't be very religous if you were adhering to your religion in your spare time.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:20 PM
I disagree.

Ok, then. What's your position on homosexuality and homosexual rights?

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Sure it is. Maybe it isn't moral according to your religion, but I have nothing but contempt for your religion :)

here is a perfect example of why someone here called you a horrible debater--I talked about us not being the world economic power anymore, and you said we were because of GDP, and someone else countered saying that 70% of the GDP was determined by purchases....all these were in economic context--you just freaked it up, distorted it and spit it back out to fit a religious/moral context, which is totally irrelevant to the point the poster was making.

The reason that having a GDP that is 70% composed of consuming is that it means very little product (TRUE WEALTH) is being produced--if you don't have true wealth (aka: capital), then money is just trading hands via various services, which does nothing for society and nothing for the economy in the long run.


No, it isn't. It's a societal issue. It isn't about right or wrong either. You're all wrong about this. Teaching that something is not wrong is not teaching that it's right, there is no such thing as "right" in this case, that kind of black and white thinking only occurs in religion.

and the government has no moral, constitutional, or philosophical reason to teach children what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, and what to teach my children--that'd would be my job--proposing anything else is dabbling with the idea of a Statist controlled society where the government has the ability to dictate what is religion, what is not, what is right and what is not, and what is wrong, and what is not.


The facts are not in religion's favor. That's why Christians homeschool their children, to shield them from the facts and teach them to reject the facts. This is child abuse.

You have a really farked up view of Christianity, that we're all somehow forced into a mold and that we all comply or that the mold is all the same. Sure, some do that, but you can't make a blanket statement like that.

I'm an extremist individualist--heck, back when I was a Neocon, this was very evident...I might also add that I don't enjoy being told what to do, so even if was "sheltered" (I was not), it would have little effect, as I would discover other things and weigh them on what I personally thought and believed, regardless of what I had been sheltered from.

Also, last I checked, even if the kids were "indoctrinated" as you claim, they still have the choice, later in life, to seek out the facts.

I've made my own choices and formed by own beliefs because I wanted to and because it's the logical conclusion I came to on my own.

clouds
03-02-2008, 08:22 PM
There's no such thing as homosexual rights. It's individual rights. Marriage itself is a religious ceremony, so that would be decided by the religions involved at the local level. Government has no right not to allow the civil things, though.

pinkmandy
03-02-2008, 08:22 PM
As a non-Christian, educated homeschooling mother I find it hilarious that some would be concerned that homeschooled kids learn to stereotype others from their parents. Hello, pot.

Back to the op, it's ironic that any state is concerned about the 3% or so of kids being homeschooled when the 85% or so in their care at public schools are graduating functionally illiterate. Anyone who thinks public schools are doing a great job (or even a decent one) has his/her head in the sand. Colleges are being forced to offer remedial writing, reading, and math because for some reason public schools can't manage to teach children these basics over 13 years. As a homeschooler who HAS taught kids to read, write, and do basic math all 3 can be accomplished within one year. ONE YEAR.

Oh, and you can send your kid to a ps and he can get good grades and still graduate functionally illiterate. You could then sue the school for not teaching your child to read and not alerting you to an educational problem. Guess what? You lose. Parents have done this repeatedly and according to the court system schools only have to provide the space and teachers...

As if we need any more proof- we have a country voting for McCain because they want out of the war, for Obama because they want "change", and Hillary because she's a caring woman and Bill was so great. All the while our country is bankrupt and they all want to spend more money. People today are STUPID. They are, most people acknowlege America is not so bright anymore yet they somehow refuse to look at the sacred cow of public schooling. It's mind boggling.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 08:22 PM
It's simply the truth.

Of course I'm telling the truth. lol



If we were debating evolution vs. creationism, and I sided with evolution, you would be wrong, and I would be right.

I would side with evolution because you are an octopus (running gag) who has evolved to use the Internet. That makes you slightly smarter than the octupus I ate for dinner last night, but slightly dumber than a 14-year-old on mySpace who supports Obama.



Our ideas are not on equal footing because mine are based in observable truths, and yours are based on lies perpetuated over the centuries.

Wait, let me get this right. Your "ideas" are based on "observale truths"? And... me calling you a Marxist is based on lies perpetuated over the centuries?



You try to play dirty tricks like manipulating language and ad hominem (twice I was called a sex offender and a pedophile in this thread alone) to make up for the fact that you can't logically defend your position and you know it.

Hey! Don't make it seem as if I was the one who called you a "sex offender" or a "pedophile". If anything, I was the one defending you by saying that your simply ignorant and misguided (although, that may be a lie perpetuated over centuries) :D.



Religion is not compatible with logic.

What does that have to do with anything? You sound like Obama.

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 08:29 PM
Why don't you strictly interpret the Bible in your own life, stoning adulterers and children who swear at their parents?


First off, this is irrelevant--we were talking about the Constitution and only the Constitution.

Secondly, when Christ came to this earth, the law was fulfilled, and he died on the cross so that all past, present, and future sins would be forgiven.

Things vastly changed in the New Testament, so your statement doesn't really apply here either.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:29 PM
There's no such thing as homosexual rights. It's individual rights. Marriage itself is a religious ceremony, so that would be decided by the religions involved at the local level. Government has no right not to allow the civil things, though.

Looks like you didn't read the thread. Fox McCloud already tried the "there's no such thing as homosexual rights" tripe. I responded to it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1318729&postcount=45

Marriage, when used in the government sense is not religious, just as the word "theory" when used in the scientific sense does NOT mean a hunch. States have been denying homosexuals the right to civil unions, that's the issue here. The only reason "civil union" and "marriage" are different is because no one disputes granting people Marriage, but can easily deny civil unions, because no one will go for a civil union when they can get a marriage. The framework is already in place for marriage recognition, so why not recognize homosexual marriage? Churches, the saner ones, allow homosexual marriage, the states just won't recognize it, and when they do, OTHER states won't recognize it though they should because the CONSTITUTION forces them to (see: Full Faith and Credit Clause)

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:35 PM
First off, this is irrelevant--we were talking about the Constitution and only the Constitution.

Secondly, when Christ came to this earth, the law was fulfilled, and he died on the cross so that all past, present, and future sins would be forgiven.

Things vastly changed in the New Testament, so your statement doesn't really apply here either.

I would have used the Qur'an as an example, because it does not have Jesus, but you wouldn't be able to relate to it so closely. Moderate Muslims are encouraged to partake in government because the archaic views in the book do not make for a compassionate society. Only with a strict interpretation of the Bible can you conclude that homosexuality is an "abomination"-- you have to ignore the Jesus washing away the sins part as you did for the adulterers and the children.

Mini-Me
03-02-2008, 08:36 PM
At least they would be learning English ;)



I would like kids to watch that movie, to show them the destructive effect of homophobia. It's deep.



Yes! If they are taught that it is wrong, they will be ashamed of themselves and their feelings, which they shouldn't be! This is social progress. Just a century or two ago, they were taught heterosexual kissing before marriage was wrong!



It's not all I care about, it is one thing I care about. The sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of homeschooled kids are being indoctrinated with Christian hate and violence.



I'd rather our children be sent to war to conquer another nation than fight arabs for Israel.

Tdcci, I agree with you that the world would be a better place if children were taught tolerance, but you are way out of line on the homeschooling issue. Regardless of how much you personally dislike what some homeschoolers teach their children, it's their right to do so. It's unethical to force people to teach their children the way you want them to be taught. There are obvious practical dangers of making children "wards of the state" and letting the government's ideas about proper education override the parents' ideas, and only one of them is the "minor off-chance" that they'll be indoctrinated to be statist sheep. If the issue of tolerance is SUCH a big deal to you that you're against homeschooling because of it (despite the significantly more dangerous centralized indoctrination process that public schools are capable of), consider how you would feel if things went the other way: What if the state was rabidly anti-gay, and the only way you could raise tolerant children is if you homeschooled them? Would you stick to your apparent principle of state supremacy here, or would you equivocate based on the circumstances?

Do you see my point? You're trying to impose your views on others in ways surpassing even the evangelist Christians you despise. Gutteck seems like an exceedingly hateful and uneducated person, but at least he doesn't want to force my kids to be just like him and worship his God, the way you want to force my kids to worship the state. You would LIKE kids to watch Brokeback Mountain, but it's wrong to FORCE everyone to. Personally, I don't care if my children grow up to be the gayest people on the entire planet, as long as they don't become subservient, brainwashed slaves. Even disregarding practical concerns, it is not the government's right to force children to learn what the government wants them to learn. It is not the government's right to force parents to give up their parenting rights to public officials. Is it nice that parents have the OPTION of public schools? Yes - but it should be an option. Anything else is an illegitimate abuse of power.

You say that education is extremely localized, but I think you've forgotten a few things...like, for instance, the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind? Our education system used to be great, but centralization of policy and lack of competition have destroyed it. Is the dumbing down of America deliberate? I don't know for sure, but the scary thing is that it can be. Seriously, consider...what if it is deliberate? Government has gotten so out of control that it has the power to do that if it wants, and that's the scary thing.

