Too bad no one tolds the California State Supreme Court that. With the most left-wing state court deciding to outlaw home schooling and private schools available only to the wealthy (in most cases), we can’t cop out from the debate in that manner. It is as kolga said in her response to me. Children are forced by law to attend public schools.
You haven’t answered the question about why you’d want the public schools to instill your values for you. Wouldn’t that be best done by you? It’s ironic to me, considering the derision usually poured upon teachers’ ability to teach actual academic subjects, that people would then turn around and want to entrust us with this task. I’m sure you don’t want me imparting my personal values, and you’d be hard pressed to get anyone to agree on whose religion and values I should be teaching.
No, teaching about religion in any way other than strictly academic/objective surveys of world religions as relevant to history or literature should be the province of parents, not public school teachers.
Cite that the California State Supreme Court was involved in any such decision? Indeed, cite that anyone has actually been barred from homeschooling their children?
I assume this is what you are referring to, but it doesn’t actually say quite what you are making it out to.
And while I think it would be a bad thing if students were forced to attend public school, I don’t think the fact that public schools fail to provide religious education enters into it, any more than the fact that public schools fail to provide grocery services or computer repair. That’s not what public school is for, but public school is also not standing in the way of your access to them. You can go elsewhere for any of those things.
That is to say, no one’s proposing to bar children from attending religious education programs elsewhere in addition to the education they receive in public school (children are free to spend their extracurricular time on whatever activities they like). Taxpayers just won’t foot the bill for it.
Did they outlaw private schools also?
No, but private schools cost money, to an extent that some can’t afford them. Of course, the only reason public schools generally don’t cost money is because they are subsidized by taxes. Presumably, the argument to be made is that there is good reason to require taxpayers to subsidize science education, math education, English education, etc., but there is no legitimate reason to force them to subsidize religious education, though students remain free to obtain such education on their own.
Y’know, I just can’t cede reasonableness to the right on the abortion issue. I just don’t think it’s there. They want to force women to bear children against their will. It’s a tough decision to have to make, and the right wants to make it for them. I’m sorry, there’s not one jot, tittle or iota of reasonableness there. The RW is completely in the wrong here, as completely in the wrong as they are on the subject of creationism and gay marriage.
Yeah, but so do I, in certain circumstances. Namely, if a pregnant woman reaches, say, the third trimester carrying a viable, healthy fetus, and then changes her mind about wanting to continue the pregnancy, I do not agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion, unless her life or health is threatened. On the other hand, I completely oppose any restrictions on any woman’s right to choose an abortion for any reason whatever throughout, say, the first trimester.
I think that human personhood is something that develops gradually in prenatal development; an embryo is not a person but a newborn baby is, and I don’t think that transition to personhood happened all at once at the moment of birth. Therefore, I think it’s fair to argue that the fetus gradually develops human rights which at some point outweigh the mother’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
The difference between my view and that of “pro-life” people is that they think the transition to personhood happens all at once at the moment of conception. I think that’s kind of silly, but then they probably think my view is silly. And if you think both views are silly, then where do you draw the line determining when it stops being okay to kill a developing human being? At the onset of labor? When the infant exits the birth canal? At the start of toilet training? When?
All restrictions on abortion are to some extent arbitrary and depend on intrinsically subjective notions about personhood and rights. All of them end up forcing at least some women to bear children at least briefly against their will. But if we have no restrictions on abortion at all, then how do we draw the line in such a way as to exclude the killing of actual babies?
At the most, you draw it where it’s POSSIBLE for the “developing human being” to be an actual person - which is nowhere near conception. The third trimester is a conservative to put the line; and science understands the brain and mind better, it’ll probably be moved much farther along.
The fact is, the “pro-lifer” view is NOT equally valid. They can call a fertilized cell a person; but either it isn’t a person, or you’ve just redefined “person” as something that isn’t deserving of a right to live. Insisting that a mindless bit of flesh is the equal of a full fledged human being won’t make it true.
Kimstu, you’re smarter than that. We need laws specifically prohibiting whimsical third trimester abortions about as much as we need laws specifically prohibiting indoor cooking with a flamethrower.
1.1% of abortions occur after the 20th week of pregnancy. Late-term abortion is a bugaboo.
No it does not. I said that I supported voluntary religious education classes. If you wanted your child raised in a fully secular environment, you just wouldn’t enroll your children in those classes. Simples as that.
This argument is akin to saying, “Why should schools teach history, when museums already exist is abundance?” or, “Why should schools teach reading; libraries are happy to assist parents in these matters?” Schools are the central venues of formal education, and as such they form most a child’s understanding of what education is. Relegating religious education to venues outside of school naturally implies that religious education is a second-class type of education, less important than knowing the capital of Ghana and the quadratic education.
Which religions will be taught? All of them? Clearly not possible, so who decides? Who will pay for those teachers? Education is rife with unfunded mandates as it is.
No, it implies that religion is a private, family issue and is best imparted by family members and organizations designed to serve that purpose. Conservatives don’t want teachers teaching sex ed in schools because it relates to their values, but DO want them to teach religion? Doesn’t that seem contradictory to you?
No, it’s not. Everyone needs to know history, and how to read. Not everyone needs religious education.
On these issues, yes. There’s a name for the type of government that responds to what the majority of the voters desire. It’s called “democracy”. Liberals may note that our party is called “The Democratic Party”. Democracy, democratic. I don’t think the similarity between the two words is entirely a coincidence.
