Free Republic

Five of our six children are school aged. The whole family is fundamentalist protestant, and those five children attend catholic school as the best local option from both an academic and moral standpoint. We are very pleased with the high academic quality and the adherence to Christian principles, and we NEVER have been made to feel in any way unwelcome or different due to our faith.
My strong feeling is that many of the moral problems undermining the government schools are much more closely monitored in our catholic school system, and NOT tolerated. There is NO noticeable moral relativism. The expense of the school is in our judgment money very well spent.

Life in this working class Pennsylvania mining area isn't conducive to lavish prom displays either, thank God.

The European explorer/settler came to the American continents to find groups of stone age people who in most cases could not even understand the concept of individual land ownership, and whom in most cases considered the routine use of physical force against those of other tribes to deprive them of their life and property to be perfectly legal and in fact laudable. Two completely incompatible cultures met; the stronger one triumphed.

"Again, all kinds of "straw man" arguments. How would all this change if CJ merely exercised his right to ask for quiet enjoyment of his meal without a weapon, visible or not. If he was trained in a deadly martial art?"



CJ specifically started this thread to discuss his firearm display as a tool in quieting that rowdy table. He did NOT start it to merely discuss his experience in calming young men in diners at 4:30 am. His intent in posting was CLEARLY to proclaim his belief that such a display of a deadly weapon was a legitimate way to deal with such an unpleasant situation.

" Simply being armed does not make you the aggressor. Society and those who are determined to take away your rights conspire with your natural tendency to see the worst in every situation."

He does NOT have a right to quiet while eating his breakfast. He does NOT have a right to force his idea of correct behavior upon others. If he does not like the behavior of those in his vicinity, he may choose to deal with that common situation in any one of a number of adult ways:
First of all, he could have chosen to ignore them; perhaps the problem is more HIS tolerance of others than it is THEIR behavior.
Secondly, he could have left. If I find myself in an environment that is unpleasant, I frequently realize that I cannot control everything in life, but I CAN control myself. I might well choose a more pleasant environment.
Thirdly, I could seek to politely inform them that their behavior is objectionable. This is Always A RISKY PROPOSITION. Others may feel that you are out of line, infringing on their territory, and/or the one with the problem. These other people may become confrontational at the very most, or perhaps just up the volume a bit so as to reinforce that they are not willing to have you regulate them at the very least.

The right to bear arms implies a consequent responsibility to avoid situations in which great harm can result from inappropriate use of such arms. Public display of firearms while confronting others with a request to change their objectionable behavior is DEFINITELY inappropriate.

This proncipal, and school board, needs freeping, BAD!

I have never read such malarkey in my life. Deer attacking people! Next it will be vicious jackrabbits.

I have been a hunter and outdoorsman all my adult life. The people who claim to have been attacked by deer may well benefit from drug counseling and/or psychiatric testing.

If society wants the right to sue for bad consequences, then it should expect to suffer adverse effects such as defensive medicine.

You are being legalistic. The meaning of those words would be the officials that we have as a society delegated to enforce our laws, and serve the public safety, such as police. Please do not attempt to use your disagreement with my use of the phrase as an excuse to invalidate my premises; such an attempt actually is what is deceptive and false. Those officials [police] are EXPECTED to respond to such an event, and suffer adverse penalties if they do nit. To pretend otherwise, based on some philosophical view of life in which we are free to move about as we wish [ or whatever], is immature and unreal. A missing bride to be in these circumstances will ALWAYS precipitate a search in real life. And EVERYONE, including you, know it.

Disagree.

"We'll leave this issue of reasonableness aside, for now. But the police do not have a responsibility to investigate. They cannot be held criminally liable or sued civilly for failing to do so."

We will definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. A family reports that a young woman vanishes four days before a lavish planned wedding, and the police NOT be expected to mount an investigation and search? And them risk her being found dead, and they not done enough? I can't see it in this day and age. And any reasonable adult would know such a search would be made.

"Jennifer Wilbanks did not ask anybody to look for her. She didn't leave a note, or call the police, or toss her apartment, or do anything deliberate to make it look like she had been kidnapped. How can she be held responsible for the actions of others?"

The request to be looked for is assumed, and quite rightly. "Please find the people who have kidnapped me and have me captive". The situation is akin to the rescue efforts mounted for a stranded mountain climber.

"Actually, that is not true. If the police fail to protect you, they are not liable. There is no "duty to protect" under the law."

