6
   

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL AMERICANS

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:20 am

In one local election, I drove my parents to the polls, about 35 years ago.
The conservative candidate, for whom we had all agreed to vote, won by 2 votes.





David
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 04:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:03 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

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.
A right is a legal option (NOT A DUTY) to engage in designated conduct.
Rights can be exercised freely, or be waived.





David
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:06 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Rights can be exercised freely, or be waived.
Incorrect. I can not waive any right. It is guaranteed to me. I can not become a slave. I can not sign away any right given by a higher authority such as the US Constitution or Westminister System Guarantee.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:17 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Rights can be exercised freely, or be waived.
Incorrect. I can not waive any right. It is guaranteed to me. I can not become a slave.
I can not sign away any right given by a higher authority such as the US Constitution or Westminister System Guarantee.
I cannot accept your reasoning. It is false.
I have the legal right to vote in schoolboard elections; I have always waived that right, for decades on end.
I have the right to wear green underwear; similarly, I have waived that right.
There is a difference between a right and a duty.

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.





David
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:24 am
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?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
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.
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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:32 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
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.
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.
As a practical matter, the contract of sale into slavery
will continue in effect, until or unless either party thereto
seeks judicial enforcement thereof, which the judiciary will refuse.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Such a situation is not contractual and violates several criminal laws. At no stage can it be a contract. Legally, it doesnt even exist. Freedom is a right that can not be waived. In your other examples, you have not waived any right. It is still there. Maybe today you will vote, maybe tomorrow you wont. That is seperate from the right. Rights can not be waived.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:56 am
as i understand jewish bloodlines, the child is jewish, wouldn't the child burst into flames if it entered a catholic church

as for the topic, i say freedom from religion or freedom of all religions, either no church or every church ( a different one every month, let the kid decide when it's old enough)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:17 am
@djjd62,
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.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:33 am
@Ionus,
i know all that, but what about the bursting into flames

what about the flames

for the love of <insert deity of your choice>, won't somebody think of the children
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:46 am
@djjd62,
The phrase that is usually used on these occassions is "Oh the humanity.."
Bursting into flames only occurs in Catholic Churches if Jews come in contact with Holy Water. I thought everyone knew THAT !
Quote:
for the love of <BAAL>, won't somebody think of the children
???????What children ????
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 07:10 am
If David had filled in the full story, it would be easier to form a reasonable opinion. I am guessing, ater further thought, that prior to the divorce, the husband had been content to allow the child to live by the mother's faith. The court may have decided not to disrupt and confuse the child by allowing the father to switch now that the parents are not together.

As for the bullshit dragging evolution into it, it is possible to accept evolution and religion at the same time. Which has zero to do with the topic as originally introduced.
George
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:04 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
If David had filled in the full story, it would be easier to form a reasonable opinion. . .

And what would be the fun of THAT?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 01:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
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.


And as a lawyer, that's all you needed?!
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:23 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
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.
What I was hinting at was the father may have already agreed to raise the child Jewish. If he had of allowed the child to be circumcised and not baptised, then the judge may have considered the child already Jewish.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:17 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

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:
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.
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.

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.



Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:27 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

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?


I certainly don't know, and neither do you.

You have inferred that the father wants to take his child to a Catholic church to somehow combat the mother's faith, or to deprive her of exposing the child to it.

Why is it not equally likely that the effort being made is not to protect the rights of the mother, but to deprive the father of his rights?

Clearly, if the Court wants to keep one parent's faith from influencing the child above the other's faith, it doesn't make much sense for it to prohibit one parent from taking the child to his or her place of worship.

With this ruling, the Court has assured that the child will be much more exposed to the mother's faith than to the father's.

Given your bias against Christianity, it's not difficult to understand
how you arrived at your inferrence.

BTW - it's not wisdom, just logic - you should try it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I was a little vague about my viewpoint for the reason that I was sounding the depth of the argument.

Children look at the world, particularly their parents, and they want to be like them. Exposure to the world, sex for example, is damaging. They need protection and exposure, but both in a timely manner, moving from protection to exposure. The really damaged people I have met have been exposed to too much too soon. I have met far fewer people damaged from being protected.

Religious parents do not want to expose their children to evolutionary theory or differing religions, and non-religious parents do not want their children exposed to religion (as a general rule). When it comes to a child's right to religion, they are far more inclined to follow their parents, at least in the short term. As the degree of influence that can be exerted by a parent over a child amounts to brainwashing, particularly where the intelligence of all parties is not high, a child only has rights in theory. In practice, it has none so the topic decision by a law court is just one more example of children lacking human rights.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 02:51:10