Right now, I don't have kids, but my options are not too great. Unless I homeschool my kids, I'm left with two choices:

Enroll my kids into public schools, where they'll get a piss-poor education and be indoctrinated in statism, or
Enroll my kids into private parochial schools, where they'll get a much better education (at least relatively speaking), but they'll be indoctrinated in religion

If that's not bad enough, we may eventually get to the point where private schools are increasingly controlled or eliminated, too (since they only exist as long as the state "lets" them). I don't like my options, Tdcci. Homeschooling is a crucial right.

Fox McCloud
03-02-2008, 08:42 PM
Only with a strict interpretation of the Bible can you conclude that homosexuality is an "abomination"-- you have to ignore the Jesus washing away the sins part as you did for the adulterers and the children.

Our sins are only covered if we accept him as savior. Also, even if you were to accept Christ, it still doesn't give you the authority to do whatever you want without consequences, sin is still just that....sin.

clouds
03-02-2008, 08:44 PM
That's a little unfair, granting chruches that accept homosexuality sanity. If a church accepts homosexual marriage, I guess it should be recognized by the state. As long as it's not up to the state to make the decision, because that would definitely be unconstitutional.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:48 PM
Great post, Mini-Me. No disagreements with you there. Homeschooling is a tool, like anything else, which can be used for good and evil. Partly because I was sensitized to the thread where RPF members were engaging in blatant gay-bashing in a thread where California supposedly enacted a "pro-sodomy bill" (when in reality all it did was amend the anti-discrimination laws on the books to not only include race and gender with sexual orientation) I decided to play the devil's advocate and explore the line of thought that would lead one to making public schooling mandatory. You can oppose this order for the right reasons and for the wrong reasons. I oppose this order for the reasons you listed, but I also disagree with the evangelicals in the thread, so I played a dissenter in a thread where normally everyone would have agreed that what the school did was wrong and reduced the religious arguments to where they come from, emotion.

Mini-Me
03-02-2008, 08:51 PM
<snip>
Judges, the supreme interpreters of the Constitution have decided otherwise. It IS constitutional :p

I seriously hope that's a joke. Judges can be intellectually dishonest, manipulative statist assholes just like anyone else...and in fact, most currently are.
The Constitution is "open to interpretation," but only within the confines of its wording. The whole "interpretive" aspect of the Supreme Court is to interpret ambiguous phrases that need to be qualified by some level of judgment, such as "cruel or unusual punishment."

I replied to one of your posts on the second page, I believe...I'm still working my way through this thread. I will give you one thing: Some of the people you've been debating with have not exactly done a service to the cause of homeschooling, and their personal attacks on you are obviously unwarranted. They're speaking out of anger and outrage at your position...personally, I think they'd be much more effective if they only comprised their posts of well-founded logic and reason, rather than insults, but...they are in fact on the right side of this debate, language skills or lack thereof notwithstanding.

The key issue here is not tolerance vs. intolerance. On that issue, I side with you.
The key issue here is whether or not the state should have the coercive authority to force indoctrination on children against their parents' wishes. I sincerely hope that, once you understand that forced public education is a danger not only to religious dissidents but to dissidents of ALL kinds, you will come down on the right side of this.


EDIT: Ahhh, I just noticed the post previous to this - now I see that you were playing devil's advocate. In that case, game on! :D

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 08:53 PM
That's a little unfair, granting chruches that accept homosexuality sanity. If a church accepts homosexual marriage, I guess it should be recognized by the state. As long as it's not up to the state to make the decision, because that would definitely be unconstitutional.

If you mean the First Amendment, specifically the part about Congress making no law respecting the establishment of any religion, I don't think that extends to what the religion produces, whether it be charitable items or marriage certificates. States already do this, somewhat, by giving churches the power to create marriage certificates, because they are private they can get away with discriminating against gays while the government can't. It is very sinister.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 09:02 PM
If you mean the First Amendment, specifically the part about Congress making no law respecting the establishment of any religion, I don't think that extends to what the religion produces.

Are you serious? The first Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

You're a joke... and an octopus (running gag).

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 09:04 PM
Are you serious? The first Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

You're a joke... and an octopus (running gag).

What does "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" mean in this context? The State refusing to recognize a certain church's marriage is not prohibiting free exercise.

clouds
03-02-2008, 09:04 PM
it's not sinister at all. They have the right to accept and reject what goes on on their property in regards to this kind of stuff. You have the right to try and change the church people's minds, but any law that you would want enforced would be a violation of property rights.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 09:07 PM
it's not sinister at all. They have the right to accept and reject what goes on on their property in regards to this kind of stuff. You have the right to try and change the church people's minds, but any law that you would want enforced would be a violation of property rights.

What's sinister is the State bypassing the Constitution by outsourcing essential services to private businesses. I didn't say in that post that the church not accepting same sex marriage was sinister (even though I do believe that)

clouds
03-02-2008, 09:08 PM
how is marriage an essential service?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 09:09 PM
how is marriage an essential service?

it grants you a whole slew of rights you simply cannot get otherwise (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/)

LEK
03-02-2008, 09:11 PM
I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by parents to resist tolerance teaching.

Not this parent...

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 09:12 PM
Not this parent...

That's why I didn't use an absolute qualifier.

LEK
03-02-2008, 09:13 PM
As if we need any more proof- we have a country voting for McCain because they want out of the war, for Obama because they want "change", and Hillary because she's a caring woman and Bill was so great. All the while our country is bankrupt and they all want to spend more money. People today are STUPID. They are, most people acknowlege America is not so bright anymore yet they somehow refuse to look at the sacred cow of public schooling. It's mind boggling.

Rock on fellow HS'ing mom...+1 and then some.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 09:22 PM
Because Government is part of that society, and can do extremely good or bad things to help advance society. It can help advance the science and the arts, by subsidizing it, or it can hinder science and the arts by taxing it.


You responded to my response but you attributed the quote to the wrong person. Anyway, all the great colleges of this country have been privately founded and mostly by CHURCHES. Examples: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Datmouth, Princeton, CalTech, MIT, Notre Dame, BYU, et cetera. Even the great public colleges, such as University of California, Berkeley, were privately founded.

nate895
03-02-2008, 09:24 PM
Christian hate and violence? Do you mean teaching children that God forbids homosexuality?

That is not “hate”…..

Why don’t you grab all the parents that follow your pagan god and make a little Gomorrah School to tech your kind whatever you want.


Leave Christian kids alone because they belong to God. You pervert pedophile.

Don't worry about Tddci, he hasn't ever been to church, otherwise I am sure he would have noticed that someone said welcome while smiling, there was free coffee, and then everyone shakes your hand when they meet you, and that they care how your week went, and so on and so forth.

danberkeley
03-02-2008, 09:26 PM
What's sinister is the State bypassing the Constitution by outsourcing essential services to private businesses. I didn't say in that post that the church not accepting same sex marriage was sinister (even though I do believe that)

What "essential services" are you talking about?

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 09:30 PM
What "essential services" are you talking about?

If you don't know which service, see the post I quoted in that reply.
If you don't think it's essential, see my last post.

aravoth
03-02-2008, 09:30 PM
That's why I didn't use an absolute qualifier.

You are a head case.

Mesogen
03-02-2008, 09:38 PM
I guess this means that the state owns your children.

Mesogen
03-02-2008, 09:40 PM
Wow, the deliberate dumbing down book is free!

How the hell do you get 736 pages into 6.75MB? Amazing.

RSLudlum
03-02-2008, 10:53 PM
My daughter goes to public school but i make it a point to know what/how she's being taught and if necessary (quite often) I present her a differing viewpoint.

Tdcci
03-02-2008, 11:02 PM
My daughter goes to public school but i make it a point to know what/how she's being taught and if necessary (quite often) I present her a differing viewpoint.

What kind of stuff do they teach her that require a differing viewpoint?

nate895
03-02-2008, 11:15 PM
What kind of stuff do they teach her that require a differing viewpoint?

I am almost 100% convinced you are a communist and/or fascist.

clouds
03-03-2008, 12:05 AM
What do they teach in school, period

Mini-Me
03-03-2008, 12:23 AM
What kind of stuff do they teach her that require a differing viewpoint?

That the Ninth Grade Proficiency Tests are somehow so difficult that instead of being a requirement to pass the ninth grade, they're now merely required to pass the twelfth? ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

pinkmandy
03-03-2008, 07:19 AM
In VA we take a standardized test each year for homeschoolers as an option but the kids only have to score in the 38th percentile to show "progress". Why such a ridiculously low number you ask? Because they can't require the homeschoolers do better than what is considered acceptable in VA public schools.

Nate, ITA. Liberal fascist imo.

angelatc
03-03-2008, 07:42 AM
I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by parents to resist tolerance teaching.

"Tolerance teaching" is probably the scariest thing about the public school systems.

Other people have a right to hold different values.

Instilling your values in your own children is *not* "abuse."

angelatc
03-03-2008, 07:43 AM
What kind of stuff do they teach her that require a differing viewpoint?

Ever read "Rainbow Fish?"

heartless
03-03-2008, 08:16 AM
you mean the shiny scales one?

