So only the child that fights for its [ ?? ] rights will have them?
That is not true of any right, especially a child.
Rights are guaranteed by society, not by who will fight for them in some sort of death match.
Rights can be exercised freely, or be waived.
Quote:Incorrect. I can not waive any right. It is guaranteed to me. I can not become a slave.Rights can be exercised freely, or be waived.
I can not sign away any right given by a higher authority such as the US Constitution or Westminister System Guarantee.
U can sell yourself into slavery if u can find a buyer who agrees with u qua the price, tho the judiciary will not enforce the contract of sale. As long as the parties thereto continue in agreement, that state-of-affairs will endure.
Quote:Incorrect. You can not sell yourself into slavery. The state-of-affairs as you call it can not exist. If a person wishes to pretend that they are a slave then fine, they can pretend. But at no time are they a slave because they have certain inalienable rights. These can never be waived by anything, let alone lesser laws such as contract. It is not a question of a court upholding or not such a contract because it has no legal existence.U can sell yourself into slavery if u can find a buyer who agrees with u qua the price, tho the judiciary will not enforce the contract of sale. As long as the parties thereto continue in agreement, that state-of-affairs will endure.
for the love of <BAAL>, won't somebody think of the children
If David had filled in the full story, it would be easier to form a reasonable opinion. . .
All that I heard was that the father was judicially enjoined
from taking his child into a Catholic Church.
The mother remained free to take child to Jewish worship.
In Jewish Law the child is automatically the religion of the mother. This is not true of Catholic Church Law when you must be baptised to be Catholic.
It seems you are saying the child's rights exist only in theory and who cares ?
Not at all.
Children have certain rights which the State should protect, but being exposed to all lines of thought during their formative years is not one of them.
You seem to be suggesting that children have or should have a legally protected right to be equally exposed to differing viewpoints. If that were actually the case, 99% of children would have to become wards of the State.
I don't know if you have children, but I suspect you do not, and if you do I feel certain you do not see that they are equally exposed to all points of view.
All points of view mean just that, not the ones you decided are worthy of exposing to your children. By limiting your effort to insure their exposure to, say, aetheism and Christianity you are limiting their choices. Who is to say that they might not find Buddhism or Taoism more intellectually appealing that either Christianity or aetheism, and why is it appropriate to stop at two or three religions?
My point is that parents will, whether or not they admit it, limit in some way the ideas to which their children are exposed. In the great majority of cases, this is good parenting or at least well intentioned parenting.
Since it is virtually impossible to expose children to all lines of thought, for, at least, practical reasons it is necessary for someone to define (and thus limit) the lines of thought to which they should be exposed.
The choices are the parents or some representative of the State.
Since it is ultimately the responsibility of willing parents to raise their children and since they are far more likely than the State to be focused on the interests of their children, it makes perfect sense that they get to define the limits of exposure.
Quote:This is patently wrong. Children are not exposed to the world, nor do they want to or should be exposed to the world. They want to learn what is right from their parents. Conflict between parents as to what is right, is harmful.In only the most extremely isolated family structures are children prevented from testing what they have been taught by their parents against what the world at large can tell them.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
In any case, the vast majority of children are indeed exposed to the world. Certainly any child that leaves his home to attend school is "exposed to the world." In most cases the exposure increases as their personal responsibility increases, and so they are given ample opportunity to sample lines of thought not embraced or even forbidden by their parents.
The notion that children are consistently "brain-washed" by their parents is simply not supported by common experience.
Many parents would love to be able to brain-wash their children, and some actually try to, but it is the rare case; where actual abuse is employed that they are successful.
Quote:The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
Kindly leave advertisements out. They weaken your argument anyway.
"Advertisements?" For what?
This last comment of your makes little sense, and if you think there is a weakness in my arguments (regardless of how it gets there), feel free to attempt to exploit or explore it.
Oh wise mr finn - why don't they want the child in a Catholic church if it is other than to keep one faith from influencing the child above the other faith?