The issue is not a "duty to protect". They had no obligation to accompany her on her run that day, in case she was abducted. But once they are informed that a person has mysteriously vanished four days before a lavish wedding, leaving behind a hank of hair, her keys, and her purse, there is a reasonable expectation that a crime may be in progress and they have a responsibility to investigate.


"I can understand people have a desire that she be punished for her action, but the law does not exist to satisfy every desire that another person gets "what's coming to him".

I can't speak for other people, but my "desire" is not to punish, but that people take responsibility for their actions. She incurred expense; why should the community pay for it? The issue of punishment revolves around her false claims of kidnapping and rape; this is another issue completely that I have not addressed in my above post.

Any reasonable adult understands that if a bride to be vanishes four days before their lavish wedding, official society and the friends/family will respond appropriately with aggressive efforts to find and save her from potential danger. This is especially true if that person vanishes without her purse and charge cards, and if she leaves behind her sheared off hair.

If this vanished person involuntarily vanished, either as a result of a medical problem impairing her consciousness, mental retardation, or as a result of foul play, there is no question that she incurs no debt or obligation of any kind to anyone involved. In the case however of a conscious planned decision to vanish [she had purchased her bus ticket days before, and was able to navigate her way to Nevada without injury], the question arises as to what debts or obligations she has thereby incurred.

There are two classes of potential debts that a person owes as a result of a planned vanishing act days before a lavish wedding. The first debt is emotional/familial. We as responsible adults realize that our acts impinge on other people who care about us. When we subject those people to days of heartache, wondering what happened and fearing the worse, we have injured them to a considerable extent. However, that debt is a private matter between the person and those she injured. A responsible adult must face those she injured, and strive to make amends. This again is a private matter, and the rest of society must recognize that our intrusion into the matter can be best classified as gossip; of course, the tabloids and entertainment magazines will pursue the issue enthusiastically, but the only interest this aspect of the case should actually have would be as an instructive matter for our children. We can in the privacy of our own homes point out to our children how this thoughtless and heartless behavior affected those people who were no doubt out of their minds with grief for days, and reinforce to our family how important it is to be kind and considerate to those who care for us; the matter should, for us, end there.

The second class of debt that is owed is more complex. An adult must recognize that official society will respond to a family reporting this disappearance, and that the "authorities" will have to respond. Should those authorities NOT respond, and she be found dead afterwards, a large variety of adverse legal/financial/employment consequences would be expected. The police response to the inappropriate disappearance incurred two classes of debt. First of all, it diverted resources away from other items potentially requiring police intervention. This issue in and of itself is not financial, but moral; she incurs an ethical obligation to at the least apologize to her community, and perhaps also to make amends by some sort of community service. However, as in the case of her debt to friends/family, the payment of this debt cannot be coerced or imposed upon her; it is a voluntary moral/ethical act of repayment and perhaps contrition. Her personal response to these obligations is a matter of integrity and character. The second debt to the community is a financial one. The dedication of resources to her search consumed financial resources. Overtime itself is expensive, as is the wear and tear on vehicles, gasoline use, etc. Personnel needed to be fed and perhaps housed. The issue therefore comes down to the fact that taxpayer money was expended in a search for a person who staged a voluntary disappearance days before a lavish wedding. Since any reasonable adult knows that a search will ensue, she is therefore responsible for that financial debt. She has caused DAMAGE to the community as a result of a voluntary irresponsible act; she, and not the community, should be obligated to financially pay for the result of her foolishness.

Any reasonable adult understands that if a bride to be vanishes four days before their lavish wedding, official society and the friends/family will respond appropriately with aggressive efforts to find and save her from potential danger. This is especially true if that person vanishes without her purse and charge cards, and if she leaves behind her sheared off hair.

If this vanished person involuntarily vanished, either as a result of a medical problem impairing her consciousness, mental retardation, or as a result of foul play, there is no question that she incurs no debt or obligation of any kind to anyone involved. In the case however of a conscious planned decision to vanish [she had purchased her bus ticket days before, and was able to navigate her way to Nevada without injury], the question arises as to what debts or obligations she has thereby incurred.