TC95
03-03-2008, 01:53 PM
best thing is to just put him on the good old ignore list...


Thanks for the tip. :)

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 10:33 AM
Maybe if people would have read the case they would understand why this ruling took place. I mean one of the children was claiming abuse from the parents and they were using homeschooling to suppress it. Plus where exactly is your constitutional right to homeschool? And anyway, the case doesn't make any kind of constitutional statement, it just says if your state has complusatory education laws, which California does, then you have to follow them. And the Supreme Court ruled compusl. education laws are constitutional. Not sure what ya'll are arguing here........

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 10:39 AM
Also, the parents themselves screwed this up, don't blame the government here....

"The parents in the instant case have asserted in a declaration that it is because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” that they home school their children and those religious beliefs “are based on Biblical teachings and principles.” Even if the parents' declaration had been signed under penalty of perjury, which it was not, those assertions are not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights. Their statements are conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child."

The court basically said, (1) make a signed statement; (2) detail your religious objections to public school, and you might have won. They didn't, and thus they lost.

pinkmandy
03-04-2008, 10:50 AM
Abuse is NOT a factor in homeschooling. Using hschooling to cover it up? No, that doesn't fly. If that were an acceptable argument against homeschooling then you are saying that during summer vacation the govt has a right to force kids into another govt institution where they can be monitored for fear of abuse.

The day the state can PROVE that their brand of education is superior and can GUARANTEE no abuse takes place in school I will then consider sending them. Until then they need to butt out. Those who live in glass houses and all....

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 10:53 AM
It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 10:58 AM
Abuse is NOT a factor in homeschooling. Using hschooling to cover it up? No, that doesn't fly. If that were an acceptable argument against homeschooling then you are saying that during summer vacation the govt has a right to force kids into another govt institution where they can be monitored for fear of abuse.

The day the state can PROVE that their brand of education is superior and can GUARANTEE no abuse takes place in school I will then consider sending them. Until then they need to butt out. Those who live in glass houses and all....

Yeah that's a pretty ignorant statement. Read the California State Law on this........

pinkmandy
03-04-2008, 11:01 AM
It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

Why are you even here? Seriously? You can monitor the govt? Fire teachers? You have done little to no research on the bureaucracy of public schooling (including the purpose of mass schooling per the very people who pushed it on our society) or the history of the institution. You look like an uneducated fool making such statements.

Sounds like you need a reading list. ;)

NEA: Trojan Horse of American Education
Dumbing Us Down
Why Johnny Can't Read
Why Johnny STILL Can't Read

Once you've worked through those let me know. I can suggest some more. I'd also suggest doing some research on abuse in public schools and policies on dealing with abuse, especially on the lack of information sharing and reporting between state licensing boards.

pinkmandy
03-04-2008, 11:04 AM
Yeah that's a pretty ignorant statement. Read the California State Law on this........

What? My statements are FAR from ignorant. I'm very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of homeschooling. The LAWS are ignorant as are those who don't question them.

The idiotic assumption that Christian parents are the only people who homeschool is ignorant as is the assumption that children were born to be indoctrinated by the state as opposed to learning the values of their own parents. You guys are seriously hopeless. Your public schools did a FANTASTIC job.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:10 AM
What? My statements are FAR from ignorant. I'm very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of homeschooling. The LAWS are ignorant as are those who don't question them.

The idiotic assumption that Christian parents are the only people who homeschool is ignorant as is the assumption that children were born to be indoctrinated by the state as opposed to learning the values of their own parents. You guys are seriously hopeless. Your public schools did a FANTASTIC job.

Ok, well if you want to argue that the LAWS are ignorant, be my guest. But you admit you are incorrect when you admit they are LAWS.

As far as you trying to state that I assume that Christians educating their children is ignorant is only a misrepresentation of facts. I never once stated that, I personally believe that no one should be discriminated against due to religion. However, if your state has compulsatory education laws, you must either follow them or move. You don't like the law? Fine. But just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. And again, where do you get this constitutional right to homeschool from??

pinkmandy
03-04-2008, 11:21 AM
Ok, well if you want to argue that the LAWS are ignorant, be my guest. But you admit you are incorrect when you admit they are LAWS.

As far as you trying to state that I assume that Christians educating their children is ignorant is only a misrepresentation of facts. I never once stated that, I personally believe that no one should be discriminated against due to religion. However, if your state has compulsatory education laws, you must either follow them or move. You don't like the law? Fine. But just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. And again, where do you get this constitutional right to homeschool from??

I admit I am incorrect? No. The laws are based on ignorance and those who blindly follow them without question (as opposed to trying to change them like a RP repub would do or practicing civil disobedience) are ignorant. You, my friend, are ignorant. You are trapped in your box and I'm not sure why you are on these forums. Strike that, I know why.

This entire thread has made gross assumptions about homeschooling, esp Christian homeschooling. I've stayed out of most of it because I've found the anti-homeschooling arguments to be glaringly misinformed- based on stereotypes, not research.

And where do I get the right to homeschool? Are you kidding? Do you think compulsory education laws are constitutional? They aren't that's why EVERY state has to provide for exemptions. That's the only way they get by with it. Did the founders go to public school? Did they send their kids to public school? NO.

Seriously, if you aren't trolls I apologize for being so harsh but you REALLY need to research this stuff before posting because it's hard to take you seriously even. The public education rabbit hole is deep.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:26 AM
I admit I am incorrect? No. The laws are based on ignorance and those who blindly follow them without question (as opposed to trying to change them like a RP repub would do or practicing civil disobedience) are ignorant. You, my friend, are ignorant. You are trapped in your box and I'm not sure why you are on these forums. Strike that, I know why.

This entire thread has made gross assumptions about homeschooling, esp Christian homeschooling. I've stayed out of most of it because I've found the anti-homeschooling arguments to be glaringly misinformed- based on stereotypes, not research.

And where do I get the right to homeschool? Are you kidding? Do you think compulsory education laws are constitutional? They aren't that's why EVERY state has to provide for exemptions. That's the only way they get by with it. Did the founders go to public school? Did they send their kids to public school? NO.

Seriously, if you aren't trolls I apologize for being so harsh but you REALLY need to research this stuff before posting because it's hard to take you seriously even. The public education rabbit hole is deep.

Do I think compulsory education laws are constitutional? Yes I do. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. Plus since education is a state issue, I don't see why Ron Paul and his supporters on a national level would have anything to say about it.

pinkmandy
03-04-2008, 11:26 AM
Btw, arguing with veteran, educated homeschoolers who have spent years studying the public education model is like knowing nothing about Austrian economics and trying to convince Ron Paul that fiat money is the way to go. Visualize that scenario and then you'll understand how you guys look in this thread.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:28 AM
Btw, arguing with veteran, educated homeschoolers who have spent years studying the public education model is like knowing nothing about Austrian economics and trying to convince Ron Paul that fiat money is the way to go. Visualize that scenario and then you'll understand how you guys look in this thread.

Good job avoiding the issue.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:34 AM
I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by parents to resist tolerance teaching.

You mean brainwashing? It's not the school's job to teach "tolerance". That's the job of the parents. In fact it's time for the American people to be LESS tolerant. We tolerate the government forcing themselves upon all aspects of our lives. We tolerate corrupt decadent politicians. We tolerate elective wars and "free speech zones". We tolerate police "boot camps" where children are sexually abused and beaten to death. We tolerate schools where children are patted down, treated like animals and scared by terrorism "drills". I'm glad Ron Paul is an unequivocal supporters of homeschooling. It's a shame that the Huckabee got the HSLDA endorsement when he clearly didn't deserve it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:35 AM
It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

It's a good think that you have Hillary as an avatar because you sound a lot like her. You push everything Ron Paul is against.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Look this really isn't this hard.....

(1) California law requires having kids schooled (private or public) or taught by a qualified individual. It doesn't say you "can't" homeschool, but if you do, you have to have someone who knows stuff.

(2) The case was only brought after the oldest child reported that the parents were abusing kids, and that homeschooling was one of the ways in which they prevented the outside world from knowing this.

(3) The dad is crazy. From the case: "Over the years, the parents of the children have given various reasons for not sending the children to school. Although previously they stated they do not believe in the policies of the public school system, more recently they have asserted that they home school because of their religious beliefs. The father also recently opined that educating children outside the home exposes them to 'snitches.'"

(4) The part you would care about is the Court ruled there is no Constitutional Right to homeschool your kids. That's kind of an interesting assertion. The Supreme Court has already ruled that compulsory education laws are Constitutional. I'm just not sure where any "right to homeschool a child" would be found in the Constitution. Perhaps you or your biased article could help me out? You see, if there is not some Constitutional right, then you simply have a "bad law" (according to you and World Net Daily), which can be overturned by the will of the people. The case does not hold that it is unconstitutional to homeschool kids; instead, it holds that if a state has compulsory education laws (like California), then you have to comply with them if you choose to live in that state.

Now either answer the points and show me where you get the right to override state law, or quit arguing over it. Clearly you can't show me how you have ANY legal ground to stand on.....

