There is certainly a Constitutional right not to be forced to place your children in state-run education.
Of course you didn’t think it went beyond the Constitution. That’s the whole point, because it clearly does. There has been no ruling by the SCOTUS that private schools or home-schools must teach evolution and there won’t be such a ruling, either. You are simply defining the constitution to mean whatever you think it means. Anyone can do that!
Even if they believe the alternative is death? I’m pro-choice, but even I can see why in a choice between death and the equivalent of some horrible illness for a few months and serious surgery would give a clear answer to some people.
Really? What if she’s seven months pregnant and wants an abortion? Please don’t tell me “that’s different”, because the only reason it is “different” is that you define life at a different stage in development.
Basically, you are saying that no one can be intelligent and religious. “Comapssion” is a value judgement. Pro-life people will tell you that you have no compassion for the fetus.
BTW, you may know more about Christianity than Sarahfeena, but I doubt that you know more Christians than she does.
In fact, I will go a step further and tell you that this is the perfect example of Liberal Authoritarianism. You believe that the state knows what is better for someones’ child than they do. You believe that the state ought to take control of educating that child. This is the perfect example of nanny government, and it is exactly the kind of thing liberals love.
What do you mean by "traditional beliefs? If they belong to those religions, why wouldn’t they subscribe to those beliefs? What exactly are you talking about here? This sounds like a Scotsman’s argument to me.
Who says they don’t? Is anyone trying to make it illegal?
By “nation policy” I assume you mean federal legislation? Well let’s take them one at a atime.
Abortion? The only federal legislation regarding abortion I’m aware of is GWB’s attempted ban on D&C procedures. Other than that, abortion laws ARE made at the state level with the provision that they don’t violate the Constutution as per the decision of Roe V. Wade. That decision was not a “nation policy” it was a ruling on the constitutionality of state laws.
Educational curricula in public schools are decided at a state level, not a federal level. There is no proposed federal legislation that I’m aware of which would dictate the content of science classes in public schools. There IS a Constitutional Amendment which forbids the states from teaching religion as scientific fact. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
What federal legislation are you referring to with regard to gay rights? How would such legislation violate the Constitution and how could giving the public MORE rights be construed as authoritarian?
Gun control? Yes, I guess some liberals (and conservatives) do support some federal gun control legislation. How is that unconstitutional?
I don’t have to know you to know that your statement was ironic. The current administration and state of the GOP could hardly be more lockstep, authoritarian or intolerant of dissent.
Excuse my confusion, but “death?” 
Why woud the alternative to an unwanted pregnancy be death?
Gee, you’d think someone with such well-developed empathy would realize that the opposing viewpoint might not be due solely to stupidity and/or misogyny. And you’d think that someone who had thought the issue through so thoroughly would understand that there are moral arguments on both sides of the argument.
It’s not different. She’s entitled to have the thing removed from her body and no one has a right to tell her otherwise. My standard position on third tri abortions (which are extremeley rare and which are only performed for compelling medical reaons…often after the fetus is already dead) is that the woman has a right to have it removed from her body but that the state has a right to try to keep alive once it’s out. So at this point we wouldn’t really be talking about an abortion but an early delivery.
How am I saying that? Do you think that all religious people oppose reproductive rights for women?
A pregnant woman is undeniably a person with rights and undeniably deserving of compassion. It is only a religious belief that a fetus is either of those things, especially in the first trimester. I think compassion for the person you KNOW is a person always has to trump any misplaced compassion for an entity which is merely believed to be a person by faith. When it comes to a choice between legislation which you KNOW will hurt other people or allowing other people to do something which you think might possibly do some kind of unprovable harm to hypothetical, unprovable people which only exist as abstract religious constructs, intelligence and compassion dictate that you refrain from inflicting the suffering that you know is real.
Why would you think that? Practically everybody I know except for me and one of my brothers is a Christian.
And the people trying to ram through a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in response to state that allow it are? :rolleyes:
So, there’s no “equal protection” argument that says a child can’t be forced to be born prematurely? Interesting that you think it more important for a child to learn one particular subject in school than he not be subject to potentially life threatening action.
