California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[jmdrake]

I'm for Ron Paul because of his policies that do not have to do with religion.

Ron Paul supporting the Bill of Rights as written is not a "religious" position. It's a freedom position. Your assault on personal beliefs are really an assault on freedom. Again people might have beliefs you don't like even if they aren't religious. Case in point the argument I made (which you continue to ignore) about communist persecution of homosexuality. The people enacting those persecutions didn't do so from a religious viewpoint because they had rejected religion. Ultimately everyone has a right to his or her own conscience.

 

[angelatc]

Because the wording there was very ambiguous on both sides, I made another post, which I keep pointing to where I clarified my position. When I said, "one can only dream" I meant (as you can see in my explanation) that only the religious could speak so lightly of violence and death (also a reference to Angelatc saying before that words cannot hurt, "merely offend") and I would not wish that upon anyone, that I wanted the Christians to be treated for their illness.

Ambiguous? I have never, ever been called that before. "Blunt" and "crass" I get a lot of, but never "ambiguous."

LOL!

I can tell you that if I were a Christian, my feelings would be hurt because you want to send me to an oven.

It should be illegal to say that, don't you think?

I'm pretty sure my sticks and stones remark came after your jaw-dropping revelation that you dream of seeing Christians cremated. Heck, maybe alive!

(Checked - yep - about 2 pages after, actually.)

 

[Deborah K]

Tdcci, what does this quote mean to you if you don't believe in God, religion, Christianity, etc. and prefer that no one else did:

"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......"

 

[jmdrake]

Because the wording there was very ambiguous on both sides, I made another post, which I keep pointing to where I clarified my position. When I said, "one can only dream" I meant (as you can see in my explanation) that only the religious could speak so lightly of violence and death (also a reference to Angelatc saying before that words cannot hurt, "merely offend") and I would not wish that upon anyone, that I wanted the Christians to be treated for their illness.

Sure that's what you meant. And McCain really didn't mean that he'd keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Anyway you want Christians treated for their "illness", atheists in the Soviet Union wanted Christians and gays treated for their "illness". No difference.

 

[Tdcci]

Tdcci, what does this quote mean to you if you don't believe in God, religion, Christianity, etc. and prefer that no one else did:

"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......"

Creator in that context would then mean parents, but the message as a whole would not be watered down any.

 

[jmdrake]

Atheist just means no belief in god, any dictator that does not believe in god runs an "atheist dictatorship"-- would you turn that around and say a dictator with belief would turn his country into a "theocraic dictatorship"? No, because it's ludicrous. There is no governing belief system for atheists, it is not a religion.

If a Christian dictator treats non Christians as "mentally ill" then that is a theocratic dictatorship.

If an atheist dictator treats those who believe in God as "mentally ill" then that is an atheistic dictatorship.

It has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of the dictator and everything to do with how that dictator imposes those beliefs on others. You are just as bad as the "religious extremists" you are so against.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

If an atheist dictator treats those who believe in God as "mentally ill" then that is an atheistic dictatorship.

If a healthy dictator treats those who have autism as "mentally ill" then is it a healthy dictatorship?

If someone believed that the sky was red when it was not, and they could fly, they would be admitted to a mental institution. Why should it be any different because they believe some old man is up in the sky telling them to kill people? Because religion is one of society's sacred cows; no one wants to touch it because of the taboo. I'd like to change that.

 

[ErikBlack]

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

How can that apply to single mothers? It applies the same way as it does to all non-married people who are in romantic relationships. If a single person wants to visit their significant other in a hospital they don't have any more right to do so than a gay person does. So gay people aren't special. Married people are the exception to the rule, not gay people.

 

[angelatc]

Sure that's what you meant. And McCain really didn't mean that he'd keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Anyway you want Christians treated for their "illness", atheists in the Soviet Union wanted Christians and gays treated for their "illness". No difference.

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

 

[Tdcci]

How can that apply to single mothers? It applies the same way as it does to all non-married people who are in romantic relationships. If a single person wants to visit their significant other in a hospital they don't have any more right to do so than a gay person does. So gay people aren't special. Married people are the exception to the rule, not gay people.

oh, you didn't mention the single mother's partner. They should be able to register with the state ("civil union") without going through a silly marriage ceremony

 

[angelatc]

Creator in that context would then mean parents, but the message as a whole would not be watered down any.

Only if the founding fathers were grammatically challenged. "Creator" is capitalized.

Guess again!

 

[Tdcci]

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

You're more right than you think. One is a condition you are born with that does not harm anyone else, another is a condition where you have been brainwashed into obeying a faceless authority and his crazy laws.

 

[danberkeley]

I like how Tdcci ignores my previous post... lol

 

[Tdcci]

Only if the founding fathers were grammatically challenged. "Creator" is capitalized.

Guess again!

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

 

[Tdcci]

I like how Tdcci ignores my previous post... lol

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

 

[jmdrake]

If a healthy dictator treats those who have autism as "mentally ill" then is it a healthy dictatorship?

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.

If someone believed that the sky was red when it was not, and they could fly, they would be admitted to a mental institution. Why should it be any different because they believe some old man is up in the sky telling them to kill people? Because religion is one of society's sacred cows; no one wants to touch it because of the taboo. I'd like to change that.

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

 

[angelatc]

You're more right than you think. One is a condition you are born with that does not harm anyone else, another is a condition where you have been brainwashed into obeying a faceless authority and his crazy laws.

I absolutely get it. You want to insist that the children of other people be mandated to attend state-sponsored schools so you can brainwash them to believe in your faceless authority and crazy laws that you approve of.

Vive le resistance.

 

[jmdrake]

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

LOL. Yes I'm mentally ill because I believe in freedom.

 

[Tdcci]

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.

 

[Deborah K]

Interesting thread.....

Tdcci, out of curiosity, what happened to you to make you so hostile toward Christianity? The vitriol in your posts indicates that there is emotion attached to your blanket statements about it [Christianity].

Creator in that context would mean parents.

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.