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Are you serious? The first Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

You're a joke... and an octopus (running gag).

She's serious. She actually wants the first amendment changed to strike the free exercise part. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=124637

I'm not sure why someone like this would vote for Ron Paul since he DEFENDS the bill of rights and is AGAINST the government running everything, but I guess it takes all kinds.

Regards,

John M. Drake

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 11:42 AM
Wow, Very interesting debate. If I may, I will add my two cents.

As for homosexuals, I have no problem with them. Kind of grosses me out, at least when it's men. ;)
Now, for the marriage part. First, marriage is an institution between your religion and the couple. If the Bible doesn't recognize gay marriage. Find, whatever. Should gays not be allowed to marry? No. Like Ron Paul said, they should be free to do what they want. Should they get benefits? That needs to be hashed out in the private sector. If Company A wants to give health insurance to a gay couple, fine by me. If not, fine as well. It should be that was for straight couples as well.

As for school. It should be the parents choice. Public schools suck. I live in Florida, I know firsthand. Homeschooling is a right of the parent.

Finally, whoever called TDCCI a pedophile, rapist, or whatever else it was should be ashamed. That is disgusting language. You may not agree with homosexuals, but to use such vile language on someone who is defending someones right to live how they please without fear, to me sounds very, very anti-christian in values. Your God may not like gays, but he still loves them. Remember that.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 11:44 AM
Look this really isn't this hard.....

(1) California law requires having kids schooled (private or public) or taught by a qualified individual. It doesn't say you "can't" homeschool, but if you do, you have to have someone who knows stuff.


I have a problem with this. Who is "qualified"? What makes them "qualified"? Is it a college education? I know alot of dumb people with those. The words are to vague and limits it to whoever hold the power to make the interpretation. Very tricky and definately lacks in freedom.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:45 AM
I'm not sure why someone like this would vote for Ron Paul since he DEFENDS the bill of rights and is AGAINST the government running everything, but I guess it takes all kinds.

Good job making the subtle implication that religion, the bill of rights, and limited constitutional government are tightly intertwined :mad:

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:46 AM
I have a problem with this. Who is "qualified"? What makes them "qualified"? Is it a college education? I know alot of dumb people with those. The words are to vague and limits it to whoever hold the power to make the interpretation. Very tricky and definately lacks in freedom.

The court decides, that's their job, to interpret the law.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 11:47 AM
The court decides, that's their job, to interpret the law.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The purpose of our govt is to protect the freedom, liberty, and property of it's citizens not to tell them how to run their lives.

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The purpose of our govt is to protect the freedom, liberty, and property of it's citizens not to tell them how to run their lives.

Well isn't that too easy. You limit all discourse by turning to conspiracy. Yes the courts interpret laws, but your only argument is that "well then the courts are corrupt." This is a rediculous assertion that ends all discussion on the topic because you won't debate facts, just your opinions.....

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Should they get benefits? That needs to be hashed out in the private sector. If Company A wants to give health insurance to a gay couple, fine by me. If not, fine as well. It should be that was for straight couples as well.

The government has anti discrimination laws for the private sector, from the days where blacks and women were discriminated against for health insurance, etc. Amending them to include sexual orientation is easy (if you live in a progressive state). To say that being gay is somehow different than being a minority of the past (all of which were persecuted by the evangelicals, lest we forget) defies all scientific explanation, and has no place in government.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:51 AM
Do I think compulsory education laws are constitutional? Yes I do. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. Plus since education is a state issue, I don't see why Ron Paul and his supporters on a national level would have anything to say about it.

I'm curious. Have you ever read what Ron Paul says about this issue?

http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2001/HR368/default.asp
H.R. 368-Family Education Freedom Act of 2001

Action Requested:
None.

Background:
Official purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Introduced January 31, 2001 by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)
Cosponsors

Status:
1/31/2001: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Bill Summary and Status

HSLDA's Position:
HSLDA supports H.R. 368. H.R. 368 will allow individuals a credit up to $3,000 per student against income tax for the tuition and other related school expenses. More directly relating to home education, section 25B(2) defines a qualified education institution as, "Any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized for the purpose of providing elementary or secondary education, or both." HSLDA believes that parents and individuals who provide for a child's education should be allowed to keep some of their tax money that would otherwise have been used to fund public education. This goal could be accomplished through legislation like H.R. 368.

He clearly supports the rights of home schoolers. Now technically speaking the federal government shouldn't be involved in education at all. But since it is the rights of homeschoolers need to be protected at the federal level. This is how it currently works. The federal government pushes illegal mandates onto the states in the forum of "No Child Left Behind". If you don't agree with the federal takeover of education that NCLB represents you can either home school or send your child to public school. But if states start to try to force NCLB like mandates on private and homeschool then there's no escape. So yes. This has to be fought at the federal level as well as the state level. The answer is not to "move to another state" any more than the answer to Bush tyranny is to "move to another country". The answer to stand up and fight politically at all levels.

Regards,

John M. Drake

angelatc
03-04-2008, 11:52 AM
you mean the shiny scales one?

Yes, that's the one.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:53 AM
Good job making the subtle implication that religion, the bill of rights, and limited constitutional government are tightly intertwined :mad:

Good job ignoring the fact that Ron Paul supports the bill of rights AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN! And get mad all you want.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:53 AM
I'm curious. Have you ever read what Ron Paul says about this issue?

Arguments from Authority don't work as well when you don't have a God to look up to :)

angelatc
03-04-2008, 11:55 AM
It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

Just because they're not accountable to you does not mean they aren't accountable.

They have the right to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin. I don't share that belief, but I will defend their right to it.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:56 AM
The government has anti discrimination laws for the private sector, from the days where blacks and women were discriminated against for health insurance, etc. Amending them to include sexual orientation is easy (if you live in a progressive state). To say that being gay is somehow different than being a minority of the past (all of which were persecuted by the evangelicals, lest we forget) defies all scientific explanation, and has no place in government.

Nonsense. The people who fought for civil rights were themselves evangelicals! (Do you think MLK was called "reverend" just for kicks?) Same for the people who fought for the abolition of slavery. The fact that some of the people fighting against civil rights called themselves Christians is irrelevant. We live in a country where the overwhelming majority self identify as Christian. So you will find Christians on both sides of almost any issue. Ron Paul is a Christian himself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

angelatc
03-04-2008, 11:56 AM
Yeah that's a pretty ignorant statement. Read the California State Law on this........

BUt you're insisting that the rights and the agenda of the State supercede the rights of the parents.

The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individuals?

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:57 AM
They have the right to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin. I don't share that belief, but I will defend their right to it.

You're right, they do have their freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not prevent you from being punished for your speech, which I advocate- it is only a safeguard against prior restraint. Christian extremism leads to violence and civil unrest, and has no place in a democratic society.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 11:59 AM
BUt you're insisting that the rights and the agenda of the State supercede the rights of the parents.

The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individuals?

The agenda of the collective Christian parents is hatred, discrimination, and misinformation.
The agenda of the collective state (in this case) is tolerance, acceptance, and education.

Tough decision!

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 11:59 AM
Arguments from Authority don't work as well when you don't have a God to look up to :)

It works fine if you can read. :rolleyes: I mean you are a part of the Ron Paul campaign right? Or are you? :confused:

And I didn't simply make an "argument to authority". I laid out my case clearly. The federal government has taken over public schools at the state level. I guess you're ok with that since you seem to think government is the answer to the "tyranny of the family". :rolleyes:

TrueFreedom
03-04-2008, 11:59 AM
I'm curious. Have you ever read what Ron Paul says about this issue?

http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2001/HR368/default.asp
H.R. 368-Family Education Freedom Act of 2001

Action Requested:
None.

Background:
Official purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Introduced January 31, 2001 by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)
Cosponsors

Status:
1/31/2001: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Bill Summary and Status

HSLDA's Position:
HSLDA supports H.R. 368. H.R. 368 will allow individuals a credit up to $3,000 per student against income tax for the tuition and other related school expenses. More directly relating to home education, section 25B(2) defines a qualified education institution as, "Any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized for the purpose of providing elementary or secondary education, or both." HSLDA believes that parents and individuals who provide for a child's education should be allowed to keep some of their tax money that would otherwise have been used to fund public education. This goal could be accomplished through legislation like H.R. 368.

He clearly supports the rights of home schoolers. Now technically speaking the federal government shouldn't be involved in education at all. But since it is the rights of homeschoolers need to be protected at the federal level. This is how it currently works. The federal government pushes illegal mandates onto the states in the forum of "No Child Left Behind". If you don't agree with the federal takeover of education that NCLB represents you can either home school or send your child to public school. But if states start to try to force NCLB like mandates on private and homeschool then there's no escape. So yes. This has to be fought at the federal level as well as the state level. The answer is not to "move to another state" any more than the answer to Bush tyranny is to "move to another country". The answer to stand up and fight politically at all levels.

