On 3/20/08, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RB W wrote:
>
> > Why is it so hard for you to understand that in the context of private
> > education and what is taught in the home people are and will remain to
> > be free to teach contrary to those very things you seem to think
> > should be state enforced correctness thinking? Why is it so difficult
> > to understand that many people have a set of ideas about what is true
> > that obviously differ from yours AND they have the right to organize
> > and form educational associations to affect those ideas?
>
> I don't have a good answer for this.  I do *not* agree with your position.
>
> Taken to the extreme, this kind of tolerance results in the
> multicultural effects in England where they are now fighting against
> things like forced marriages, genital mutilation, etc.

And as I put this out at the limits I do realize that is where the
right of the state comes into play if for no other reason than the
power of the state says it can make rules. Our American experiment (so
far) is about the minimum power of the state that is conducive to a
just, orderly and free (as in pursuit of happiness) society.

>
> You are not free to indulge in any beliefs without limit, even in
> private.

I don't follow you here in the sense that if I truly have a private
belief then by definition the state won't know about it and therefore
it shouldn't be trying to root out my beliefs just because it objects.
But I also think a belief, in and of itself and including talking
about your beliefs, shouldn't be proscribed either. The limit here I
would think is the yelling fire in a theater, or inciting to riot.
Sort of a no harm, no foul and moving air around doesn't constitute a
foul...

> We, as a society, do circumscribe certain behaviors even in
> the privacy of your home--especially when society is likely to have to
> pick up the tab later for the damage done now.
>
> I'm a firm believer that what you do to yourself or another consenting
> adult in the privacy of your own home should be very sacrosanct.

I pretty much agree here...
This is the absolute beginning of the idea of "free" which is why the
4th Amendment (...secure in their persons, houses...) was put in with
the other rights needed to be swiftly enacted. Interestingly the 3rd
Amendment is curious in that it doesn't transcend like the other
amendments do but at the time insecurity in your own home was
seriously compromised by the soldiers of the era.

>
> However, you may not beat or imprison your wife in this country
> irrespective of what your religion says.  We, as a society, decide that
> is unacceptable even if your religion says otherwise--even if she is an
> adult.  Consent is a very tricky thing in this instance.

Which is why I find it curious that a bunch of religious types who can
be identified by their propensity to turn the other cheek and their
history of getting eaten by lions instead of resisting the state are
viewed as more dangerous than another religious movement that calls
for all sorts of violent expression of their religion in the here and
now and insists that not only their adherents but even those that
would refuse to follow their ideals must conform to the idea of
physical violence as the trump card in spreading their ideas.
http://tinyurl.com/2nl34q

Maybe I could be wrong but Freedom seems to include holding and even
expressing ideas that are really offensive to others...

>
> You will note that I specifically moved away from a "But think of the
> children!" argument.  I hate those types of arguments, and there are
> situations involving adults that show the limits of sacrosanct
> individual belief vs. societal imposed norm.
>

Which is a good thing because while there are many things that need to
be done to protect kids the duty falls squarely on the shoulders of
the adults they are subject and generally the rules that need to be
applied in any given situation don't scale too well for everyone at
the same time with respect to kids.

rbw


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to