There are two classes of potential debts that a person owes as a result of a planned vanishing act days before a lavish wedding. The first debt is emotional/familial. We as responsible adults realize that our acts impinge on other people who care about us. When we subject those people to days of heartache, wondering what happened and fearing the worse, we have injured them to a considerable extent. However, that debt is a private matter between the person and those she injured. A responsible adult must face those she injured, and strive to make amends. This again is a private matter, and the rest of society must recognize that our intrusion into the matter can be best classified as gossip; of course, the tabloids and entertainment magazines will pursue the issue enthusiastically, but the only interest this aspect of the case should actually have would be as an instructive matter for our children. We can in the privacy of our own homes point out to our children how this thoughtless and heartless behavior affected those people who were no doubt out of their minds with grief for days, and reinforce to our family how important it is to be kind and considerate to those who care for us; the matter should, for us, end there.

The second class of debt that is owed is more complex. An adult must recognize that official society will respond to a family reporting this disappearance, and that the "authorities" will have to respond. Should those authorities NOT respond, and she be found dead afterwards, a large variety of adverse legal/financial/employment consequences would be expected. The police response to the inappropriate disappearance incurred two classes of debt. First of all, it diverted resources away from other items potentially requiring police intervention. This issue in and of itself is not financial, but moral; she incurs an ethical obligation to at the least apologize to her community, and perhaps also to make amends by some sort of community service. However, as in the case of her debt to friends/family, the payment of this debt cannot be coerced or imposed upon her; it is a voluntary moral/ethical act of repayment and perhaps contrition. Her personal response to these obligations is a matter of integrity and character. The second debt to the community is a financial one. The dedication of resources to her search consumed financial resources. Overtime itself is expensive, as is the wear and tear on vehicles, gasoline use, etc. Personnel needed to be fed and perhaps housed. The issue therefore comes down to the fact that taxpayer money was expended in a search for a person who staged a voluntary disappearance days before a lavish wedding. Since any reasonable adult knows that a search will ensue, she is therefore responsible for that financial debt. She has caused DAMAGE to the community as a result of a voluntary irresponsible act; she, and not the community, should be obligated to financially pay for the result of her foolishness.

Any reasonable adult understands that if a bride to be vanishes four days before their lavish wedding, official society and the friends/family will respond appropriately with aggressive efforts to find and save her from potential danger. This is especially true if that person vanishes without her purse and charge cards, and if she leaves behind her sheared off hair.

If this vanished person involuntarily vanished, either as a result of a medical problem impairing her consciousness, mental retardation, or as a result of foul play, there is no question that she incurs no debt or obligation of any kind to anyone involved. In the case however of a conscious planned decision to vanish [she had purchased her bus ticket days before, and was able to navigate her way to Nevada without injury], the question arises as to what debts or obligations she has thereby incurred.

There are two classes of potential debts that a person owes as a result of a planned vanishing act days before a lavish wedding. The first debt is emotional/familial. We as responsible adults realize that our acts impinge on other people who care about us. When we subject those people to days of heartache, wondering what happened and fearing the worse, we have injured them to a considerable extent. However, that debt is a private matter between the person and those she injured. A responsible adult must face those she injured, and strive to make amends. This again is a private matter, and the rest of society must recognize that our intrusion into the matter can be best classified as gossip; of course, the tabloids and entertainment magazines will pursue the issue enthusiastically, but the only interest this aspect of the case should actually have would be as an instructive matter for our children. We can in the privacy of our own homes point out to our children how this thoughtless and heartless behavior affected those people who were no doubt out of their minds with grief for days, and reinforce to our family how important it is to be kind and considerate to those who care for us; the matter should, for us, end there.

The second class of debt that is owed is more complex. An adult must recognize that official society will respond to a family reporting this disappearance, and that the "authorities" will have to respond. Should those authorities NOT respond, and she be found dead afterwards, a large variety of adverse legal/financial/employment consequences would be expected. The police response to the inappropriate disappearance incurred two classes of debt. First of all, it diverted resources away from other items potentially requiring police intervention. This issue in and of itself is not financial, but moral; she incurs an ethical obligation to at the least apologize to her community, and perhaps also to make amends by some sort of community service. However, as in the case of her debt to friends/family, the payment of this debt cannot be coerced or imposed upon her; it is a voluntary moral/ethical act of repayment and perhaps contrition. Her personal response to these obligations is a matter of integrity and character. The second debt to the community is a financial one. The dedication of resources to her search consumed financial resources. Overtime itself is expensive, as is the wear and tear on vehicles, gasoline use, etc. Personnel needed to be fed and perhaps housed. The issue therefore comes down to the fact that taxpayer money was expended in a search for a person who staged a voluntary disappearance days before a lavish wedding. Since any reasonable adult knows that a search will ensue, she is therefore responsible for that financial debt. She has caused DAMAGE to the community as a result of a voluntary irresponsible act; she, and not the community, should be obligated to financially pay for the result of her foolishness.