Regards,

John M. Drake

No one is saying you cannot home school your children. So this idea of "rights of homeschoolers" is flawed. First off, where do you find this "constitutional right". Secondly, California never said you couldn't homeschool, just if you did it had to be with a qualified person. Thirdly, if you truely believe in states rights, then no you should not be pushing a new law at the federal level on education, the government has no business in it and new laws only add to the problem.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:01 PM
The government has anti discrimination laws for the private sector, from the days where blacks and women were discriminated against for health insurance, etc. Amending them to include sexual orientation is easy (if you live in a progressive state). To say that being gay is somehow different than being a minority of the past (all of which were persecuted by the evangelicals, lest we forget) defies all scientific explanation, and has no place in government.

Ah, I can see your point. We are not allowed to hire, or not hire someone base upon their race, gender, age, and sexuality.
I would suppose then that to me at least. Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. :eek: I don't know. Complex issue.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:02 PM
Arguments from Authority don't work as well when you don't have a God to look up to :)

Funny, coming from an advocate of the State.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:03 PM
The federal government has taken over public schools at the state level. I guess you're ok with that since you seem to think government is the answer to the "tyranny of the family". :rolleyes:

I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:03 PM
You're right, they do have their freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not prevent you from being punished for your speech, which I advocate- it is only a safeguard against prior restraint. Christian extremism leads to violence and civil unrest, and has no place in a democratic society.

That just has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum and believe me that's saying something! If you aren't protected from "punishment" then for a particular action then you don't have freedom of that action. It would be like someone in communist Russia saying "Homosexuals have the right to live as they wish, but if they get caught they will be sent to Siberia". (Yes, communist countries did brutalize gays. I know that may come as a shock to someone like you.) Really, if you think that the government needs to protect everyone from the "evils of Christianity" even to the point of micromanaging what parents teach their kids then why aren't you a Hillary supporter? You know, the whole "It takes a village" concept?

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:04 PM
Ah, I can see your point. We are not allowed to hire, or not hire someone base upon their race, gender, age, and sexuality.
I would suppose then that to me at least. Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. :eek: I don't know. Complex issue.

Ot we quit giving people special protections period. Let employers hire and fire who the heck they want.

Let the government hire the rest.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:04 PM
You're right, they do have their freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not prevent you from being punished for your speech, which I advocate- it is only a safeguard against prior restraint. Christian extremism leads to violence and civil unrest, and has no place in a democratic society.

Are you for freedom of speech zones then? Do you think all members of the KKK should be jailed because of their hate speech? What about those who hate jews?

Please elaborate on the "does not prevent you from being punished for your speech"?

How is it freedom of speech if you can be punished for the speech?:confused::confused:

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Ot we quit giving people special protections period. Let employers hire and fire who the heck they want.

Let the government hire the rest.

Great point as well. Let the free-market hash everything out.
My emotions want me to say hey it's not right to not hire someone because they are "such and such".

At the same time i feel that collectivism will never die as long as we continue to give out special rights.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:06 PM
I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

It's not ok to hate gays, but it is ok to hate Christians?

What's all this "we" stuff? I could give a rat's ass about how you think my kids should turn out. But I suppose that's why you need them in public schools.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:06 PM
I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

Yes. You want federal judges deciding everything. In other words you are the direct opposite of Ron Paul. (He submitted a bill to strip federal judges of their right to abuse their authority.) Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian? And why have Chrisitans in Lebanon not taken to that technique? They aren't perfect by a long shot, but none have joined the ranks of the suicide bombers.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. :eek: I don't know. Complex issue.

It's not complex at all. Same-sex couples are not lobbying for the church to recognize them, they are lobbying the state to recognize them. This is why there is such a thing as a "civil union", it's like marriage but without the religion. The government should only be in the business of handing civil unions to citizens.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:08 PM
Great point as well. Let the free-market hash everything out.
My emotions want me to say hey it's not right to not hire someone because they are "such and such".

At the same time i feel that collectivism will never die as long as we continue to give out special rights.

The free market will take care of it. It always does. I never eat at Cracker Barrel because they had that stupid anti-gay policy, but that doesn't mean that I think they need a law forcing them to maintain any specific hiring practices.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:09 PM
It's not ok to hate gays, but it is ok to hate Christians?

That's not what I was saying, but yes. Christians have a barbaric belief system that mentally impairs them. Gays are victims of their genes. I don't advocate any soft of hatred, but if you're going to hate someone, you shouldn't hate them for who they are but what they believe and what they say.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:10 PM
It's not complex at all. Same-sex couples are not lobbying for the church to recognize them, they are lobbying the state to recognize them. This is why there is such a thing as a "civil union", it's like marriage but without the religion. The government should only be in the business of handing civil unions to citizens.

I can somewhat agree to this. It's not a bad thought.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:11 PM
The free market will take care of it. It always does. I never eat at Cracker Barrel because they had that stupid anti-gay policy, but that doesn't mean that I think they need a law forcing them to maintain any specific hiring practices.

Wow I did not know that. Pretty sad, but I like their biscuits and hunny to much to not go there. Sorry gays. My tummy like the yummy. :D

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:12 PM
Yes. You want federal judges deciding everything. In other words you are the direct opposite of Ron Paul. (He submitted a bill to strip federal judges of their right to abuse their authority.) Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian? And why have Chrisitans in Lebanon not taken to that technique? They aren't perfect by a long shot, but none have joined the ranks of the suicide bombers.

I agree with you.

Somehow Christians aren't hard working? Or perhaps that's the extent that our faith should extend - only to the goal of being hard working citizens.

Wow. What a great life! Serfdom.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:14 PM
Are you for freedom of speech zones then? Do you think all members of the KKK should be jailed because of their hate speech? What about those who hate jews?

I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.


Please elaborate on the "does not prevent you from being punished for your speech"?

How is it freedom of speech if you can be punished for the speech?:confused::confused:

Supreme Court to the rescue. (http://anonym.to/?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html)

Deborah K
03-04-2008, 12:14 PM
Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies.

Interesting thread.....

Tdcci, out of curiosity, what happened to you to make you so hostile toward Christianity? The vitriol in your posts indicates that there is emotion attached to your blanket statements about it [Christianity].

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:15 PM
That's not what I was saying, but yes. Christians have a barbaric belief system that mentally impairs them. Gays are victims of their genes. I don't advocate any soft of hatred, but if you're going to hate someone, you shouldn't hate them for who they are but what they believe and what they say.

OH, so you and yours get to decide who we can and can't hate then? Sweet.

Ironically, they claim lifestyle is your downfall.

And you're right because.....?

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:15 PM
No one is saying you cannot home school your children. So this idea of "rights of homeschoolers" is flawed. First off, where do you find this "constitutional right". Secondly, California never said you couldn't homeschool, just if you did it had to be with a qualified person. Thirdly, if you truely believe in states rights, then no you should not be pushing a new law at the federal level on education, the government has no business in it and new laws only add to the problem.

You're missing the point. There is no constitutional "right" for the federal government to be involved in education at all. But the fact of the matter is that they are! The only way to counter balance that is to protect the rights of parents. That's why Dr. Paul introduced the bill I referenced.

Here's the other point your missing. Let's say the state arbitrarily decides that "qualified" means "atheist". (I'm sure that would please people who think Christian = suicide bomber. :rolleyes:) Then the state has taken away your right to educate your child. Also if "qualified" = "federal guidelines" then we are back to the situation where it's really the federal government and not the state dictating that you can't homeschool! The state is simply acting as a surrogate for the federal government.

This is played out in a lot of issues. For example the Real ID act is totally unconstitutional. But it's implemented through the states. The states acting as a surrogate does not make the Real ID constitutional. The same holds true for any "right" that we may have. If the federal government can coerce the states to deny its citizens their rights with a veneer of "states rights" thrown on top the effect is still the same.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:18 PM
Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian?

I said "religious", not Christian. I was specifically referring to Muslims, as you should know. Christians have a different approach to government. For an analogy, let us examine how communism (theocracy) spreads. Trotskyites (Muslims) advocate revolution and an overthrow of the government. Christians (Leninists) advocate taking over the government from within (as they did with the Republican party). Same outcome (death and destruction), different strategy.

ErikBlack
03-04-2008, 12:19 PM
The gay marriage argument is taken completely out of context. It is assumed by liberal proponents of gay marriage that the government is denying gay people certain benefits that are available to everyone else. That is not correct. Marriage benefits are only available to one specific group of people; married heterosexuals. They are not available to single people, single mothers, or any other group. Gays are not being singled out for exclusion, they are simply not being included because they do not fit the criteria the government has established to quality for the subsidy.

Marriage is subsidized on a state and federal level, through tax breaks and other benefits, because it is believed to contribute to a healthy society. Being single and being gay are not considered to be as beneficial. People are still free to be single and be gay because that is their choice, but they are not granted the same level of favoritism as married people. In my opinion this is wrong, not because everyone should be privy to government favoritism, but because no-one should. We should be working to remove government from people's personal affairs and prevent it from acting as a social engineer. Society should evolve by the same forces that drive the free market, voluntary cooperation, supply and demand. These forces are organic, natural and spontaneous. They cannot be reigned or controlled by any government or entity, which is what makes them the perfect vessel for change. This ensures that change occurs naturally, when the environment is right to accommodate and welcome such change, and not prematurely, when the environment will be so hostile toward such change that government force is needed to defend it.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:20 PM
OH, so you and yours get to decide who we can and can't hate then? Sweet.

