That sort of irrational hatred and reckless disrespect for liberty is one reason we need a strong second amendment.
What about your own evil? Do you have none? Is it like the praying Pharisee? You’re just thankful you don’t stink as bad as someone else? Why shouldn’t we take your children away from you? Maybe I think people who want to nanny me to death are evil by choice. Should I be able to take their children away?
Or more importantly a strong first amendment that prevents the government from taking one’s children away based on one’s political or religious beliefs, without having to shoot people.
Hey now, some hatreds are rational. I myself am appalled by the indoctrination of children into religion.
But as long as nobody gets to act on their hatreds, they’re perfectly fine to have. (Which apparently doesn’t apply in canada, where nazi-haters can steal children - too bad they don’t have a second amendment…)
Yes they do. It’s one totally fucked up alternative system of government, but if you talk to these white supremacist nutjobs, they have plans to run the whole country.
Yes they are evil by choice, but so are many other beliefs. I’m also not comfortable with it being the government, or you, or anyone other than me who determines what is evil and thus bannable. And none of y’all are going to let me be the one who determines what is censored.
I’ll probably regret this, but-------the mother has just as much of a right to display the symbols of whatever the hell she believes in as do the persons who display the so-called “Confederate Flag.” Should we, here in the USA, take away the children of people who display that odious symbol? I believe, but cannot provide a cite, that it has been shown that children of child abusers have a statistically greater chance of becoming child abusers themselves. Should those children be taken from their homes as well? The actions of the officials identified in the link provided by the OP smack far too much of a police state mentality.
Which takes us all the way back to your question to me about letting Hindus use the symbol and my only point is that they do not use the Nazi symbol.
Well, I guess we just get to thank your God that you don’t get to make the decisions either.
Let me ask you an others a question.
Back in 1984 when I was but a lad of 17, the KKK decided to have their first march in NJ in decades. It was in Wall Township. They have a protected right to march and the cops could not stop it despite being very embarrassed as the Klan picked a basically all white town and it made the town look very bad.
I and dozens of other teens from around the county all spontaneously showed up to protest the march. It turned out to be about a dozen assholes in their costumes and as many cops and many protesters. I was in a van, but not the driver of the van that led several cars through the parade to disrupt it. The Klansmen were forces to leap out of the way.
The cops somehow failed to stop us or get any license plate numbers. Were the cops and us a bunch of assholes or am I right to take pride in taking a small amount of action to stop these assholes?
BTW: I cannot cite this, I cannot find it. Maybe someone that has access to Newspaper Archives can find it in the Asbury Park Press.
Odd note: I joined the Navy shortly after this and ended up serving with someone from another local town who was actually there that day and remembered the nut in the van that disrupted the march.
I think this is a very important point. For one thing, it reminds us of the impracticality of removing the kids from all parents who hold views like the woman in the article. It also, thereby, reminds us that such an approach will have to be applied selectively and is, therefore, inherently unfair and unjust.
How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and they disrupted your statement?
Not showing up would have been more effective than the minor disruption you caused. Just sayin’…
“Say what you will about National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.” - Walter, The Big Lebowski
Oh, hey, thanks Kalhoun.
I’m sure it felt pretty good to do that, but I don’t see how you stopped them. I know I get stubborn and contrary when people disrupt what I’m trying to do–that’s human nature. You gave them attention and fed their conviction that they’re persecuted.
Well all we did was make them the target of laughter by those that came out and shortened their march. What really stopped them was that they only attracted a dozen idiots from the entire state for their march.
This board really does buy into the DNFTT concept, I expected that few would agree with what us kids did. I just wonder if more people had acted to disrupt the Nazi marches in the early 30s if maybe they could have been stopped and embarrassed for the foul and wrong minded self-important idiots that they were.
Well, as long as they don’t reproduce…
Those kids are HURT by that up bringing, and YES I do claim that any parenting program that involves warping a person for life should not be allowed, and if it happens those kids should be taken away. As soon as you can show that the tenets of the promise keeper or any other right wing fringe group is / are valid, I will send my daughter to live with the manson clan or what ever screwwball hate/fear addicts are are handy.
