California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[angelatc]

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

I know it's hard, but try to keep up. There was a segue in there:

Originally Posted by Deborah K :
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.

Yes

And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

 

[danberkeley]

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

Apparently you have ADD. Anyway, I was responding to you post where you stated that we needed government funding of schools so that we could invest in
science, etc. So why is that most, if not all, of the greatest scientific research colleges have been privately founded and endowed?

 

[Tdcci]

And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

I'll leave that to the courts.

 

[jmdrake]

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

And that's the problem with public schools today. It doesn't matter if kids learn algebra or history or even how to read. As long as they've been taught to be "tolerant" then they're allowed to be ignorant. While I don't think the state should be trying to "qualify" home school teachers at all, certainly I would hope the qualifications would be based on actual material and not feel good politically correct BS. "Johnny can't read, write or compute, but by golly he can quote why PETA says it's wrong to wear fur. And he's been taught to be tolerant of NABLA and incest and everything else that the mentally ill have a problem with."

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

I know it's hard, but try to keep up. There was a segue in there:


And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

Currently it does. But Tdcci wants to strip that part OUT of the constitution.

 

[Tdcci]

Apparently you have ADD. Anyway, I was responding to you post where you stated that we needed government funding of schools for that we could invest in
science, etc. So why is that most, if not all, of the greatest scientific research colleges have been privately founded and endowed?

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is government money would help universities stay independent and objective in their research among other benefits.

 

[angelatc]

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.

No, rights aren't won on the battlefield. They do not come from government.

We are born with them.

We're bordering on philosophy now. I'm going to offend you now, so close your eyes.

I warned you! Last chance!

I mean it!!

You're not doing well at logic, so I seriously don't see how you're going to handle philosophy.

 

[angelatc]

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is government money would help universities stay independent and objective in their research among other benefits.

Why on earth would you think that government money is clean money?

 

[Tdcci]

Eyes Closed

 

[Tdcci]

Why on earth would you think that government money is clean money?

That doesn't sound good, does it? Hm... let's call it public money.

 

[angelatc]

Currently it does. But Tdcci wants to strip that part OUT of the constitution.

She has a right to do that. Our Founders gave us that option. I won't vote for it, but I support the right for it to appear on the floor.

 

[pinkmandy]

Freedom of religion is good if you mean freedom from being forced to belong the state religion but freedom to practice your own religion is something I disagree with.

Do you mind if I put this one in my siggy? Totally priceless quote from such a devout "freedom lover". For others, there are all kinds of Tdcci jewels in this thread.

 

[Tdcci]

Do you mind if I put this one in my siggy? Totally priceless quote from such a devout "freedom lover". For others, there are all kinds of Tdcci jewels in this thread.

I don't mind.

 

[angelatc]

That doesn't sound good, does it? Hm... let's call it public money.

Well, no, public money implies it was donated. Let's call it tax money.

Why do you think that tax money is clean? Government money comes with more strings attached than any other funding source!

Sheesh! Stem cell research, AIDs research - these are the kinds of political hot potatoes that beg the free market to take over!

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Actually it is that simple. Some things are obvious. Some things clearly require interpretation. It's obvious that nobody thought parents endowed anyone with inalienable rights and that the "creator" these people were talking about (most of whom believed in God in some form or fashion) was God. Now the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is clearly up to interpretation. Going back to your example the question of whether or not someone rummaging through your house constitutes a "search" isn't up to interpretation. But what clarifies this even further is the entire amendment which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Key phrase here is "probable cause" and NOT "reasonable". Stephen Hadley, former director of the NSA and current CIA director, tried to argue a reporter down and claim that "probable cause" was not in the fourth amendment and that only "reasonable" mattered.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/23/18342/1340

These things are clear, except for when the powers that be don't WANT them to be clear.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

Why do you think that tax money is clean? Government money comes with more strings attached than any other funding source!

That's a good thing, just like how government funding for the corporation for public broadcasting ensures minimal bias in public broadcasting.

 

[jmdrake]

She has a right to do that. Our Founders gave us that option. I won't vote for it, but I support the right for it to appear on the floor.

Well I would try to kill it before it left committee. The founding fathers gave that right too.

 

[danberkeley]

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is
government money would help universities stay independent and objective in
their research among other benefits.

You are absolutely correct. However, public funding of college increases the cost
of attending the college. Not only that, all the colleges I've mentioned, with
the exception of the University of California, Berkekely, have remained
independant and objective in their research WITHOUT government funding.

As for the University of California, Berkeley, that school is now publicly funded. UC
Berkeley has had to rasie it's tuition fees and cut of spending because of terrible
central planning by the State of California. Meanwhile, the privately endowed
Stanford University receives so much from private endowments that it now does
not charge tuituion to students who's parents make less than $100K.

 

[angelatc]

I'll leave that to the courts.

It's been ruled on lots of times...

 

[Tdcci]

It's been ruled on lots of times...

That doesn't make it right. The courts have also ruled forcing Japanese Americans into camps was constitutional.