No, the judges do.


Ironically, they claim lifestyle is your downfall.

?????


And you're right because.....?

I explained why I thought I was right, in that post. I suspect you ignored it though, because "Yes" was an answer enough for you.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:20 PM
THe whole country is a free speech zone. At least, on public property. Anything else is a mockery of the intent of the First AMendment.

IRO-bot
03-04-2008, 12:20 PM
I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.



Supreme Court to the rescue. (http://anonym.to/?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html)

You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:22 PM
I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.


No they're not, but anyway.



Supreme Court to the rescue. (http://anonym.to/?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html)

That only proves that a school != the federal government. :rolleyes: If a school wants to suspend a student for talking back to a teacher a school can do so. If the government wants to arrest someone for criticizing the president it can't do so constitutionally. The issue isn't "punishment". The issue is the forum and the entity enforcing the rules. Someone in his or her private home should be able to teach that homosexuality is a sin or that Christians are equivalent "suicide bombers" if that person so desires. Yes as ridiculous as I see your views as being I fully support the right for you to teach them to your children. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:22 PM
It is assumed by liberal proponents of gay marriage that the government is denying gay people certain benefits that are available to everyone else. That is not correct. Marriage benefits are only available to one specific group of people; married heterosexuals. They are not available to single people, single mothers, or any other group. Gays are not being singled out for exclusion, they are simply not being included because they do not fit the criteria the government has established to quality for the subsidy.

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:23 PM
You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

Same here, but that's because she was running it through a proxy server.

Here's the link.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:25 PM
No, the judges do.

They must be your judges. Because my judges would never turn into thought police.

Faith in the government vs faith in mankind. For no good reason, either. Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany. Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?

The Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin - merely a lifestyle choice. You think that Christianity is merely a lifestyle choice. It's quite ironic.


I explained why I thought I was right, in that post. I suspect you ignored it though, because "Yes" was an answer enough for you.

I didn't ignore it. I mocked the absurdity of it.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:27 PM
You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:27 PM
Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

Gee I got to visit my uncle in the hospital before he died. We even said a prayer for him. But I'm not his "spouse". And yes he was in intensive care, unconscious and visiting hours were over. This whole "spouse hospital visitation" thing is a red herring wrapped in a straw man. But if someone was really paranoid about that he/she could always designate his/her significant other with power of attorney and get the same hospital decision making rights as a spouse. It's just a matter of filling out the paperwork. But you've got to fill out paperwork to get married too.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:28 PM
Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

So? Hospitals are private property, and they're for-profit enterprises. Go find and patronize a hospital that accomodates a more liberal approach to visitors.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:31 PM
There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Regulation isn't an abridgment? Heh.

Twisted logic, anyone?

unklejman
03-04-2008, 12:31 PM
It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:32 PM
Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany.

No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.


Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?

One can only dream.


The Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin - merely a lifestyle choice. You think that Christianity is merely a lifestyle choice. It's quite ironic.

I didn't ignore it. I mocked the absurdity of it.

Now I see the irony there. I also see how absurd it is to say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" with no support from science. Then again, all the church's political positions (abortion and evolution in school comes to mind) defy science.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:32 PM
There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones abridge not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom to peaceably assemble.

Note: In order to understand this you have to know what the word abridge means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

abridge
One entry found.

1 aarchaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>2: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

If you confine free speech to zones you have clearly abridged by the right to speech as well as the right to peaceably assemble.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:34 PM
So? Hospitals are private property, and they're for-profit enterprises. Go find and patronize a hospital that accomodates a more liberal approach to visitors.

Hospitals can only operate in the U.S. with the government, because they use the land that belongs to the people. As a registered business, they must comply with the laws of the U.S. What you say would only be true if the U.S. were a completely libertarian country, which it is not.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:34 PM
There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Tell it to Giuliani. People are allowed to sell books on the streets of New York, even though he desperately tried to send them back into the bookstores and such, where booksellers belonged.

But the Courts ruled that they are allowed to sell books any damned place they want, with no permits or permission, because the First Amendment protects their right to do that.

Same with artists.

But you think that same law says that I can't wave a sign or wear a t-shirt, unless I have a place designated by the State to do that in.

Deborah K
03-04-2008, 12:34 PM
Tdcci, I've been patiently awaiting a response to my question. Was it overlooked intentionally, or by mistake?

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:35 PM
There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Tell it to Giuliani. People are allowed to sell books on the streets of New York, even though he desperately tried to send them back into the bookstores and such, where booksellers belonged.

But the Courts ruled that they are allowed to sell books any damned place they want, with no permits or permission, because the First Amendment protects their right to do that.

Same with artists.

But you think that same law says that I can't wave a sign or wear a t-shirt,on public proerty unless the State tells me I can.

But that's not an abridgement.

<bangs head.>

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:36 PM
No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.


I see that you chose to ignore my reference to communists oppressing gays and instead tried to attack the Nazi argument based on the "church controlling the Nazis" argument. Well here's a link to homosexuality being criminalized in the USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Latvia

I guess you'll somehow still find a way to say "the Christians made them do it?" :rolleyes:

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:36 PM
Hospitals can only operate in the U.S. with the government, because they use the land that belongs to the people. As a registered business, they must comply with the laws of the U.S. What you say would only be true if the U.S. were a completely libertarian country, which it is not.

Are you saying that the hospitals are relying on a federal hospital visitor policy? Because that's laughable.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:36 PM
Gee I got to visit my uncle in the hospital before he died. We even said a prayer for him. But I'm not his "spouse". And yes he was in intensive care, unconscious and visiting hours were over. This whole "spouse hospital visitation" thing is a red herring wrapped in a straw man. But if someone was really paranoid about that he/she could always designate his/her significant other with power of attorney and get the same hospital decision making rights as a spouse. It's just a matter of filling out the paperwork. But you've got to fill out paperwork to get married too.

Plausible, since you were a direct relative. How about getting a death certificate, recieving life insurance, and social security benefits for your children? Could your uncle's husband do that? (http://anonym.to/?http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022208fla.htm)

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Tdcci, I've been patiently awaiting a response to my question. Was it overlooked intentionally, or by mistake?

Was your question an intelligent attack on her "logic"? If so then it was overlooked intentionally. ;)

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Are you saying that the hospitals are relying on a federal hospital visitor policy? Because that's laughable.

No, I'm saying that while it is true that hospitals are private they are not immune from the law, be it anti-discrimination law or competition law.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:40 PM
I see that you chose to ignore my reference to communists oppressing gays and instead tried to attack the Nazi argument based on the "church controlling the Nazis" argument.

I'm not defending the communists? :confused:

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:41 PM
Plausible, since you were a direct relative. How about getting a death certificate, recieving life insurance, and social security benefits for your children? Could your uncle's husband do that? (http://anonym.to/?http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022208fla.htm)

1) A visiting pastor (not his) and church elder went in too. They weren't related.

2) What part of GET A POWER OF ATTORNEY do you NOT understand?

Anyone with power of attorney could do everything you've mentioned and more. In fact you don't even need power of attorney to receive life insurance benefits. You just need to be named as a beneficiary. :rolleyes:

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm not defending the communists? :confused:

No. Just sounding like them with the whole "the state must protect the children from the tyranny of the family" rant. But that wasn't my point. You act like Christians are out to persecute gays. But gays have gotten a much better shake in Christian America than they did in the atheist Soviet Union. You're worried about controlling individual "beliefs". I'm worried about controlling state power.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:44 PM
2) What part of GET A POWER OF ATTORNEY do you NOT understand?

The "get" part. An attorney is not an acceptable alternative to legalized same-sex marriage.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:45 PM
lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

QFT. She also hasn't figured out yet what "abridge" means.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:46 PM
No. Just sounding like them with the whole "the state must protect the children from the tyranny of the family" rant. But that wasn't my point.

If the state has archaic views about gays, and the family has archaic views about gays, there's no difference in what results, except the state can change through a democratic process, so I'm putting my money on the state.


You act like Christians are out to persecute gays. But gays have gotten a much better shake in Christian America than they did in the atheist Soviet Union.

America is not and was not Christian
The Soviet Union is not and was not Atheist


You're worried about controlling individual "beliefs". I'm worried about controlling state power.

Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:46 PM
No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ - You're delusional.




One can only dream.

Wow. You'd be willing to gas the Christians. So apparently your Utopia is one where you and your judges get to actually be God, not merely believe in one.

And yet if we were to post something like "gas all the gays," we'd be banned in a New Yrok second from this board.

Why are some forms of hate speech protected, again? Because you say so?


Now I see the irony there. I also see how absurd it is to say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" with no support from science. Then again, all the church's political positions (abortion and evolution in school comes to mind) defy science.

I'm sure you don't. That's intolerancce for ya. It's only wrong when your enemies do it.

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:48 PM
The "get" part. An attorney is not an acceptable alternative to legalized same-sex marriage.

