Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] Father arrested over objections to curriculum in son's Kindergarten class

Expand Messages
  • Adam J Bernay
    Thank you, Derrick, that was precisely my point. As for the ages.. 5 and 6 year olds, not 6 and 7 year olds. This was a kindergarten class. Adam Yes, I do
    Message 1 of 44 , May 1, 2005

      Thank you, Derrick, that was precisely my point.


      As for the ages.. 5 and 6 year olds, not 6 and 7 year olds.  This was a kindergarten class.





      "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 Derrick L. Hassert
      Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 2:29 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Father arrested over objections to curriculum in son's Kindergarten class


      The issue is whether the parent should have the right to remove the child (isn't this a class for 6 and 7 year olds?) from a discussion of this sort.  I believe the parent has that right, and that the state cannot (or should not) block the parent from doing so.  From my reading of the story (someone please correct me if I'm off on this) he was arrested for attempting to have his child excused from these discussion after he'd reviewed the text used for the class.  I think the focus in this forum should be addressing whether the father had the right to remove his child from a discussion he (the parent) found morally objectionable. 



      Jason Burkins <jason@...> wrote:



      Acknowledging that there are non-traditional families in a state with legalized gay marriage in a classroom is not "imposing" upon anyone, its stating fact. If that fact bothers you, well tough luck. Hitler killing Jews bothers me, but I do not protest the schools for teaching that it existed. 

      From what I understand the material used in this classroom did not endorse nor did it condemn the existence of non-traditional families, it simply states that they exist. To do anything else is to deny children the facts and becomes censorship truly unbecoming of any libertarian minded individual. 


      Now to address your wildly flailing accusations about gay people: first of all, chronic diseases? Bill, with all respect, get your head out of your rump. This thinly veiled reference to AIDS is about 15 years out of date. Its time for new material my friend. The diseases you reference are far, far, far from gay specific these days. Oh and Bill, not all gay people have chronic diseases, sorry to break it to ya. 


      In terms of the whole gay marriage argument you speak to, I invite you to read my commentary piece on the issue at http://jason.burkins.net/marriage.html. There is a solution available to us that keeps church and state separate. I should hope you, as a libertarian thinking person, would agree with this approach. 


      Frankly, most of what you said goes in the looney notion file otherwise known as my e-mail trash bin, but I took the bait and responded anyway. 


      More and more I find too many RLC'ers letting their religious beliefs on certain issues get in the way of the way of their otherwise libertarian philosophies. These are not easy issues, especially when made complicated by religious traditions and long held convictions. That doesn't excuse anyone however for bigotry and ignorance. 




      On May 1, 2005, at 4:30 PM, bill Jambura wrote:

      My first problem with gays is that they demand that their lifestyle be
      endorsed by those oppose sodomy.  Moreover, I think the gays 'live and
      let live' argument is phony.  Instead, it's a roundabout spat over money,
      i.e. taxpayer subsidies for government bureaucrats that have 'life
      partners' with chronic diseases that are disproportionately concentrated
      among the gays.

      If they choose to live a risky lifestyle, then they should pay for it.
      In a Republican sense, before the death of republicanism, we used to
      banner "personal freedom AND individual responsibility".  But those days
      are gone, and now the fight is over who gets a free ride and who pays the
      toll.  What clouds the issue is the 'moral certainty' of countervailing
      special interests.

      On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:30:09 +0000 "michael franks"
      <michaelafranks@...> writes:
      > As usual,    the "pro-sin" guys of the RLC think anyone is a bigot
      > who
      > thinks homosexuality is wrong or those who are a Christian.
      > The founders were revolutionaries and is why we are all here now.  
      > So is
      > the concept of revolution now wrong?
      > and why the need for the "F" word on here?
      > Makes me glad to be here in Texas and not in California .
      > I for one would be for the Texas RLC leaving the National RLC to
      > distance
      > ourselves from being considered a "pro sin" organization.  We would
      > be
      > CRUCIFIED here if the personal views of some of the National RLC
      > guys ever
      > came out as being attached to us as an organization.
      > Michael
      > >
      > >This is getting ridiculous.  The guy was arrested for trespassing. 
      > He
      > >admitted to trespassing, he even refused to pay his bail so that he
      > could
      > >spend the night in prison to try and get more press attention. 
      > This is no
      > >different from the people that chain themselves across a street to
      > stop
      > >traffic while protesting pollution from SUVs.  He may have had a
      > valid
      > >point
      > >about not wanting his kids to be taught things that his bigoted
      > little mind
      > >finds objectionable, but he doesn't have a right to refuse to leave
      > the
      > >school after he has been told to leave.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Let's also look at the news sources. Adam is offering us a press
      > release
      > >from a group called "Article 8 Alliance", a Waltham , MA single
      > issue anti
      > >gay group.  No legitimate news articles have been offered, instead
      > he
      > >expects everyone to accept the ideology of the press release and
      > pick up
      > >the
      > >pitchforks like the photo on the Article 8 website of a guy with a
      > sign
      > >that
      > >states "Time for the 2nd Revolution".
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >And by the way, the jackass that got himself arrested IS A MEMBER
      > OF THE
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >People, read the Article 8 Alliance website for a change.  This is
      > not a
      > >group that we want to be associating ourselves with in any way.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Now, on to the real news of this story.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >The Nashua Telegraph
      > >
      > >429002/-1/news
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Boston.Com
      > >
      > >nt_to_make/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > --------------------~-->
      > Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
      > Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/PdSolB/TM
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


      > Yahoo! Groups Links


      Yahoo! Groups Links




      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    • Adam J Bernay
      From: bill Jambura Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:40 PM ... No, they are not. They are a method of collecting taxes, various kinds of taxes. You can have a
      Message 44 of 44 , May 3, 2005
        From: bill Jambura
        Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:40 PM

        >> Why? 

        > Because payroll taxes are a flat tax on income

        No, they are not. They are a method of collecting taxes, various kinds of
        taxes. You can have a flat tax without a payroll tax.
        >> As I said, a part of this would be eliminating al
        >> deductions and whatnot.
        > But if you eliminate all the deductions, you've solved
        > the problem.

        Thank you for admitting that.

        > But as a practical matter, eliminating deductions and
        > loopholes will never happen.  As long as there is any
        > income tax code, buying politicians is the best investment
        > any crony can make. 

        It will never happen as long as skeptics say it won't.
        > Except for a short-lived reprieve from a complex tax
        > form (which will never happen), all your flat tax does
        > is provide a tax cut for the rich by eliminating the
        > progressive scale. 

        Actually, no, because if we go with the proposal I make, they will pay MORE
        because they won't have their tax shelters, etc.

        >> The government knows how much you make (and that's all)
        >> with a flat tax...
        > Not only does the government know how much you make, they
        > can demand, whenever they want, that you produce your
        > receipts to account for your deductions. 

        What part of "no deductions" don't you understand?

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.