- Adam, so what your saying is.... the father was invited to a meeting, told what the policy was and he refused to accept it, and so the principal said, takeMessage 1 of 40 , May 1, 2005View SourceAdam,so what your saying is.... the father was invited to a meeting, told what the policy was and he refused to accept it, and so the principal said, "take him away in chains!"Sorry but I don't buy that. We have a right to protest, we have a right to complain, but bottom line, we do not have the right to interfere with the operations of the school.The original story goes that the father refused to leave until the policy was changed. Which means he was being beligerent and his presence began interfering with the operation of the school. The principal was in his right to ask the man to leave at that point and if he refused the principal had a right to have him arrested.The rest of us, I think (not trying to speak for the group) undestood your point, but argued that we as parents have no right to interfere with the schools operation on any other issue and homosexuality should not be an excuse to do so.I was and I think the rest of the group was arguing AGAINST RLC involvement in this issue, not for the gay issue.Frank
Adam J Bernay <Republican-Liberty@...> wrote:
Yet again, the point that I was trying to make � and this was an ACTION issue that NO ONE hardly has addressed � is the callous and oppressive attitude of this school superintendent who has a father arrested for being in attendance at a PRIVATE meeting CALLED for this specific purpose and which he was INVITED to, simply because the father would not allow himself to be bullied into submission by the school district. This is the sort of behavior � petty bureaucrats acting as autocrats � that we should be shouting from the rooftops about. No matter what you may think of the issue being discussed (and I agree with your point on that, Chuck, 100%), this is the statism issue that should be addressed and I felt we should take ACTION to help this father in this false arrest situation. THAT WAS IT. People seized on it because they want to debate the homosexual thing.
"Yes, I do have questions. I get to ask them BECAUSE I'M FREE!"
-- "Bumper of My SUV," Chely Wright
From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Chuck Seberg
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] FW: [Libertarian Republicans] Father arrested over objections to curriculum in son's Kindergarten class
Libertarians LOVE homosexuals, right? What people do in their own bedrooms is fine with us. We respect them as free individuals. We treasure consenting adults.
What we don't like is the STATE pushing one life style or theory over another. We don't like it when one group or another uses the government for this purpose. (Are you listening, Religious Right?)
Public schools are STATE institutions. They're preparing the next generation of statists. Get rid of the nostalgia that keeps you from seeing this. Use public schools at your own risk.
These points have been missing from this discussion so far.
P.S. I miss the ACTION.
- ... Only because public schools as we know them didn t exist before 1900.Message 40 of 40 , May 2, 2005View Sourcemichael franks wrote:
> oh yes..im aware of the timeline.....but it goes to show their intent andOnly because public schools as we know them didn't exist before 1900.
> mindest of interpretation as to how they ran the govt. Bibles were not
> yanked out of the schools after the Constitution was written and the
> "establishment" clause came into existance, etc.