Posted on 11/18/2001 4:35:27 PM PST by victim soul
I said IF THE PARENTS WANT IT. And I would sure prefer reading from the Talmud over the Nilism that now reigns as the de facto state religion.
Values taught by religion are excellent, but they are meant to be instilled at home and church, not at a public school.
Meant to by who? By you? Don't you see that is precidely the issue we are debating on this thread? Why should those who have a whole-life view of religion be disenfranchised by those who want to lock God up in the church building?
The same way schools shouldnt be teaching your kids about things that are antithetical to your religion. You have a place where scripture is quoted to students, those are called parochial schools.
THey shouldn't? Says who? You? THat is exactly the point we are debating here. WHY should it not? Why, if that is what the vast majority of a community wants to do it that way? Because All-American Medic does not like it? THen are you not "imposing your values" on that community? Doing just what you condemn others for.
Every school should have two types of class rooms for parents to pick from. One where the teacher can act IN LOCO PARENTIS and one where they can't. Let the parents decide which teachers they want to trust. And if the parents want a certain teacher to quote scripture to their kids, then who is to tell them they can't? Not you, I hope.
It is. One might say He offered Himself up as an example.
I wonder what it would have been like for God to subject Himself to being beaten, spit upon, mocked, and finally tortured to death. All to save we who don't deserve it in the first place.
It is an example of sorts---He was willing to experience our travails, misery........name it.
They will call good evil, and vice versa.
Yes; and by your extrapolation, I was allowed to extrapolate further. :)
bump
This what I was responding to.
OK...I'm a little gunshy after the flame wars this weekend.
:-)
You know, Laurence Tribe attacks the Second using that very argument, he claims that the preamble to the second, is being ignored.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
In Tribe's argument that the Second does NOT guarantee the individual to keep arms centers around the fact that the preamble qualifies the rest, and that the "people" means the States.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I didn't explain it as well as I should have, it is a brilliant, if misguided, argument.
I found a great explanation in the Internet, the title is "The Embarrasing Second Amendment".
Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun control fanatic, but I like to read up on the other side so that I know what they are up to.
They conveniently forgot that "well regulated" two hundred odd years ago carried a connotation of being "well trained".
Then again what else would one expect from those who love 'regulations'...........they want to regulate everybody.........
........as far as I know, however, 'infringed' hasn't changed much.........
What's in a word?..........To liberals, nothing.
........or perhaps more accurately, anything.
I'll tell you, he's a Lib, but his logic is scary once you read it.
I believe that in order to defeat them, you need to know them. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Both Laurence Tribe (16) and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda, and Young (17) at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text (18) . Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy."
Sounds like another liberal trying to dictate to the rest of us what the Constitution "really" means.
I say let him and his ilk come for our Constitutionally guaranteed right. He'll learn what it really means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.