Parental obligation is key to child-rearing (Chronic goofiness alert!)

Buffalonews.com ^ | 11-26-05 | Jeffery L. Termini

[Houmatt]

I am writing in reply to the Nov. 19 letter, "Taking God out of equation has led to a moral decline." While it is much easier to place the blame on a scapegoat as vast as the media, parents need to assume some responsibility for their children. Granted, movies and television have become more explicit, however, sensitive television programming normally contains a viewer discretion clause. Also, there are parental controls that parents can use to block out inappropriate programming. The same holds true for the Internet. Sexual permissiveness, pornography and the culture of death are real-world issues, but good parent-child bonding is imperative for raising responsible, decent adults.

The writer refered to God being removed from the public domain. He is embracing the outmoded argument that individuals must subscribe to a supreme being in order to live an ethical existence. Many Atheists live decent, upright lives.

Finally, he stated that the word "freedom" means not being able to do what you want to do, but what you ought to do. Freedom is the cornerstone of American society. This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

Jeffery L. Termini

Humanist Minister, Humanist Society

Town of Tonawanda

[Houmatt]

Yes, this is a letter to the Editor.

I just love this sentence:

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

Is there any wonder the L in Termini's name quite possibly stands for Looney????

[handy old one]

If it weren't for the responsible people that keep this blog honest it would become just like the antithesis. Dummy site.

[Houmatt]

Exactly what are you getting at?

[handy old one]

People left to themselves tend to seek the lowest level. People held to a higher level tend to do more than just the minimum to get by.

[MamaTexan]

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

That's why were a nation of laws, not of men.

Men are, at the best, fallible...and at the worst, downright evil.

So many people now believe the phrase is freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion, they cannot see that denying Christianity's basic tenements is what has set government free from the straight-jacket in which it was confined.

[Houmatt]

So many people now believe the phrase is freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion,

I was not aware of this; could you please provide a citation?

This sounds downright scary.

[rockprof]

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

Members of NAMBLA think there are no moral or ethical problems with having sex with children.

Some people think it's morally and ethically right to kill others because they have a different skin color, religion, or point of view.

I always wonder how these "ethical humanists" would feel if someone raped and killed one of their children. Think that would make them acknowledge the existence of evil?

Reminds me of a constant refrain from the book of Judges - "every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

[rockprof]

This means the individual has the right to choose for himself what is morally and ethically right.

Members of NAMBLA think there are no moral or ethical problems with having sex with children.

Some people think it's morally and ethically right to kill others because they have a different skin color, religion, or point of view.

I always wonder how these "ethical humanists" would feel if someone raped and killed one of their children. Think that would make them acknowledge the existence of evil?

Reminds me of a constant refrain from the book of Judges - "every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

[Gerfang]

This is logically asinine. You leave people to decide for themselves what is moral and ethical, where you can possibly draw the line? Where are the limits? This philosophy has a nasty little word for it: Anarchy.

It’s worked pretty well here in the United States where we have a congress instead of a King.

[durh]

He's right that it is each parent's responsibility to control what their children do and don't have access to. It isn't the government's job to decide what our children are and aren't allowed to have any more than it is the government's job to decide what TV I can and can't watch. However, you certainly can't let everyone pick his or her own morals without bounds. That's why we have laws. I'm not convinced that you have to be Christian to be a good person. I'm not convinced that all Christians are good people.

[MamaTexan]

I was not aware of this; could you please provide a citation?

Honestly, I'd have to look through my bookmarks.

I remember one particular moonbat from the east coast saying it in an article about the separation of church and state.

This sounds downright scary.

It is! But by the the average American has very little Constitutional knowledge. They usually parrot what they hear from the mainstream media.

I've briefly looked for the quotation, but can't find it....but here are a couple of searches under 'freedom from religion'

Apparently, there are entire web rings and foundations devoted to the concept:

Ixquick

and

Google