You have to "get" a marriage license too. :rolleyes:

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:48 PM
No, I'm saying that while it is true that hospitals are private they are not immune from the law, be it anti-discrimination law or competition law.

ANd I'm saying that you don't need the government. Vote with your wallet.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:49 PM
I'm not defending the communists? :confused:

Just for kicks, what part of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with, and why?

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 12:52 PM
If the state has archaic views about gays, and the family has archaic views about gays, there's no difference in what results, except the state can change through a democratic process, so I'm putting my money on the state.


Well be glad most Christians do not share your totalitarian views. Otherwise we'd band together and ban your viewpoint. ;)



America is not and was not Christian
The Soviet Union is not and was not Atheist


A) Straw man. I never said America "is or was Christian". That wasn't a part of my argument and you know it.

B) The Soviet Union "is not" (thank God). But it WAS atheist. Denial of God was a requirement for communist party membership and communist party membership was required for full participation in society.



Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

The beliefs don't need to be restrained. Only the lynch mob. The more you try to "restrain" beliefs the more likely it is that you'll have a backlash and CREATE a lynch mob.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:52 PM
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ - You're delusional.

The government reflects the will of the people.


Wow. You'd be willing to gas the Christians. So apparently your Utopia is one where you and your judges get to actually be God, not merely believe in one.

And yet if we were to post something like "gas all the gays," we'd be banned in a New Yrok second from this board.

No, I wouldn't. That's the difference between myself and the religious, I value human life, and believe that once you're dead, you're dead, so I do not throw death sentences around all willy-nilly. Christianity would be treated as any other mental illness would, in a mental hospital, so once they get out they can be productive members of society. Judges would not be God; they would actually exist.


Why are some forms of hate speech protected, again? Because you say so?

You're looking at it the wrong way. Think of it like this: Some forms of hate speech are not protected by free speech. If they are not considered hate speech, they are free speech.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:52 PM
Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

Heh. So, the Christians are organizing their children into lynch mobs by not sending them to school.


I see.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 12:53 PM
Just for kicks, what part of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with, and why?

I don't know, I haven't read it all.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:57 PM
The government reflects the will of the people.

You, uh, don't know much about pre-war Germany, I am guessing.




No, I wouldn't. That's the difference between myself and the religious, I value human life, and believe that once you're dead, you're dead, so I do not throw death sentences around all willy-nilly. Christianity would be treated as any other mental illness would, in a mental hospital, so once they get out they can be productive members of society. Judges would not be God; they would actually exist.


So, would you throw all the Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus...all those people in insane asylums too?



You're looking at it the wrong way. Think of it like this: Some forms of hate speech are not protected by free speech. If they are not considered hate speech, they are free speech.

No, you're looking at it wrong. So wrong I don't even know where to begin.

Lets start with "sticks and stones." Remember that part about "words can never hurt you?" I still hold true to that.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 12:58 PM
I don't know, I haven't read it all.

But so far, you're ok with it? Personally, I didn't get past the first plank.

(picturing tdcci googling now)

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:01 PM
Well be glad most Christians do not share your totalitarian views. Otherwise we'd band together and ban your viewpoint. ;)

They're already trying; you can see that they're not succeeding by the state of the Federal Marriage Amendment.


A) Straw man. I never said America "is or was Christian". That wasn't a part of my argument and you know it.

You put "Christian America" against "Atheist Soviet Union". What else could you possibly mean?


B) The Soviet Union "is not" (thank God). But it WAS atheist. Denial of God was a requirement for communist party membership and communist party membership was required for full participation in society.

No, it wasn't. There is a difference between banning religion and banning organized religion. The Marxist-Leninist philosophy is that the church hierarchy was dangerous to the working class, and served to stupify the people. I happen to agree. However, in practice, most Russians were Orthodox Catholic, and the Soviets infiltrated and controlled the official Russian Orthodox Church.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:02 PM
lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

Because even thoug it is a troll, the arguments it puts forth are indeed the exact same skewed logic presented by the progressive socialists.

You can't really call it a parody for that very reason.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:02 PM
But so far, you're ok with it?

It's a mixed bag. Public Schooling I like, Income Tax not so much, but I can see the rationale behind both.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:05 PM
You, uh, don't know much about pre-war Germany, I am guessing.

Enlighten me.


So, would you throw all the Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus...all those people in insane asylums too?

I'm not sure about the Buddhists, they don't have a personal god so they could get away with it. If I were to create this policy, there would be a standardized test, updated if the church updated their views as necessary (and there would be a new Bureaucracy to study the trends of the church)


Lets start with "sticks and stones." Remember that part about "words can never hurt you?" I still hold true to that.

Words can hurt me, and words can hurt others.

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:06 PM
I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

Interesting response there, Tdcci. Does this mean that you don't trust Dr. Paul, Mrs. Paul, or their 5 children? All Christians.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:07 PM
No, it wasn't. There is a difference between banning religion and banning organized religion. The Marxist-Leninist philosophy is that the church hierarchy was dangerous to the working class, and served to stupify the people. I happen to agree. However, in practice, most Russians were Orthodox Catholic, and the Soviets infiltrated and controlled the official Russian Orthodox Church.

What's your source on that? Marx in particular believed that religion was an opiate for the masses. It helped divery the people’s attention away from real source of oppression, which was the State, and thereby kept ruling class in power.

It's a tool for oppression by the State.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:08 PM
Interesting response there, Tdcci. Does this mean that you don't trust Dr. Paul, Mrs. Paul, or their 5 children? All Christians.

Irrelevant, since he and their kids AFAIK went to public school.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:08 PM
It's a mixed bag. Public Schooling I like, Income Tax not so much, but I can see the rationale behind both.

That's why I asked you which parts you disagreed with. I'm guessing you're actually more Communist than libertarian.

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:09 PM
I said "religious", not Christian. I was specifically referring to Muslims, as you should know. Christians have a different approach to government. For an analogy, let us examine how communism (theocracy) spreads. Trotskyites (Muslims) advocate revolution and an overthrow of the government. Christians (Leninists) advocate taking over the government from within (as they did with the Republican party). Same outcome (death and destruction), different strategy.

You think all Trotskyites are Muslims? Surely you don't believe that. Christians are not Leninists, either.

Where are you getting your information from? :rolleyes:

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:09 PM
Irrelevant, since he and their kids AFAIK went to public school.

So you wouldn't gas them?

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:11 PM
You think all Trotskyites are Muslims? Surely you don't believe that. Christians are not Leninists, either.

Where are you getting your information from? :rolleyes:

That's the best question I've seen yet in this whole thread! I'm getting ready to make a case that that public schools are somehow responsible!

Communism = theocracy?

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:12 PM
It's a mixed bag. Public Schooling I like, Income Tax not so much, but I can see the rationale behind both.

You like public schooling? May I ask you why? Do you realize that turning our children over to the government to train is akin to sending them to indoctrination centers? Why would you want to hand this control over to big government?

Also, what problem do you have with home schooling and do you agree that government should dictate to parents how their children are "educated"?

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:14 PM
Marx in particular believed that religion was an opiate for the masses.

He didn't say that to mean religion was a bad thing, as you might think since opium is illegal now. Full quote:



Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the people
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.



It helped divery the people’s attention away from real source of oppression, which was the State, and thereby kept ruling class in power.

It's a tool for oppression by the State.

Organized religion, anyway. It was also a threat to the state (see: Islamic Revolution in Iran) so it was logical that the Soviets would suppress it.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:14 PM
E

Words can hurt me, and words can hurt others.

No, they can't. Rocks hurt. Words merely offend.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:16 PM
You like public schooling? May I ask you why? Do you realize that turning our children over to the government to train is akin to sending them to indoctrination centers? Why would you want to hand this control over to big government?

Public schooling is not big government, it is local government.


Also, what problem do you have with home schooling and do you agree that government should dictate to parents how their children are "educated"?

Homeschooling in and of itself is not a problem, the kind of homeschooling in the article in the original post is the problem.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:17 PM
No, they can't. Rocks hurt. Words merely offend.

offend is a synonym for hurt

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:18 PM
He didn't say that to mean religion was a bad thing, as you might think since opium is illegal now.

Wow. This is the most disjointed conversation I've had since everybody left Usenet.

I'm just scratching my head, going "WTF?"




Organized religion, anyway. It was also a threat to the state (see: Islamic Revolution in Iran) so it was logical that the Soviets would suppress it.

You mean, control it. Use it to surpress people. For the greater good. Right?

Deborah K
03-04-2008, 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tdcci
Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies.

Here is my orginal post:



Interesting thread.....

Tdcci, out of curiosity, what happened to you to make you so hostile toward Christianity? The vitriol in your posts indicates that there is emotion attached to your blanket statements about it [Christianity].


My guess is, I'm deliberately being ignored......and if I'm right, then your silence speaks volumes. It speaks to the fact that your argument is fallacious because it is based solely on your own personal experiences with Christianity and not on facts and logic as you claim.

That is tantamount to a woman who has been raped, hating ALL men for it, and accusing ALL men of being rapists.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:18 PM
So you wouldn't gas them?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322216&postcount=198

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:18 PM
I have a problem with this. Who is "qualified"? What makes them "qualified"? Is it a college education? I know alot of dumb people with those. The words are to vague and limits it to whoever hold the power to make the interpretation. Very tricky and definately lacks in freedom.

