OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[jstoesz]

This is all an aside, but too good a topic to pass up.

[quote]But you probably give a damn that the schools in your district (if you care about them–I didn’t until I had kids attending) receive their share of federal funding for education. And if they receive that federal funding, they cannot promote one religion –or religion versus science–over another.[/quote]

I consider it very important to send my kids to a school that has a curriculum I approve of. I will be sending my kids to private school, God (or whomever you choose) willing. I would like to extend that choice to everyone. Currently, we only have one option on the menu (at least only one that is economically feasible). A watered down PC mush head education. If I want my kids to be incapable of critical thought, I will go for public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[jstoesz]

I am one of those people. Certainly a national department of education is a complete waste of resources…I think states can handle this one on there own. There is something to be said for 50 separate and distinct laboratories for working out education related problems.

[jstoesz]

I am one of those people. Certainly a national department of education is a complete waste of resources…I think states can handle this one on there own. There is something to be said for 50 separate and distinct laboratories for working out education related problems.

[jstoesz]

I am one of those people. Certainly a national department of education is a complete waste of resources…I think states can handle this one on there own. There is something to be said for 50 separate and distinct laboratories for working out education related problems.

[jstoesz]

I am one of those people. Certainly a national department of education is a complete waste of resources…I think states can handle this one on there own. There is something to be said for 50 separate and distinct laboratories for working out education related problems.

[jstoesz]

I am one of those people. Certainly a national department of education is a complete waste of resources…I think states can handle this one on there own. There is something to be said for 50 separate and distinct laboratories for working out education related problems.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[Author]

Posts