posted
I don't believe in inherent rights at all. I believe that some invented rights are more useful fictions than other rights, and I'm certainly willing to defend the existence of those fictions, but I don't think there's anything in nature that implies such "rights" as a function of reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if we are going to talk about rights the way we talk about rights, that we need a God to guarantee them. I also don't think that we should talk about rights the way we talk about rights.
quote:You don't know that is true.
I can't even be reasonably sure, but there are a lot of things I have questions about concerning this case, like what the h*** is the status of the "mental health counselor" who started this mess.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about freedom? Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think that that is exactly what they are saying. Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
No, it's not okay. It's just where some people appeal to rights granted by God, I appeal my well-developed sense of character illumed by literature. I don't make claims about entitlement and needs, rather, my statements come in the form of oughts, shoulds, and appropriateness.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, if this case bugs you, you're probably right to consider private school for your hypothetical children. My not-hypothetical children will never go back to public school if I can help it. It's just far to politicized at a high level to reasonably counter.
My current beef is the standardized tests our state "requires" for 4th, 8th and 10th grade students. These aren't IOWA or SAT tests, that have been rigorously put to the test. They're something our state homegrew and are continuing to be expanded into subjects that strike me as beyond 'basic skills' (science was added this year, I think...I'd have to check). Also, they're testing in subjects that cannot be tested objectively, and at HUGE expense to tax payers. Worse, the tests about to become very high stakes, for starting with the class of 2010, passing the standardized tests will be a graduation requirement. Unfortunately, being in private school does not exempt my kids from this requirement...only homeschooling does, and I'm not cut out for that.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And "literature" defines for you what is right and wrong? Or, if you want less charged terms, okay and not okay? Isn't that a rather shaky basis? Literature changes all the time, you know.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. When a noticable percentage of the reasonable people remove themselves from the public education system, that system is weakened, marginalized, unsupervised, often unmanaged and always under funded. You People who care have to pay attention to and participate in your public schools.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not willing to sacrifice my children for the good of public schools. If they were any good, maybe we wouldn't leave in the first place.
Basing your beliefs/values/whatever on literature is a pretty shaky position. Literature is just written by other people, who have their own beliefs and values and it comes through in their work. At best, you're getting everything second-hand. And either the original is based on God or... well, what??
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here in Ontario we are lucky enough to have a parallel system of catholic schools. Now, I am not myself catholic, but since the public system is openly anti-christian, anti-family and pro-homosexual, if I am living in Ontario by the time I have kids, they will be going to the catholic schools. If they haven't all been shut down or emasculated by then, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. When a noticable percentage of the reasonable people remove themselves from the public education system, that system is weakened, marginllized, unsupervised, often unmanaged and always under funded. People who care have to pay attention to and participate in your public schools.
You are confusing Cause and Effect. The education system wasn't weakened by the reasonable people leaving. Rather, the reasonable people left because the education system has been co-opted by unreasonable, unscrupulous and unethical people (to use only very mild adjectives).
I don't know exactly how schools are run in the states, but in Canada, each province has its Board or Ministry of Education, and there is nothing we can do about it if the Government decides what to teach. The only option is to remove ourselves from that sort of indoctrinating system and set up a parallel system in opposition. Hopefully, we'll be the last ones left standing.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you think it'd be okay (absent invented rights) for a group of people to lock you up for your entire life with no reason?
I think we make a huge mistake when we confuse "rights" with "things that are okay."
I would much rather keep those things very, very far apart from each other.
It is in my opinion NOT right to be locked up for your whole life for no reason. But there's no reason other than those rationally conceived by man to prevent this from happening. And I think it's helpful for us to understand this, so that we can articulate exactly why we as a society do not countenance that treatment.
Keep in mind that the other approach -- appealing to God or some other form of "higher" authority for externalized morality -- depends first upon common acceptance of that God, and then the reliable belief that everyone involved knows what God expects. And, moreover, that God does not regularly alter His expectations without telling people. Saying "my morality is more sure because I do what God tells me is right" is, in the long run, appealing to nothing more stable or lasting than appealing to literature.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Compare it to a business supplying popular, but shoddy, goods. They're cheap and widely available, so most people buy from them. It's a product everybody needs, so if you're disatisfied, you either have to buy a more expensive version or make one yourself. There are things you can try to do to make the business owners do things better, but there's no guarantee.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But there's no reason other than those rationally conceived by man to prevent this from happening.
