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
  • Derrick L. Hassert
    Getting down to a more libertarian foundation--why is it the role of the federal government (in the guise of the schools that are supported by federal tax
    Message 1 of 44 , May 1 4:04 PM
      Getting down to a more "libertarian" foundation--why is it the role of the federal government (in the guise of the schools that are supported by federal tax dollars) to teach courses on diversity and tolerance (and self-esteem) when they don't seem to be doing that great of a job teaching basic math, language, and science?

      Neil Galbraith <neilgalbra@...> wrote:
      It's pretty simple. A parent or legal guardian should
      have the right to take the child out of school at
      anytime for any reason.  I don't really know what
      business it is of the school to know why. 

      Maybe he just thinks, "Gee, it's a beautiful sunny
      afternoon, and my little kid will only be little for
      so  long. Why don't we go catch tad-poles at the lake,
      he'll learn more doing that..."  Maybe he belongs to a
      cult that teaches that Pi is 3.2.  Who cares!  Unless
      there is a restraining order against him by the mom,
      or he is some sort of convicted felon, I don't see a
      reason why the father can't pull the kid out of school
      for a day. 

      Does the state, under any circumstances, have more of
      a right to your child than you do?  No.  Remember, the
      curriculum of a school is not an infallible truth.  It
      is determined by a group of bureaucrats and petty
      elected officials.  It is just as possible that they
      could vote to pass a curriculum requiring all kids to
      be taught that the Holocaust did not happen.  You have
      the right to pull your kid from that school if you
      object.  The default position cannot be that "any
      school curriculum is true, and any parent who objects
      should just sit on it..."

      --- "Derrick L. Hassert" <DLHASSERT@...> wrote:

      > Here's a link to the Boston Globe article--if it
      > doesn't link properly in the post you may have to
      > cut and paste the address.

      > Derrick

      > Adam J Bernay <Republican-Liberty@...>
      > wrote:
      > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:*
      > {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:*
      > {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape
      > }
      > 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 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. 

      > Derrick   
      > Jason Burkins <jason@...> wrote:
      > Bill,

      > 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
      === message truncated ===

      "By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes to be his duty against the influences of authority and majorities, custom and opinion." -Lord Acton, History of Freedom

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

      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 10:47 PM
        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.