The only problem is a very militant minority attempting to undermine important principles of religious freedom.
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*
Read. Learn. Live.
You know, normally I don’t bother to criticize a poster’s grammar, but if you’re writing under the name William Strunk Jr. I think you’re asking for it.
“it don’t be rough”?
I can hear your namesake spinning in his grave.
Agreed. I move that YOU be fed to the tigers first.
That just not fair…to the poor tiger.
The government has the right to regulate the actions of others when they interfer with others. Parents are using their power over their weaker children to impose their beliefs. Would a parent’s religious freedom give them the power to beat their children if their religious beleifs command beating children.
if we don’t stop parents (or anybody) from causing harm to their (or other) children via their faulty beliefs and idealogical blindness (religiously inspired or not) we might as well feed them to the tigers.
You’ve already poisoned the well by describing religious teaching as “warping their children’s minds”. Many (most?) folks in the US don’t see it that way, so you are fighting a very uphill battle.
Not to mention this:
How are you going to get past that?
Bottom line, you haven’t proven that what you claim is a problem, actually is a problem. Your proposed remedy is worst then any supposed disease. And it violates one of the basic principles of US government and society.
Many of us are trying. But the same many of us want less government intrusion into people’s personal lives. The way to change things is to enlighten grown-ups and young adults, not to become thought-control busybodies.
As far as having the government decide what is true and what is not, do you hoestly have any faith that that would be a good thing? Right now we have government officials trying to redefine marriage, finding WMDs where there are none, and stating that evolution is a Hebrew conspiracy. No thanks, I’ll decide for myself what is true.
Top kid catchphrase of 1952: “Golly gee willakers!”
Top kid catchphrase of 1991: “Don’t have a cow, man!”
Top kid catchphrase of 2008: “CITE?!?”
I’m outta order? I’m outta order? This whole goddam COURT’S OUTTA ORDER!
A lot of people hold the belief that faith must be absolute. To require, by law, that parents alter that belief, well… There’s that pesky constitution again.
Al Pacino, And Justice For All. But you horribly mangled the quote.
If I have a child and teach him that God loves him and wants him to love his neighbor as he loves himself, you would have a representative from CPS come over to my house to investigate me? Wouldn’t the social worker’s time be better spent looking into the cases where obvious physical and sexual abuse is taking place?
hrmm, alright let me rephrase that. The OP, as worded I guess does sort of warrant that kind of response (although he makes a much more valid point with the idea of parents being allowed to teach their kids to blow themselves up, rather than the point about the existance of God) hence, my repositioning of the argument to define where a line could be drawn
yes you are sort of taking a slippery slope argument, though again, upon rereading specifically what the OP was demanding, your responses aren’t quite as unreasonable as I first supposed (and also again, why I bothered to point out what context I was posting in)
I think we should implant electrical probes into the brains of all adults such that they will be shocked to varying degrees when they ever tell any ‘lie’. ‘I love you’ would be the first thing to generate shocks since nobody has ‘evidence’ of loving; it’s a feeling.
In short, you have got to be kidding if you can possibly think this is in any way a logical or valid argument. Every single concept in life (including the word ‘life’) is a wraith. A table is something one has evidence of. You can touch it. You cannot touch, see, or hear ‘life’, ‘belief’, ‘thought’, ‘idea’ or anything else that does nor represent a tangible item. Therefore claiming that using language that can’t be backed by ‘evidence’ is ludicrous.
Where is the evidence that these things that are being taught as a fact are actually facts? Any person that thinks ID is a reasonalbe scientific alternative to evolution has had their mind warped. Any person that believes they know God exists has had their mind warped.
Personal religious freedom does not give a parent the right to warp their child’s mind anymore than it gives them the right to beat their child.
There is a difference between telling a les and systematically warping the mind of child over which a parent has a large measure of control.
Since love is a subjective feeling the only evidence a person needs for it is experiencing that subjective feeling.
Whopdee dooo. That’s what parents get to do. I know of not one single person as they grew up that couldn’t make up their own mind about religion even after having it rammed down their throats by their parents. We get to become adults and live our own lives at some point.
No, because society has strict rules regarding physical abuse. If a parent wanted to argue that God or the Bible told them to beat their child, a Judge would step in to decide the case. You can not begin to legislate what a parent says to their child in an effort to teach them.
Remember, everything when judged, falls back on intent.
So is faith, ergo, your argument crumbles ASSUMING that no actual harm is done in preventing the child from functioning in society, which a simple belief in God or ID will not do
man, and to think I posted in your favor when I entered the thread.
You’re going way off the deep end with your attacks on faith, which can often be good and positive (reference many christian charities, “true” christians who live by Jesus’ teachings instead of listening to loony ministers, etc.). Retrench your position to be more defensible instead of insisting on a position that denies free though and basic religious freedom
And I ask, where is your evidence that the things YOU are teaching as fact are actually facts? Any person who thinks he can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does NOT exist has had their mind warped.
Just because you happen to believe that there is no God does not give you the right to force that belief down the throat of my children any more than I should be allowed to force my belief in God down the throat of your children.
How is this not the very kind of unprovable falsehood that you are decrying?
Double-edged swords are a bitch.