In your own, humble and entirely subjective opinion, of course, which I'm sure is what you meant to say.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And "literature" defines for you what is right and wrong? Or, if you want less charged terms, okay and not okay? Isn't that a rather shaky basis? Literature changes all the time, you know.
I said literature educates, leads the soul's wisdom out. e - out, ducere - to lead. You better believe it's shaky, I'm not selling security. Pastors and Insurance salesmen and Police officers sell security; I'm peddling character, and that's shaky business. With character, you have to work and learn and study every waking day until you die. With rights, all you have to do is write them down, get them passed by God and congress, and then business is settled, or at least gives off the appearance of being settled, allowing you to devote your energy and time (The resources I'd have people spend developing character) on making money.
Dag,
I'll retract my post then. I think I've been inundated with too many people who use the word need in unflattering ways.
Dh, remember, I'm not the one who said, "have to."
I happen to think that yes, God gave us these rights and freedoms, but that he also gave us reason so we should be able to come up with reasons to have those rights apart from "because God said so."
I use the word rights because I don't know what else to use.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Let me address this, by the way. If your belief in God is the ultimate source of your morality, it is not possible for you to justify your morality and laws to people who do not share that belief. In that case, specifically, you have no basis on which to even engage in conversation with people who do not share those precepts. This has caused a lot of wars.
I submit that having another source for morality, one that does not require a shared belief in a higher power, makes it more likely that two people seeking to reconcile their ethical systems will be able to find a common denominator on which they agree and from which they can build a mutually satisfactory system.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, to be fair though, we do have a fair amount of power to affect change in our local schools. ALL of the school board positions up for re-election in my area are going uncontested to the incumbent.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all things that I want control over in teaching my children are things that I think should be taught in public school, such as things related to religion, morality, and sexuality.
I actually have been of the opinion that Christian private school or home school are the only options for me for quite some time. Decisions like the one linked are only underlining that fact.
The big problem for me, and I've said this before--forgive me for being repetitive, is that parents who hold a minority opinion wouldn't have the freedom to pull their children out of classes which go against what they themselves teach or believe. And a parent with a minority opinion wouldn't have the option of changing the entire local school--nor should he.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:there are a lot of things I have questions about concerning this case, like what the h*** is the status of the "mental health counselor" who started this mess.
I can't believe I'm going to agree with Irami on something, but yeah. What in the freaking crap was s/he thinking?
Politics aside, would any of you really want your children asked those questions in first grade without you knowing about it?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there basic elements of education you believe parents should not have the right to override? For example, if I as a parent decided that I had a religious objection to mathematics, would you support my right to pull my child out of any class that included it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which is why I (and others) have been saying all along that by removing belief in the existence of God, you open the door to justifying all sorts of barbaric and horrible acts, and you literally have no basis on which to oppose them. Such as some people here seem to be doing.
Let me address this, by the way. If your belief in God is the ultimate source of your morality, it is not possible for you to justify your morality and laws to people who do not share that belief. In that case, specifically, you have no basis on which to even engage in conversation with people who do not share those precepts. This has caused a lot of wars.
I submit that having another source for morality, one that does not require a shared belief in a higher power, makes it more likely that two people seeking to reconcile their ethical systems will be able to find a common denominator on which they agree and from which they can build a mutually satisfactory system.
I, of course, disagree with you. I believe that if I am right and someone is wrong, it is my duty to do my utmost to convince the other person to change his/her mind (not force it on them). The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds, even though great efforts are constantly deployed to deny this.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds.
Hm. I disagree almost completely with you on this one, and I suspect that it stems from our definition(s) of the word "morality."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about sacrificing your country? Those kids who attended unsupervised and underfunded "segregation academys" in the South, as well as the kids who attended "public" schools that were not sustained by public officials, elected by citizens who were sending their kids to the "academys", are voting in November. That is truely frightening. Our system of governance required educated electors or it just won't work.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a tough one... My initial response is yes, but your child's grade would have to be affected because of it.. and if it leaves him short of the credits necessary to graduate, nothing should be done to rectify that by the school. I would add that by a certain age, maybe 14, the student would have the right to override your wishes... ?
