California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[danberkeley]

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?

Dude (or dudette), this is what some have already stated about Tdcci:

non sequiturs abound with you

 

[Tdcci]

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.

I'm not surprised that you choose to ignore facts inconvenient to you, it is a natural defense mechanism stimulated by religion. It is the only way you can keep your faith.

 

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
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It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.

The constitution is an outdated symbol? Are you channeling George W. Bush now? I have to ask once again why on earth are you supporting Ron Paul?

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[kyleAF]

nm

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not surprised that you choose to ignore facts inconvenient to you, it is a natural defense mechanism stimulated by religion. It is the only way you can keep your faith.

Ignoring the facts? You've got it backwards toots. I'm quoting the facts and you're ignoring them. Once again the "facts" kill your own argument. If "creator" equals "parents" and "parents" are the ones "endowing rights" then "parents" have the "right" to homeschool. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

The constitution is an outdated symbol? Are you channeling George W. Bush now? I have to ask once again why on earth are you supporting Ron Paul?

Oh please. "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......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Tdcci]

Ignoring the facts? You've got it backwards toots. I'm quoting the facts and you're ignoring them. Once again the "facts" kill your own argument. If "creator" equals "parents" and "parents" are the ones "endowing rights" then "parents" have the "right" to homeschool. Point ... set ... match.

I did not say that parents are the ones endowing rights, I said that's how I would interpret that sentence as an atheist. I have a different philosophy in regard to rights (explained in a previous post) which differs from the people that wrote the document. Your argument would only make sense if you assumed that I took everything from the document as ultimate truth, which I don't.

 

[IRO-bot]

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.
QUOTE]

OFF TOPIC!

I am not going to assume you feel this way at all, I am just using your quote at a topic point.
This is one thing that bothers me, and I want other thoughts as well. People love to us this as a right for crosses everywhere and prayers in school, and in god we trust. Regardless of whether the found meant freddom of religion i.e. (only christian sects, or for all) to me it doesn't work well. If you have a cross you need all other religious symbols otherwise it isn't freedom. Which is why it should be struck from all forms of the public activity. Thoughts anyone?

 

[jmdrake]

Oh please. "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......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

I know that. But you replied directly to this statement.

Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
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?

Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

Try taking my kid... even "respectfully".

I am an atheist, have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything.

But try taking my kid, and I will personally return the favor..."respectfully", of course.

(this is once / if I ever have kids...but I can certainly empathize)

If you "have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything. " you are certainly more than qualified to homeschool your child.

 

[danberkeley]

Here is another one of my posts that Tdcci has ignored:

You responded to my response but you attributed the quote to the wrong person. Anyway, all the great colleges of this country have been privately founded and mostly by CHURCHES. Examples: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Datmouth, Princeton, CalTech, MIT, Notre Dame, BYU, et cetera. Even the great public colleges, such as University of California, Berkeley, were privately founded.

I also forgot to mention Stanford University. Anyway, now it's free to attend Stanford if your parents make less than 100K a year.

 

[angelatc]

Oh please. "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......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Which, not surprisingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked.

Do you not believe that the Consitution is the basis for the laws and government structure in the United States?

 

[Tdcci]

I know that. But you replied directly to this statement. "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?"

Point ... set ... match.

I didn't mean the Constitution specifically, the phrase was "such as the Constitution" which could mean any old document or statement from generations before us.

 

[Tdcci]

Which, not surprisingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked.

It does, that's where the Creator stuff came from.

Do you not believe that the Consitution is the basis for the laws and government structure in the United States?

Yes

 

[angelatc]

If you "have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything. " you are certainly more than qualified to homeschool your child.

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

 

[Tdcci]

Here is another one of my posts that Tdcci has ignored:

I also forgot to mention Stanford University. Anyway, now it's free to attend Stanford if your parents make than 100K a year.

Some of the nicest colleges were funded by churches in their infancy. What is there to discuss?

 

[IRO-bot]

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

+1

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't mean the Constitution specifically, the phrase was "such as the Constitution" which could mean any old document or statement from generations before us.

The point that was being made is that documents have to be interpreted as written. If someone can "reinterpret the DOI" willy nilly then someone can "reinterpret the constitution" on a whim too. If you want to ignore the DOI that's one thing. But quibbling over what "creator" means is just silly.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

In reality, most Christians would not qualify. The article that this thread is about describes homophobic Christians homeschooling their children so they can get away with abuse (their official court excuse was they didn't want their children exposed to "alternative lifestyles" but it was shot down, justice!)

 

[Tdcci]

The point that was being made is that documents have to be interpreted as written. If someone can "reinterpret the DOI" willy nilly then someone can "reinterpret the constitution" on a whim too. If you want to ignore the DOI that's one thing. But quibbling over what "creator" means is just silly.

It's not as easy as that, for example, the fourth amendment guards citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure", who gets to decide what's reasonable or not? That's for interpretation.