California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[danberkeley]

I've made the last three posts on this thread! I think I won the argument! YEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!! :-D

 

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Only if they are out to win friends. Hate speech shouldn't be a crime. Offfending somebody is not the same as punching them.

If your feelings are hurt by things people are saying, then your convictions aren't really very strong.

Actually words can potentially do much more damage to someone than a punch could. I am not saying that certain words should be outlawed, just that there is more consequence and scenarios than merely " hurt feelings. "

 

[jmdrake]

I'm telling you guys, joke account, which is grounds for banning on some of the more lenient forums I frequent (way more lenient than this one.) Not that I want Tdcci ban't, he/she is quite hilarious.

You're probably right.

 

[Deborah K]

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

It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.

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!

You seem to be completely confused about our founding fathers and their documents. Try reading some history. It isn't I who is trying to interpret their words to fit my agenda. LOL! That's funny! You are the one who is in denial about the founders, who were primarily religious.

The fact that you can so easily dismiss our founding documents as outdated symbols would be terrifying if you were to be taken seriously. Your goals are not in line with the founders goals, clearly. Reinterpretation of the founding documents is nothing short of revising history. Just wondering, have you ever read George Orwell's book 1984? You should read it, you remind me of Big Brother.

 

[Deborah K]

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.

This remark is also misguided. It assumes that government gives us our rights and when the founders of this country broke allegience to G.B. - which is what the DOI is- they DECLARED that only God the Creator gives us our rights. Look up the word unalienable:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.


BTW, the founders refered to Black's Law Dictionary more than any other source.

It is dangerous to assume that our rights are given to us by the government. If they can give them to us, they can take them away. Our founders understood this and fought against it. Your nonchalant attitude about our founding documents sends chills up my spine.

 

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

This remark is also misguided. It assumes that government gives us our rights and when the founders of this country broke allegience to G.B. - which is what the DOI is- they DECLARED that only God the Creator gives us our rights. Look up the word unalienable:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.


BTW, the founders refered to Black's Law Dictionary more than any other source.

It is dangerous to assume that our rights are given to us by the government. If they can give them to us, they can take them away. Our founders understood this and fought against it. Your nonchalant attitude about our founding documents sends chills up my spine.

nicely stated

 

[danberkeley]

You seem to be completely confused about our founding fathers and their documents. Try reading some history. It isn't I who is trying to interpret their words to fit my agenda. LOL! That's funny! You are the one who is in denial about the founders, who were primarily religious.

The fact that you can so easily dismiss our founding documents as outdated symbols would be terrifying if you were to be taken seriously. Your goals are not in line with the founders goals, clearly. Reinterpretation of the founding documents is nothing short of revising history. Just wondering, have you ever read George Orwell's book 1984? You should read it, you remind me of Big Brother.

lol. of course, Tdcci's entire premise is that the Constitution is open to interpretation.

 

[Deborah K]

lol. of course, Tdcci's entire premise is that the Constitution is open to interpretation.

That's a problem with many atheists. If the Constitution is open to interpretation according to the fleeting agendas of each generation, then it is inevitable that it will be MISinterpreted and thus bastardized.

The founding documents are the solid foundation that was layed for this new nation. They are the supreme law of the land. Undermining the foundation of our nation will be its undoing.

Tdcci, it is, shall I say, at the very least, rather naive of you to proclaim that our founding documents are nothing more than relics. What is so unnerving about your remarks though, is that you are not alone in your thinking. I've debated many atheists who attempt to dismiss the fact that this country was founded on judeo-christian principles - and if you think it isn't - I'd be happy to start another thread and school you on it.

 

[JGalt]

holy crap... I feel like I'm reading an ayn rand book or something.

Welcome to the machine.

 

[clouds]

haha. i was especially referring to their grey talk

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is so sad that political idealogies that have a rational position on religion are so few and far between, that whenever I reveal myself to be an atheist I am accused of being a communist

My question had nothing to do with you being an atheist and everything to do with your wanting big government to enforce an edict that individuals are no longer free to practice the religion of their choice. That is not liberty that you're describing, Tdcci.

 

[jmdrake]

Tdcci, it is, shall I say, at the very least, rather naive of you to proclaim that our founding documents are nothing more than relics.

I've got it! The DOI and constitution are really part of a treasure map!

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

C'mon guys do the homework.

This is naziism.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

(Start around page 40 I think)...
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT...rce=web&ots=4fJ9PZIJDo&sig=HpsghtQg5GsLjS0k1n RLYILPsmg&hl=en#PPP1,M1

 

[danberkeley]

C'mon guys do the homework.

This is naziism.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

(Start around page 40 I think)...
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT...rce=web&ots=4fJ9PZIJDo&sig=HpsghtQg5GsLjS0k1n RLYILPsmg&hl=en#PPP1,M1

yeah. we know.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Do you not smell the blood in the ground from the last time these ideals were allowed to take root? 10 million innocent souls killed in death camps, another 55 million in war.

What are you going to do about it?

 

[Mayflower]

According to UK papers families are fleeing Germany and going to the UK. Germany is using a 1938 law that does not allow home schooling. If the parents persist the State will take them.
We have a bunch of deranged commies running California. The first article on wnd.com today is "Next on school agenda-Communism. California again!!!!

 

[Tdcci]

That's a problem with many atheists. If the Constitution is open to interpretation according to the fleeting agendas of each generation, then it is inevitable that it will be MISinterpreted and thus bastardized.

That's the problem with Christians, they generalize groups of people on what they see from an individual. In this case, it's what you WANT to see in me. You didn't ask me that DOI question because you wanted an answer. You wanted a quote so you could a strawman, the "loose interpretation"/"constitution means nothing" strawman. Worst thing of all, you are using it to promote your barbaric backwards religion.

The United States of America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian principles". Sure, you can argue that just war, kindness, etc are demonstrated in the Bible, but rape, murder, and child abuse are also taught from the Bible.

 

[Deborah K]

That's the problem with Christians, they generalize groups of people on what they see from an individual. In this case, it's what you WANT to see in me. You didn't ask me that DOI question because you wanted an answer. You wanted a quote so you could a strawman, the "loose interpretation"/"constitution means nothing" strawman. Worst thing of all, you are using it to promote your barbaric backwards religion.

All one need do is read your posts to see that you accuse others of things you do yourself. I said "many Atheists" and you say, "that's the problem with Christians" implying ALL Christians. You talk about "generalizing and grouping" and that's exactly what you do with regard to Christianity and the religious in general. Hipocrisy at its finest.

Then you wrongly assume that I am promoting [my ]barbaric backwards religion." I don't practice any particular religion.

I don't need a strawman, your own words prove you think the founding documents are useless:

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

The United States of America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian principles". Sure, you can argue that just war, kindness, etc are demonstrated in the Bible, but rape, murder, and child abuse are also taught from the Bible

You need a history lesson:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770