The Loss of Freedoms

[Andy9o8 0]

Michele: The law doesn't say that you can't discuss your personal moral values in any context. It says that if you're teaching in a public school, you can't teach the students that Ethical Values Sytem X is morally superior or inferior to Ethical Values System Y, because different parents may have different preferences as to what they wish to teach their own kids is either moral or immoral. Some parents teach their kids that homosexuality is part of the natural world and there's nothing morally wrong with it, and don't want some teacher undercutting them. Other parents teach their kids that homosexuality is morally wrong, and don't want some teacher undercutting them. Notably, I really don't think the law prohibits teaching that an ethical debate on a moral issue exists; it simply does not want the teacher to usurp the parental prerogative by teaching her/his own personal belief system to impressionable children. That's one key difference between public and parochial schools.

Narcimund: Your response to Michele is playing the person, and not the ball. She asks certain specific questions. As for myself, I've tried to answer them on point.

[Royd 0]

Quote

What freedom are you losing here? The freedom to call people "fucking fags" in school? The freedom to declare what is immoral based on your own values?

Wendy,
I know there are must be certain lines which you will not cross because the idea is abhorrent to you.

At that point, you become a conservative. In todays world, someone on the other side of that line wants to make it illegal for you to voice your opinion about your views, mostly because it makes them look the people they truly are.

A punk is a punk no matter how vehemently his parents defend him.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Freedom and the Constitution are sooo pre-9/11

Blues,
Dave

Must be a sad (delusional) world you live in........

Fixed it.
Face it, the terrorists have won.

Not in the USA I live in.

They will ,if you and those like thinking have thier/your way......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Michele 1]

Andy, thanks for the answer. I appreciate it!
Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

but Michelle has prohibited me from participating.

Quote

I can see why it's convenient for you to take strong positions then prohibit anyone with different positions from responding.

Narci,
I have to question your statements. I do not believe that Michele has the authority/ability to "prohibit" you from doing anything.
It appears as though you are just looking to stir the pot. If you have issues with Michele, please PM Michele.
Otherwise please contribute something constructive to the thread.B2

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

disclaimer: I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF SOMEONE IS GAY OR NOT; I HAVE NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY WHATSOEVER.

That being said...playing devil's advocate here...

Quote

All this law does is say that you cannot point out that behavior as immoral. It does not say that you have to declare it as moral. You don't have to mention it at all.

Why not? Why can't I voice my opinion about something? Why can't I say what I believe to be immoral? Why can't I state my belief about something?

I don't read this as limiting your 1st Amendment rights at all. If I read it correctly it seems only to clarify what schoolteachers may teach. Out of school they can go to KKK rallies if they want.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Many out there consider GWB the greatest threat to our freedoms since Hitler. While there are many things done by his admin that I do not agree with I do not believe that he is a threat to our freedoms.

Government in general will always be a threat unles contoled by the people but GWB is not the evil bastard many have characterized him as (IMO)

The following, again, in my opinion, is just one example of a greater threat to this country and our freedoms.




Why liberals are crushing dissent
Kevin McCullough
.
.
.

The fact that you believe what that man is saying is just, um, wow.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I can see why it's convenient for you to take strong positions then prohibit anyone with different positions from responding.

Want some crys with that Whaaaammburgler?

. . =(_8^(1)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Many out there consider GWB the greatest threat to our freedoms since Hitler. While there are many things done by his admin that I do not agree with I do not believe that he is a threat to our freedoms.

Government in general will always be a threat unles contoled by the people but GWB is not the evil bastard many have characterized him as (IMO)

The following, again, in my opinion, is just one example of a greater threat to this country and our freedoms.




Why liberals are crushing dissent
Kevin McCullough
.
.
.

The fact that you believe what that man is saying is just, um, wow.

As apposed to what? Your beliefs??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

As opposed to what? Your beliefs??

No, as opposed to the truth.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

As opposed to what? Your beliefs??

No, as opposed to the truth.

My point exactly!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>The problem is that liberals are practically militant in driving their agenda.

Liberals aren't trying to amend the constitution to favor their favorite type of sexual relationship.

Liberals aren't getting the US government to maintain massive crosses on mountaintops.

Liberals don't try to tear families apart to push their view of morality.

>One of the planks of their agenda is to destroy anything that is based on a moral law . . .

Actuall, one of the planks of liberal's agendas is to get the government out of our bedrooms, and let people decide on their own what's moral and what isn't. Some people feel threatened by that for some reason.

[micro 0]

Quote

Liberals don't try to tear families apart to push their view of morality.

I find that statement quite puzzling. Can you elaborate on this? I think it is quite the opposite... The liberal ideology tears families apart, period. So much of what the liberal ideology encompasses has been an afront to the family.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 2,435]

>Can you elaborate on this?

Several conservative groups are lobbying to invalidate marriages in Massachusetts because they do not want gay people to marry.

>I think it is quite the opposite... The liberal ideology tears families
> apart, period. So much of what the liberal ideology encompasses
> has been an afront to the family.

It might be an affront to you, but the liberal ideology is basically to allow families to form their own morals, rather than have the government impose morals on families. I feel (as do most liberals) that families are more qualified to decide what to teach their children, and how to form their families, than the government.

Forty years ago the conservatives tried to keep blacks from marrying whites. It was an abomination, they said. God did not intend for that to happen. It would destroy the family. And those liberals came along and did their best to "destroy the family" and let those horrible unions occur. They blackmailed some activist Supreme Court justices and got that pro-family Racial Integrity Act overturned.