And sometimes I will get my way. As a guideline, it should happen whenever my way is the way of 51% or more of the voters.
Okay, I give up. Why do you think that my right to free speech supersedes your right to a cross-free park, but yours doesn’t supersede my right to a porn-free neighborhood? Moreover, why do you–if I understand it correctly–think that the voters should not have any say in either issue.
Look, we liberals are not property rights extremists. If we were, we’d be voting for Bob Barr rather than Barack Obama. We understand that the idea of living on our own property and ignoring what happens elsewhere in untenable. If companies pollute the waterways, that’s everybody’s problem, even if it doesn’t happen on our property. Greenhouse gas emissions are everybody’s problem, even if it doesn’t happen on our property. Extreme poverty, warrantless wiretapping, torture, fifty million uninsured Americans,… Those are everybody’s problem, even if they don’t happen on our property. Who decides whether garbage gets dumped in our rivers? It’s the people, not a handful of corporate executives. So who should decide whether garbage gets dumped in our arts and culture? It’s the people, not a handful of corporate executives.
“Democracy” does not mean “mob rule”. I don’t know about this “we liberals” you’re throwing around here, because *this *liberal believes that one of the primary purposes of law and government is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
Easily.
My position on pornography laws has nothing to do personal decisions. I’m okay with people using it in their own homes, and I would vote against any attempt to ban it in order to protect people from themselves. My position comes from it’s effect on others and the community at large. A porn shop or strip club, placed publicly where people can’t avoid seeing it, degrades morality, destroys a sense of community, informs women that many men view them as nothing more than sex toys, and exposes children to sexual material before they’re ready to deal with it.
By contrast, a restraunt’s choice of cooking oils affects no one except the people who choose to eat there. Hence it is not a community issue.
As for the “could potentially kill people”, I don’t care. Everybody dies eventually. Why should the government take on itself the right to stretch everybody’s life to the maximum possible length? Individuals should get to choose what tradeoffs they make. If I’m willing to enjoy good food and lose a few years in exchange, that’s my business.
(I am okay with reasonable restrictions, such as banning lead is gasoline. But I oppose anything that seriously restricts people’s enjoyment of life.)
Furthermore, unhealthy food and alcohol and cigarettes are not merely physical pleasures. They can serve a positive purpose, by helping people feel comfortable and get along with each other. In What is Wrong with the World, Chesterton suggests that they’re almost a necessity for a successful social event. Can you imagine a party with no food, no drinks, and no smoking? Hence restrictions on those things are restrictions of community life.
By contrast, pornography makes no positive contribution to society. Individuals typically use it alone and get a few seconds of physical pleasure followed by a long period of guilt, shame, or loneliness. (And sometimes a need to change underpants.)
Do you have a cite for this claim? As I mentioned before, there is a sex shop right in the midst of our downtown shopping area, and it has never caused a problem. It’s quite discreet, but everyone knows what it is. It’s just another business among many. I don’t see how the mere presence of a store that says “Adult Books and Video” destroys a sense of community or degrades morality. Don’t like porn? Don’t go inside.
So it’s okay for people to have it, but it’s not okay for people to get it?
How does a porn shop degrade morality? I’ve walked past many a porn shop. I’ve patronized more than a few. I have not, by that experience, been turned into a thief, a liar, a cheat, or anything else that could remotely be considered “immoral,” unless your definition of immoral includes a massive guilt complex about your sexuality. Mine, I am happy to say, does not.
I’m not sure how to respond to the idea that a porn shop destroys a “sense of community,” because I’m not sure what that even means.
The blather about porn degrading women is the standard heteronormative bullshit you always get from right-wing morality crusaders. The last porn store I was in didn’t have any women at all in it. Is that still degrading to women, or should I take away the message that some men view me as nothing more than a sex toy? Also, where can I find these men? I mean, yeah, some men do view women as objects. Women don’t need to see a porn store to know this, they just have to know a sufficiently large sample of men. And that sample is not going to be found solely in the confines of a smut shop. There are as many feminists in porn stores as there are misogynists in church.
Lastly, we have the traditional wail of “what about the children?” Well, what about them? How does the knowledge that there’s such a thing as sex harm a child in any conceivable manner? I’ve truly never understood this one. A child walks past a store that has it’s windows blocked out, and a neon sign that says, “Live Nude Girls.” There’s maybe a picture of a scantily clad woman involved. And the catastrophic effect of this vision on the child is what, exactly?
Because, at the very least, the negative effects of bad food and drugs are scientifically provable. The negative effects of pornography are purely ideological. You’re opposed to banning stuff that you know can kill people, but are all fired up about banning stuff that you think should make them feel bad. That’s patently absurd, and a violent misuse of the purposes of government.
Unless said enjoyment is in any way related to their genitals, apparently. Because banning strip clubs would be a pretty serious restriction on my enjoyment of life.
That last paragraph is truly one of the saddest things I’ve read here. The guilt, shame, and loneliness isn’t caused by the porn, ITR. It’s caused by your own deeply unhealthy relationship with your own sexuality.
Hate to break it to you, but having optional religious classes is also implying that religious education is less important than the mandatory classes like math, science, history, and so forth. If religious instruction is really as important as all the rest, you ought to be agitating for compulsory religious education in all schools.
Sorry, that should be left wing blather, not right wing. The right wing has it’s own brand of anti-sex blather, adequately encapsulated in the rest of your arguments.