But I just made that up. I'm not sure.
Earlier, I said that the right to withdraw a student shouldn't apply to classes like math, history, and english, but then you had to suppose that the person had a religious reason for the withdrawal... That makes it harder. While I don't agree with the parent, I am in favor of religious liberty.
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]
quote:Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
The problem is a kid who doesn't know math is a social liability and there is something, in a way, derelict about not teaching simple addition, along with the fact that basic math pervades in science, history, and even english. I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I lived in the South during the late 60's and early 70's. I have seen what happens when a large percentage of society opts out of the public education system. It is not a pretty sight. We shriveled up the lives of a whole generation. The answer is not to withdraw from the process. You need to participate fully in that process. Don't "find a good private school". Find a way to improve the pubilc school system in your attendance area. If more than a fringe group opt out, the Nation as a whole will suffer.
Alternatively, get rid of the public school system. It's bad in just about every way a school or a system can be bad.
The idea that the government should be able to determine what kids learn or do not learn is frightening.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: What about sacrificing your country? Those kids who attended unsupervised and underfunded "segregation academys" in the South, as well as the kids who attended "public" schools that were not sustained by public officials, elected by citizens who were sending their kids to the "academys", are voting in November. That is truely frightening. Our system of governance required educated electors or it just won't work.
Wow. Way to cover like a zillion issues. I bet someone is going to take you to task for that last sentence. But I'll leave that to them.
You're supposing that all private schools are as inadequate as your examples from the south. Are you unaware of the accreditation programs? While voluntary, they demand a certain level of quality and content in an education system. If a school opts out, the degrees they give out have little value in the world.
If a public school system fails because all of the students are withdrawn, it is because of some serious lacks in that school. People don't withdraw their children for no reason--I think it is safe to assume that they fought the system for quite some time and found nothing to be changing and their requests ignored.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, its powers not given to Congress in the Constitution which are reserved to the states or the people, a very different thing.
The Constitution says no such thing. The Amendment you are referring to was superseded -- in effect, repealed -- by the 14th Amendment.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a tricky issue, but when a child robs me, needs medical help that he/she can't afford for decision that could have been avoided, or goes on the dole because his or her parent doesn't abide by all of that fancy education, then I have to say that society has a stake in that child.
If there wasn't a dole, that wouldn't be an issue.
If the state didn't pay for medical care, that wouldn't be an issue.
And it's not lack of public education that makes people steal. On the contrary.
The fact is, you're arguing from a position where the goverment is already overstepping its bounds and its authority and saying that given that situation, it must do so as well in the case of education.
One bad decision leads to another. Inevitably. The solution isn't to keep going down the daisy chain of bad decisions, but to recognize that they are bad decisions, and start fixing them from the get-go.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
*nod* And using that definition, which is also the one I use, I see no incompatibility between religious and secular morality. I suspect that the reason you do is that you're adding a few codicils.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, if you could prove that you really held those beliefs and explain them reasonably, I would support you in that. (Kind of like the test for conscientious objectors in the military.)
The problem is a kid who doesn't know math is a social liability and there is something, in a way, derelict about not teaching simple addition, along with the fact that basic math pervades in science, history, and even english. I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
I can agree with that.
quote:The problem with having a "moral system" that does not acknowledge God is that spiritual morality and secular morality are fundamentally at odds, even though great efforts are constantly deployed to deny this.
I actually think it is important for secularists to have a secular morality. I don't think that it and spiritual morality are always at odds.
I shy away from any supposition that a belief in God should be pressed on other people. I know you said that you wouldn't force it, but you would feel it is your duty to educate them to the best of your ability. While I acknowledge that witnessing is important, so is respect for other people's views. I don't want to live in a theocracy. The thought is scary.
In saying that secularists cannot have morality without God, I think you're saying that ultimately they need not practice a morality or set of fundamental laws, since it is all intertwined and morality cannot exist without God.