+1

Dark_Horse_Rider
03-04-2008, 01:19 PM
No, they can't. Rocks hurt. Words merely offend.

Not entirely true... words can hurt. People should be careful what they say.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:20 PM
offend is a synonym for hurt

Not in that poem it isn't.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:20 PM
No one is saying you cannot home school your children. So this idea of "rights of homeschoolers" is flawed.

I was laughing at all your posts until now. Parents can't homeschool their children by default. The only way parents can homeschool their children, according to law and the Supreme Court, is by getting permission from the state.


First off, where do you find this "constitutional right".

Where do you find the constitutional right to use the Internet? lol



Secondly, California never said you couldn't homeschool, just if you did it had to be with a qualified person.

lol. how do I do it by having some ELSE do it? lol


Thirdly, if you truely believe in states rights, then no you should not be pushing a new law at the federal level on education, the government has no business in it and new laws only add to the problem.

WHICH law are you refering to?

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:23 PM
Christianity would be treated as any other mental illness would, in a mental hospital, so once they get out they can be productive members of society.

You have frickin' got to be kidding me? :eek: Why in hell are you for Ron Paul? Or are you? This is the most totalitarian bunch of horseshit that I think I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes: Who in hell do you think you are to dictate to others their faith? From what you have written, you surely do not believe in our Founding Fathers and the Republic that they left us. Freedom of religion was a very important aspect of the founding of our country.

You are sounding very much like a Marxist. Are you?

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Not entirely true... words can hurt. People should be careful what they say.

Only if they are out to win friends. Hate speech shouldn't be a crime. Offfending somebody is not the same as punching them.

If your feelings are hurt by things people are saying, then your convictions aren't really very strong.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:25 PM
You have frickin' got to be kidding me? :eek: Why in hell are you for Ron Paul? Or are you? This is the most totalitarian bunch of horseshit that I think I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes: Who in hell do you think you are to dictate to others their faith? From what you have written, you surely do not believe in our Founding Fathers and the Republic that they left us. Freedom of religion was a very important aspect of the founding of our country.

You are sounding very much like a Marxist. Are you?

You didn't see the post about hoping all the Christians would be gassed?

jmdrake
03-04-2008, 01:26 PM
They're already trying; you can see that they're not succeeding by the state of the Federal Marriage Amendment.


A) The federal marriage amendment wouldn't "ban" your viewpoint. Even if it passed you will still have the right to rail against Christians all you want.

B) The reason the federal marriage amendment isn't passing is that most Christians aren't supporting it.



You put "Christian America" against "Atheist Soviet Union". What else could you possibly mean?


The majority of people in America are Christian. (duh!) But the country isn't "Christian" as a matter of law. The Soviet Union was atheist as a matter of law.




No, it wasn't. There is a difference between banning religion and banning organized religion. The Marxist-Leninist philosophy is that the church hierarchy was dangerous to the working class, and served to stupify the people. I happen to agree. However, in practice, most Russians were Orthodox Catholic, and the Soviets infiltrated and controlled the official Russian Orthodox Church.

You agree with communists? Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you don't know what you're talking about. Atheism was a matter of state policy in the soviet union.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Sure they "allowed" certain sects to exist, but Islamic theocracies do so as well.

Also it's funny that you have just contradicted yourself. On the one hand you claim "organized religion" was the only thing that was the problem, but then you cite to highly hierarchical churches for your example. :rolleyes:

Regards,

John M. Drake

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Public schooling is not big government, it is local government.

Wrong. It used to be, yes, but it's not been locally run for a long, long time. Mandates for programs such as Outcomes-Based Education, School-to-Work, No Child Left Behind, Education 2000, all are handed down from the Department of Education to our schools. They enforce their dictates through money. Our money is extracted and sent to the Fed and if we want any of it back, we have to follow their dictates.

This is very communistic.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

Yes to the first part. As far as the second part is concerned, most, if not all, of the "Columbines" have occured at public schools.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:27 PM
You have frickin' got to be kidding me? :eek: Why in hell are you for Ron Paul? Or are you? This is the most totalitarian bunch of horseshit that I think I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes:

I'm for Ron Paul because of his policies that do not have to do with religion.


Who in hell do you think you are to dictate to others their faith?

I'm in no position now, but I was asked how I would end this problem if I had the power, so those are my ideas.


From what you have written, you surely do not believe in our Founding Fathers and the Republic that they left us.

I do!


Freedom of religion was a very important aspect of the founding of our country.

Freedom of religion is good if you mean freedom from being forced to belong the state religion but freedom to practice your own religion is something I disagree with.


You are sounding very much like a Marxist. Are you?

It is so sad that political idealogies that have a rational position on religion are so few and far between, that whenever I reveal myself to be an atheist I am accused of being a communist :(

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:28 PM
You didn't see the post about hoping all the Christians would be gassed?

No. Where is it? :eek:

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:28 PM
Yes to the first part. As far as the second part is concerned, most, if not all, of the "Columbines" have occured at public schools.

It's more effective when people are grouped together. The london train bombings happened at a place of public transport, not on a road because it's more effective. Does that mean public transport is a bad thing? No!

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:29 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322216&postcount=198

Oh I see. You'd only hope that somebody else would.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:30 PM
It's not complex at all. Same-sex couples are not lobbying for the church to recognize them, they are lobbying the state to recognize them.

If the church is so full of hate, like you say, why do gays want to be recognized by the church?

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
No. Where is it? :eek:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322145&postcount=176

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
Anyway, you don't know what you're talking about. Atheism was a matter of state policy in the soviet union.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State Atheism is just a nicer way of implementing seperation of church and state. From the link, "State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism." The state is atheist, which is a good thing, otherwise you get disasters like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
Freedom of religion is good if you mean freedom from being forced to belong the state religion but freedom to practice your own religion is something I disagree with.

It is so sad that political idealogies that have a rational position on religion are so few and far between, that whenever I reveal myself to be an atheist I am accused of being a communist :(

Perhaps because you seem very comfortable in using big government force to impose dictates on the people.

You say you agree with the form of government our founders left us. If you really did, you would understand that the power was to remain in the hands of the people. NOT the government.

You have your head screwed on backwards. I highly recommend you go to www.mises.org and www.fee.org and start reading.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:31 PM
That's not what I was saying, but yes. Christians have a barbaric belief system that mentally impairs them. Gays are victims of their genes. I don't advocate any soft of hatred, but if you're going to hate someone, you shouldn't hate them for who they are but what they believe and what they say.

Hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyypocrisy!!! !

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:32 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322145&postcount=176

The word "gas" does not appear anywhere in that post, and I have rejected that bait in a post I am now linking to (for the second time)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322285&postcount=221

Deborah K
03-04-2008, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by angelatc
You didn't see the post about hoping all the Christians would be gassed?


No. Where is it? :eek:

Does it matter? Clearly this person feels victimized by Christianity. No reason to get your dander up. There is no logic to be found in victimhood. I say therapy is in order.

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:34 PM
You say you agree with the form of government our founders left us. If you really did, you would understand that the power was to remain in the hands of the people. NOT the government.

The government has limited function, to protect us from pirates and criminals, and bring them to justice. Proposing this be extended to protecting us from religious extremists is not radical.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:36 PM
lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

I like it. Tdcci, aka the octopus, makes me laugh and feel btter about myself. What wrong with that? ;)

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:36 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by angelatc
Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany.



No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelatc
Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?



One can only dream.

Tdcci, are you saying that your dream is that Christians will suffer the same fate as the Jews in Germany? (i.e. sent to the ovens)

LibertyEagle
03-04-2008, 01:38 PM
The government has limited function, to protect us from pirates and criminals, and bring them to justice. Proposing this be extended to protecting us from religious extremists is not radical.

Oh yes it is.

danberkeley
03-04-2008, 01:38 PM
Hospitals can only operate in the U.S. with the government, because they use the land that belongs to the people. As a registered business, they must comply with the laws of the U.S. What you say would only be true if the U.S. were a completely libertarian country, which it is not.

This is why i called you a Marxist. :cool:

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:39 PM
Tdcci, are you saying that your dream is that Christians will be gassed?

No. See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322216&postcount=198

Tdcci
03-04-2008, 01:41 PM
This is why i called you a Marxist. :cool:

That's not my personal philosophy, it's how businesses in the United States operate, they must comply with business laws. This was in response to a post stating businesses should not accept gay marriage recognized by the state because they are private institutions.

angelatc
03-04-2008, 01:44 PM
The word "gas" does not appear anywhere in that post, and I have rejected that bait in a post I am now linking to (for the second time)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322285&postcount=221

So you can hope that the New World Order will cremate all the Christians, just not kill them first? That's pretty sadistic, baking people alive and all....

You're pretty funny. The Christians would send you to mental rehab to "cure" homosexuality, while you'd send the Christians to mental rehab to "cure" faith.

The Christians allegedly want to teach their children to hate you, while you want to teach their own children to hate them. Good luck with that.