BTW, one reason that 3rd trimester abortions are rare is that they are illegal. But it doesn’t matter how rare they are, you are just trying to cloud the issue with that irrelavent fact.
How am I saying that? You are saying that one can’t be pro-life and also intelligent and compassionate. Pro-life people almost universally take that stane for religious reasons.
I should have said that she knows more about Christians than you do-- she doesn’t generalize the way you do.
No one is arguing that. Read thru the whole thread-- **DtC **is arguing that liberals can’t be authoritarian.
Are you against compulsory education - including home schooling in that? After all, not educating a child is a choice - shouldn’t parents have that right?
Are you against minimum qualifications to get a diploma, and be considered to have graduated from high school? If not, does a parent have a right not to teach a child things necessary to get that diploma, in other words, prevent the child from graduating?
Forget about evolution. Does a parent have a right not to teach a child algebra? Arithmetic? How to read?
Requiring a child to learn evolution is no different from requiring her to learn F=ma or the polynomial equation. Except that those last two things don’t offend the religious sensibilities of some. This isn’t confined to science - in California a bunch of fundamentalist Hindus are upset that history texts are teaching things that they don’t like - like the caste system was more than just a minor inconvenience for lower castes.
I have read the whole thread. She gave as a specific instance of liberal authoritarianism gay rights at the national level - where the only evidence I see is conservative authoritarianism.
I’m the only one in this thread, by the way, who gave an example of an authoritarian “liberal.” I think this authoritarianism is new. When I worked for the Conservative party in two campaigns back in the late '60s, I didn’t know of anyone who was authoritarian. Not Jim Buckley, not Barry Goldwater certainly.
Not really. She was addressing a side issue about liberals going beyond the scope of the constitution. In this case, I think she’s right.
It’s not a “child” until it’s born or until it’s living idependently of its mother. As long as it’s in the mother, it’s not a person and has no rights so it’s senseless to talk about Equal Protection. Your phrasing of the issue as “a child being forced to be born prematurely” puts the cart ahead of the horse. The act of being born is when it becomes a child and when it acquires rights. All infants living outside of other human beings are entitled to equal rights.
You’re the one who brought them up.
Which is not the same as saying that all religious people are legislatively pro-life. I know that you know better than to make this kind error in logic. In a room of 100 people let’s say that all of them are religious but only ten are (legislatively) pro-life. That would mean that 100% of the pro-lifers in the room would be religious but that 90% of the religious people in the room are not. So how does a statement about pro-lifers equate to a statement about religious people?
I doubt that very seriously.
- I haven’t generalized about Christians. I’ve generalized about authoritarians and social conservatives but not Christians.
- She doesn’t generalize about liberals? Have you read her posts?
So a conservative writes a book which reviews the science on authoritarianism and apparently concludes that modern conservatives are notably authoritarian. The response here is “Nuh uh!” and “Oh yeah, liberals could be authoritarian too!” and “You should know more conservatives!!”
Yikes. Anyone have any sort of cogent suggestion as to why, if liberals could so easily be authoritarian, the science finds it to be a trait associated with conservatives? Because you say so? Sorry, the plural of knee-jerk is not data.
For christ’s sake, we just had someone from the justice department, in testimony before the congress, make the statement “The president is always right.”
Now, now, John Dean worked for that pinko liberal Nixon, remember. I’m suprised they didn’t give him as an example of an authoritarian liberal.
Given that Sarahfeena reacted to Dio saying something about authoritarians as if he said something about all conservatives, methinks the “conservatives” protest too much.
Sarahfeena, in which situations do you find yourself socially liberal?
I’m not sure our definitions have been sufficently set for this argument.
Did you read the same OP that I did? Because the one I read didn’t just say that conservatives are authoritarian. The one I read used words like “dangerous,” “prejudiced,” “amoral,” “ultimately anti-American,” “lead[ing] us to disaster,” "vehement[ly] self-righteousness,"and “riding higher and higher on that dubious vehicle into American despotism.” If you’re accusing me of being overly sensitive to having my character, intelligence, and patriotism questioned (all in one OP), then maybe it’s just a lack of empathy on your part.
But I did get a good laugh at your line, “the science on authoritarianism.” So thanks for that.