I'm not sure I'm portraying my thoughts clearly... I just feel that the path you're treading has some quite distasteful logical conclusions.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying that the school should teach the child math against the parent's wishes, but I do think the school should be frank with the parent as to what kind of educational experience the parent is damning the child to.
I'll agree with that. My mother used to work as the assistant coordinator for newborn screening for Kaiser Southern CA. (I'm going to assume you all know what that is. If not, here's a link.) Anyway, she often had to try to convince parents who wanted to opt out of newborn screening (for religious reasons, the only reason allowed by the state) that they should consent for their child to be screened. Sometimes she managed, sometimes she didn't. She was very frank about the consequences of their actions if their child was not screened, had one of the diseases screened for, and was not treated. In either case, it was truly informed consent or informed failure to consent. (She was also frank about the fact that if their child died or was injured because of their refusal of treatment, it was possible for them to be charged with medical neglect and jailed or have their child(ren) taken away, although she's not actually sure where she stands on that practice.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there wasn't a dole, that wouldn't be an issue.
If the state didn't pay for medical care, that wouldn't be an issue.
And it's not lack of public education that makes people steal. On the contrary.
The fact is, you're arguing from a position where the goverment is already overstepping its bounds and its authority and saying that given that situation, it must do so as well in the case of education.
You got me; it would be hard for me to be proud to be an American if the country didn't provide medical care to the sick and resources for the unemployed. _____
Katarain and ketchupqueen, look at that, two agreements and nobody had to brandish rights about.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't rub it in. It already disturbs me about how much I have agreed with you and Tom in this thread and a few others already. Especially because most of the time, I think you're a real nut, Irami.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't rub it in. It already disturbs me about how much I have agreed with you and Tom in this thread and a few others already. Especially because most of the time, I think you're a real nut, Irami.
I've won elections and had relationships on the strength of such commendations... but it's always scary because, as dh points out, I'm on shaky ground.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The largest problem with what is taught in school is that much of it used to be taught by parents in the privacy of their own homes. Now that we have seen the decline of parents doing what used to qualify as their JOB as parents, education has been forced to pick up the slack.
It isn't that the education system believes that all people are bad parents, but there has become a majority of students who are no longer being raised by parents, but rather by T.V., the Internet, video games, and their peers. The right way to deal with the sex ed issue is to stop doing it in schools and force parents to pick up the slack again.
But its easier for parents to give it to the education system than to take on the responsibility for themselves.
If people were forced back into the responsibility role that IS parenthood, maybe things would change back for the better.
As far as I'm concerned, teaching about drugs and sex in schools have only shown to increase the usage. Ignornace is bliss, knowledge corrupts. Giving these students access to the fact that these things exist only goes on to increase the chances that they WILL do them.
posted
As much as I'd like to return to the Little House on the Prairie days, I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen.
I disagree that parents should be forced to teach these things--not because I think they shouldn't teach them, but because there is no way to force them that doesn't involve a gross violation of privacy and freedom.
Let the schools continue, and let the parents that live up to the responsibility of parenthood, withdraw their students if the school's version of things differs from their own.
Ignorance is most certainly not bliss. You know in recent times there has actually been a married couple (maybe more than one!) who didn't know what sex was and wondered why they weren't conceiving.
Giving students access to the fact that WHAT things exist?
Sex? Drugs?
No, ignorance of sex won't warn them of STDs, pregnancy, and the emotional affects of having sex before they are ready. Instead, they'll continue to get false information from their peers and make horrible decisions.
Ignorance of drugs will only make them unaware of the risks of taking those drugs. And lying to them and saying all drugs will kill you and do horrible things to their bodies will only make them think that heroin and cocaine must be okay, since pot didn't do anything to me.
Being INFORMED is always a good thing. Unless you're about to be executed in horrific ways. Maybe you wouldn't want the grisly details then.
Giving students false or limited or no information is what leads them to make bad decisions.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know in recent times there has actually been a married couple (maybe more than one!) who didn't know what sex was and wondered why they weren't conceiving.
I've always been pretty sure that was an urban legend. Got proof?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