Here we are 40 years later and it looks like we survived. Indeed, most would agree that we are better off now. And if someone told us today that blacks should not be allowed to marry whites, we'd write him off as a racist nut. 50 years from now, anyone who said that two women should not be allowed to raise a family will be looked at the same way.

[wmw999 2,153]

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

Quote

It might be an affront to you, but the liberal ideology is basically to allow families to form their own morals, rather than have the government impose morals on families. I feel (as do most liberals) that families are more qualified to decide what to teach their children, and how to form their families, than the government.

Let's establish a fact. Public schools are government schools. Instead of teaching A,B,C, 1,2,3, they're teaching grade schoolers how to use condoms.

If that isn't teaching their brand of morality, what would you call it?
Teaching that the selfish, hedonistic, homosexual lifestyle is above reproach should not be an agenda of any school.
You can bet that if I were a teacher, and decided that Machismo as a lifestyle, should be taught to all children, the shit would hit the fan.

[billvon 2,435]

>Public schools are government schools. Instead of teaching A,B,C,
>1,2,3, they're teaching grade schoolers how to use condoms.

They should teach both. Most schools have health courses, and they should teach basic hygiene, basic diet, basic first aid and basic disease prevention. This includes things like what a balanced diet is, how you should wash your hands after you poop, and what to do if you get hurt. For kids age 13 and up, that also includes the fact that condom use can prevent the spread of HIV.

>If that isn't teaching their brand of morality, what would you call it?

Health. 16 year olds with AIDS is bad no matter how you look at it.

>Teaching that the selfish, hedonistic, homosexual lifestyle is above
>reproach should not be an agenda of any school.

Agreed. Teachers should not teach about ANY lifestyles. They should just teach the facts of health. One of those facts is that condoms help prevent HIV.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries.

I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,153]

Quote

But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries

How does what someone else calls a family affect your family?

And calling something "family values" doesn't make them applicable to everyone. My family values (as passed on to me by my married-42-years parents) include tolerance for others, and doing my best to consider each person, and each idea, on its own merits (in context), rather than assigning it to a category, so that I could use that category's predetermined like/dislike factor to make a decision.

I'm not without problems, without sin, or without prejudices. But I'm not trying to judge the people who would rather educate their children at home to keep them away from government schools (even in the cases where the teaching is more limited). I'm not trying to judge families who tell children who are born different that they're sinful and going to hell. Just because I'm not comfortable with something doesn't make it wrong or right.

Solomon had multiple wives. Yes, the Lord did say in Deuteronomy not to do that. In the same verse, it also says not to multiply gold and silver. And in the same chapter, it talks about how many witnesses are required to decide if someone should be stoned to death. Does that make multiple wives more or less evil than working to become rich?

If we're going to pick and choose, who gets to pick and choose? And who gets to decide what constitute "family values?" That's the issue. No matter who decides, someone will be unhappy with it.

Which is more repugnant? Being forced to listen to others categorize your family or loved ones as sick evil fucks who are going to hell, or being forced to acknowledge the existence of family groups that you think are sick evil fucks who are going to hell? I'd go with the first. Because I can always choose to judge -- no one can take that from me. And limiting the knowledge available to children is fine. As they get older, they begin to make up their own knowledge.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries.

I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end.

If you aren't away of any liberals who don't advocate divorce, then you must be an osterich. Actually, in a sense you answered your own question by your second sentence. Your "verbal engineering" is humorous... ""their particular brand of behavior" and "forcing families that are already broken"

Give me a break john... it's largely b/c of liberals that no-fault divorce exists in this country.

Here's a few books for your night-time reading...

It Takes a Family by Rick Santorum
Do Gooders by Mona Charen

These might help John.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

How does what someone else calls a family affect your family?

Simple question, simple answer...

Because as the family goes, so goes society. Destroy the family, destroy society.

There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Remster 24]

Quote

Everything else is substandard at best.

Just like them blackies are.



Oops, wrong century.

Remster

[wmw999 2,153]

Quote

Because as the family goes, so goes society. Destroy the family, destroy society.

England no longer rules the waves, and it's not because of creeping liberalism. Ancient Rome did have a lot of exotic behavior in the upper crust, but from what I've read (limited at best) that was not true of the mass of regular people. The kibbutzim in Israel are a different form of family -- where do they fit in?

Quote

There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best.

That's an assertion. What do you have to back it up? Biology does pretty much require that a man and a woman have some participation in creating life. But what do you do when the man leaves (happened to my grandmother), or when the woman leaves (happened to my mother's cousin)? Do you drag them back (if you can find them) and chain them into the house? You don't always get the ideal, and love among people should be encouraged. It leads to cooperation and building, instead of tearing down.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries.

I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end.

If you aren't away of any liberals who don't advocate divorce, then you must be an osterich. Actually, in a sense you answered your own question by your second sentence. Your "verbal engineering" is humorous... ""their particular brand of behavior" and "forcing families that are already broken"

Give me a break john... it's largely b/c of liberals that no-fault divorce exists in this country.

Here's a few books for your night-time reading...

It Takes a Family by Rick Santorum
Do Gooders by Mona Charen

These might help John.

Stop playing semantic games. Advocating divorce is not the same as permitting it. No liberal I know wishes to encourage divorce.

YOU are just pissed that the rest of us don't wish to be legally bound to your mythology.

Mona Charen, Bwahaaha.

Santorum!!!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.