FML
Heh, unlike the good old US, in which as we know state agents never “steal children” away from parents of odd cultish groups for the alleged good of the children.
Nope, just doesn’t happen. 
I think christianity falls under your description. How many americans do you think will jump on THAT bandwagon? It’s all a matter of personal opinion.
Child and Family Services have very stringent guidelines on when and under what circumstances to remove a child from her home. So, either the story neglected to mention elements of abuse, or the social worker grossly overstepped their boundaries.
Considering how few foster families are out there and how many children legitimately need to be placed in protective custody, this is a shocking waste of resources. Considering the rate of abuse in foster homes, taking a child out of a non-abusive home and placing them in foster care is likely to end with the child being harmed. That is inexcusable.
I find the mother’s behavior reprehensible, and she should face public shame for it, but her expressions are Constitutionally protected, and she should not face legal repercussions.
The child has been turned into a pawn and will only suffer for it.
Based on your mentioning that the cops didn’t stop you, I assume you recognise that they should have, legally speaking at least.
So, you think it’s fine to break the law to distrupt the activities of people you don’t agree with. But suppose making them dodge didn’t stop them? Perhaps a burning cross on their lawn would work better; you could try that. And if they still persist in their heinous act of having and expressing opinions, why wouldn’t it be worth killing them to excise their evil? Since you’re above the law and all anyway, I mean.
Congratulations: you’re a vigilante. You’re batman! Everyone wants to be Batman! Be proud!
Of course, the “criminals” you chase with cars hadn’t been proven to have done anything worse than having opinions, but since you’re Batman we can be sure that anybody whose opinions you don’t like must be evil bastards who deserve to get chased by cars, at the very least. So go! Kill anyone you don’t like! The law has no right to constrain your unerring Fist of Justice!
Of course The KKK are Batman too! They just carry out their vigilante justice against skin color instead of opinions, but that’s a minor difference - you and they both raise identical unerring Fists of Justice!
Go, you! Go, KKK! Go, Nazis! Silence the people you don’t agree with! Yay!
No, it isn’t.
Nazis aren’t a special case. You either agree that beliefs are a personal matter and should not be legislated against, or you don’t. All you’ve done is draw up a short list of beliefs you don’t think should be protected. Any random schmoe could add a hundred more to that list and get a government to enforce it with the “it’s all about hate, what about the children?” speech.
So hatred should be illegal?
Here’s an idea: Why don’t we keep the anti-Jew-gassing laws (among others) on the books? Then wait until people start carrying out the actions of the Nazis, instead of just espousing their beliefs, to punish them?
Excellent point. I grew up in a Hindu family, and my sister occasionally wore the symbol of Brahma at school, partly to express her beliefs and educate others, and partly to be ornery. You had better believe that if some teacher or administrator tried to force her to take it off, my father would have stood behind her 100%, and probably would have sent her to school the next day with a bigger one.
Fortunately, it was never a problem. Many people were shocked at first, but understood after she explained its true meaning, and went away from the experience with a little more cultural perspective.
But even though this mother really may be a hateful bitch who’s raising her children to be twisted ideologues, that’s no reason to take away her children. She has a right to raise her children with whatever beliefs she sees fit, however unfortunate her choice may be. Neither on belief nor on symbolism is there any defense for the government’s actions here.
:eek:
I abhor the Nazi ideals as much as anyone, but are you even listening to what you’re saying?! begbert2 is absolutely right: NO SPECIAL CASES. It seems distasteful to defend the rights of scoundrels so vehemently, but there is no alternative. The defense of Liberty is, first and foremost, the defense of the rights of scoundrels, for it is they who will be oppressed first. The unpopular people, the widely disparaged opinions - tyrants use these to get their foot in the door. Making a “special case” to allow violation of the rights of certain people is simply the first step down a dark road.