On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Cultureal differences] > Some minor points ... > I did not mean to include the charta word by word. > It would be enough to include the most vital things. > Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. The US Declaration of Independence says something very similar . . . "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." > (guaranteed minimal income) > The minimal income is so minimal that it is just enough to survive. > IMO american social/health system is total crap. Bush fixed that problem yesterday. He made a speech which pleases nearly everybody except the unscrupulous trial lawyers which force doctors and hospitals to pay for outrageous premiums for their malpractice insurance to protect themselves from the rash of frivolous lawsuits. Bush in his speech called for legislation to correct this problem. Among other measures he proposes, he is seeking a reasonable max on the awards that can be given for medical malpractice suits. > But again this is MO, and I don't care, because I'm not affected ... this is > america's problem > (eductation) > There is no "don't agree". > There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can intervene. > For me this is the best system available. > And it saves the children from misguided parents. > In America it is possible that children grow up with the thought that > black/white/purple whatever people are inferior. > In Europe the child would at least hear something different in school. The best solution for many parents is to take their children out of public schools. If the parents tell the teachers they are teaching things wrong the teachers won't change their ways, no matter how good a job the parents do at proving that the teachers are wrong. > Everything has pros and cons. > SH> The US Constitution provides for the people to own weapons to provide > SH> for their security. There is nothing in the UN human rights > SH> declaration recognizing the right of the people to own weapons. > Naturally not - THANX GOD !!!!!! > For me this is no basic human right. (and for most of the world) > Naturally if a nation is still wants such achaic things they can additionally > include it. > SH> The UN feels that they should be instructed and indoctrinated in some > SH> ideas and laws and customs and religions that their parents want to > SH> protect them from. > First ... religion is not part of education. > Everybody is entitled to additionally and freely take religious education. > And yes. > The UN and me think that there is basic knowledge that every human being should > know. > This is not indoctrination. > Indoctrination is what is done on CNN and Fox-news. > When I first saw that I thought it was a joke. > BIG american falgs blowing in the wind, taking away 25% of the screen. > For example a german family left germany, because the children were taught > that there is evolution, and that the world was not created in 6 (7) days. This is the reason why many parents take their children out of public schools in the US. I don't think that is a good reason because I believe that evolution occurs and I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. In the US parents have the right to take their children out of public schools, even if they don't have a good reason in my opinion for doing so. Some parents do have some good reasons in my opinion for taking their children out of public schools. > For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a diversity > of oppinions. This should be one of the main purposes of education in the US. In most of the private schools in the US the schools seek to protect the children from learning of any opinions and points of view that the teaching staff thinks are wrong. > SH> When the last original native speaker dies, his language dies with him > SH> because there is nobody left who can teach it, thanks to mandatory > SH> public education. > NO !!! > Exactly the opposit is true. > There are many courses for the people where they can learn their native tongue. > There are classes with 2 teachers, one speaking the native tongue, and who > supports the pupils. In a recent TV news program there was a story about a chieftain of an Indian tribe in Alaska who is 87 years old. She is the only member of the tribe who remains who can still speak the native language. She speaks English also, and she speaks it well. In an interview she said that when she was a little girl most members of the tribe could still speak the native language. She has attracted the attention of some professional linguists who recognize that only she can pass on this knowledge of the tribe's native tongue. She is cooperating very closely with them. She says that the professional linguists are much better learners than even her own tribespeople who have expressed an interest in learning their native language from her. This is surprising to her. The linguists say that there is very much about the language that they can never learn because there is so much to learn from her and she cannot devote every hour of all of her remaining years to imparting her knowledge to the linguists. She has other very important things to do, such as officiating in tribal ceremonies and in re-teaching her people to recite the ancient religious prayers and chants that many had so long since forgotten. She travels a lot because the families of her people are very scattered. This chieftain remains as the only authority on a language that used to be spoken not very long ago by a tribe of many thousands. There can never be anyone who will ever become a greater authority on the subject than she herself. > SH> The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited world > SH> languages and cultures and religions. > What is the UN. > It is an organization formed by the world governments. > So, no you couldn't be more wrong. > Because the world's governments can never form a world government. True, but the world's governments ATTEMPT to form a world government. Also they ATTEMPTED to establish a world language which they called Esperanto. What a failure that concept was! The only other history I am aware of in which people tried to do that is the story about the Tower of Babel. I am sure that most everyone on this list knows that story and they know what a miserable failure the project was. History repeated itself in the story about how the UN tried to establish Esperanto. > SH> True freedom and responsible democracy arises from respect for human > SH> life and from appreciation for human diversity and individuality. > I 100% agree. > And exactly this is the basic notion of the human rights. The basic notion is just great. The problem is that not all nations agree on what we should recognize as human rights. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
