California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[danberkeley]

You said nothing to refute my explanation, that the shootings happen at public schools, public transportation areas, and other high traffic places because you get to maximize the death toll- you just cited some famous assassinations that were carried out for obviously different reasons

In case you missed the assertion in my post. Stadiums are prime locations for
massacres. Why havent there been any massacres at private sporting events?

Why is it that most of the most "beloved" presidents, JFK, was murdered on a
government street while being protected by government police and the guy who
murdered him was stationed at a government book depository? Not only that but
the guy who murdered JFK was murdered at a governmetn police station.

 

[angelatc]

Then we need to strike out "Creator" in favor of a lowercase "creator".

Why??? Why do "we" need to do that?

Please tell me.

 

[Tdcci]

Why??? Why do "we" need to do that?

Please tell me.

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means

 

[angelatc]

Autism isn't a mental illness. It's a mental disability. If a dictator took someone who was autistic away from his parents and put him in a mental institution then no, that would not be a "healthy dictatorship". Actually there's no such thing as a healthy dictatorship but anyway.



So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.

Regards,

John M. Drake

What if the dictator sent the people to ovens, because they would never be able to attend the schools that will turn them into happy, productive workers? Wouldn't that be healthy?

 

[Tdcci]

Why is it that most of the most "beloved" presidents, JFK, was murdered on a
government street while being protected by government police and the guy who
murdered him was stationed at a government book depository? Not only that but
the guy who murdered JFK was murdered at a governmetn police station.

Because he was statistically more likely to be hit on a public street, rather than a private street.

 

[jmdrake]

So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.

What's the point, then? If he isn't willing to stand up for his beliefs in the form of government policy, he's not worth working for.

He is standing up for his beliefs. One of his beliefs is that freedom comes above his personal views about God. But using your own logic you have no business campaigning for Dr. Paul. After all if people should "stand up for their beliefs" by imposing them on others then Dr. Paul should support theocracy, but he doesn't. Once again he believes in freedom. Why is freedom such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[angelatc]

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means

So, you think they capitalized it unintentionally, then?

 

[Tdcci]

What if the dictator sent the people to ovens, because they would never be able to attend the schools that will turn them into happy, productive workers? Wouldn't that be healthy?

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

 

[Tdcci]

Once again he believes in freedom. Why is freedom such a hard concept for you to grasp?

I rather like freedom, there is just one freedom I don't think is necessary for society, and could actually hurt it.

 

[angelatc]

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

Does it matter?

 

[Tdcci]

So, you think they capitalized it unintentionally, then?

I don't know what they thought, they could have capitalized it for emphasis.

 

[jmdrake]

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means

It meant what the people who wrote it meant when they wrote it.

But even if you go with the mentally retarded position that "creator" means "parent" in this context then it still destroys your whole reasoning for this entire thread. If parents are the supreme guarantor of "rights" then parents clearly have a right to home school regardless of what the state says. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

It meant what the people who wrote it meant when they wrote it.

But even if you go with the mentally retarded position that "creator" means "parent" in this context then it still destroys your whole reasoning for this entire thread. If parents are the supreme guarantor of "rights" then parents clearly have a right to home school regardless of what the state says. Point ... set ... match.

Your first paragraph contradicts the second. This is a clarification as to what the founders felt, certainly not what I feel. If the founders believed that parents had the fundamental right to homeschool, regardless of their qualifications, I respectfully disagree.

 

[angelatc]

I don't know what they thought, they could have capitalized it for emphasis.

Which means you're implying that they were grammatically challenged.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

So, if it does mean "that they are endowed by their PARENTS with certain unalienable Rights......"

what rights would you allow parents to give their children, especially if the parents don't have any rights?

 

[Deborah K]

Are you stating that throughout the Declaration of Independence the use of the term Creator is now being reinterpreted from its original meaning by atheists? Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.

Having stated that, I am in no way in favor of condemning atheists or homosexuals, etc. I am for individual rights, not group rights, which have been traditionally rooted in the self-serving victim mentality. Your vitriol regarding Christianity is indicative of this kind of thinking. It is exactly the thing you protest against that you are practicing yourself. It clouds every other point you attempt to make.

?????

 

[angelatc]

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

Still waiting to see if you're going to make the case for euthanizing the sick. That's a socialist plank too.

 

[jmdrake]

Your first paragraph contradicts the second.

No it doesn't. Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. In the first paragraph I make the point that the founders intent was clearly about the Creator in heaven as opposed to parents. But in the second paragraph I add that even if I CONCEDE your point with regards to what "creator" means in this context, that it undercuts your argument even further. So either way, you lose.

This is a clarification as to what the founders felt, certainly not what I feel. If the founders believed that parents had the fundamental right to homeschool, regardless of their qualifications, I respectfully disagree.

Again you're missing the point. If we use YOUR logic about the definition of "creator" in the quote that was given as being "parents" then that sets up parents as being the supreme guarantors of rights! Again, key word here. "IF". No matter how you slice this argument, you lose.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

Are you stating that throughout the Declaration of Independence the use of the term Creator is now being reinterpreted from its original meaning by atheists?

It can be if necessary- if Christians are using it as a Christian authority to oppress atheists. It's not a high priority, really.

Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.

You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.

No. It has not "been proven over and over again", just because they use the word Creator. Creator does not mean the popular god of our time, it could mean any god from any religion to nature, or whatever the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it! Don't try to interpret their words to fit your agenda!

 

[jmdrake]

Which means you're implying that they were grammatically challenged.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

So, if it does mean "that they are endowed by their PARENTS with certain unalienable Rights......"

what rights would you allow parents to give their children, especially if the parents don't have any rights?

Ding ding ding! Someone besides me gets the obvious contradiction in Tdcci's logic. (If it can in fact be called logic.) If the parents are the supreme entity "endowing" all of the rights then Tdcci has no "right" to complain about parents homeschooling. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

If we use YOUR logic about the definition of "creator" in the quote that was given as being "parents" then that sets up parents as being the supreme guarantors of rights!

Regardless of what this "Creator" is, they are certainly not the guarantor of rights, rights are won on the battlefield and sometimes given as a gift to the next generation. My logic does not set up parents as being the supreme guarantors as rights to be clear, Deborah K asked what the sentence meant to an atheist, and I answered. It is largely a symbolic, not an authoritative document.