"Jennifer Wilbanks should walk. There is no reason the government has to step in and put a band-aid every societal boo-boo. Sometimes people to stupid irresponsible things that cause inconvenience to others. Big deal."

Any reasonable adult understands that if a bride to be vanishes four days before their lavish wedding, official society and the friends/family will respond appropriately with aggressive efforts to find and save her from potential danger. This is especially true if that person vanishes without her purse and charge cards, and if she leaves behind her sheared off hair.

If this vanished person involuntarily vanished, either as a result of a medical problem impairing her consciousness, mental retardation, or as a result of foul play, there is no question that she incurs no debt or obligation of any kind to anyone involved. In the case however of a conscious planned decision to vanish [she had purchased her bus ticket days before, and was able to navigate her way to Nevada without injury], the question arises as to what debts or obligations she has thereby incurred.

There are two classes of potential debts that a person owes as a result of a planned vanishing act days before a lavish wedding. The first debt is emotional/familial. We as responsible adults realize that our acts impinge on other people who care about us. When we subject those people to days of heartache, wondering what happened and fearing the worse, we have injured them to a considerable extent. However, that debt is a private matter between the person and those she injured. A responsible adult must face those she injured, and strive to make amends. This again is a private matter, and the rest of society must recognize that our intrusion into the matter can be best classified as gossip; of course, the tabloids and entertainment magazines will pursue the issue enthusiastically, but the only interest this aspect of the case should actually have would be as an instructive matter for our children. We can in the privacy of our own homes point out to our children how this thoughtless and heartless behavior affected those people who were no doubt out of their minds with grief for days, and reinforce to our family how important it is to be kind and considerate to those who care for us; the matter should, for us, end there.

The second class of debt that is owed is more complex. An adult must recognize that official society will respond to a family reporting this disappearance, and that the "authorities" will have to respond. Should those authorities NOT respond, and she be found dead afterwards, a large variety of adverse legal/financial/employment consequences would be expected. The police response to the inappropriate disappearance incurred two classes of debt. First of all, it diverted resources away from other items potentially requiring police intervention. This issue in and of itself is not financial, but moral; she incurs an ethical obligation to at the least apologize to her community, and perhaps also to make amends by some sort of community service. However, as in the case of her debt to friends/family, the payment of this debt cannot be coerced or imposed upon her; it is a voluntary moral/ethical act of repayment and perhaps contrition. Her personal response to these obligations is a matter of integrity and character. The second debt to the community is a financial one. The dedication of resources to her search consumed financial resources. Overtime itself is expensive, as is the wear and tear on vehicles, gasoline use, etc. Personnel needed to be fed and perhaps housed. The issue therefore comes down to the fact that taxpayer money was expended in a search for a person who staged a voluntary disappearance days before a lavish wedding. Since any reasonable adult knows that a search will ensue, she is therefore responsible for that financial debt. She has caused DAMAGE to the community as a result of a voluntary irresponsible act; she, and not the community, should be obligated to financially pay for the result of her foolishness.

" Issues? No...grin...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity. Frankly, kids of all genders learn what they are taught. I equate this emphasis with the "boys will be boys" blarney one hears when a little boy gets away with shenanigans."

No, you DO have issues. The "boys will be boys" saying is a DESCRIPTIVE adage, and in no way should [and never has] implied that bad behavior should be excused.

Example: boy in classroom looking out the window and daydreaming. Yep, boys will be boys. Now rap on the desk with a ruler to get his attention, and tell him firmly to snap out of it.

You apparently have been seduced by the feminist mantra that society in years past has suppressed females and advantaged males; nothing could be further from the truth. When I was a boy, Mom ruled the roost [not that Dad was unimportant, but home was Mom's domain].

"Study: Meanness in Girls Can Start at 3, But Boys are Born With It."

Ok, now read the article:



"Hart said other research has found that about 17 percent to 20 percent of preschool and school-age girls display such behavior. It also shows up in boys, but much less frequently."

Yea, let's all weep over a movie.

What about the millions of babies killed in this country every year? Do you think he'd weep at a screening of "Silent Scream"?

In this area with such a high child pregnancy rate, where are the parents of these children who are getting pregnant? Why aren't these children supervised and guided?

Perhaps if there were legal charges of child neglect brought against some of the parents of these unwed new parents their cultural mores would change in a jiffy.

Anyone know this judges' email?

"If someone's moral belief prevents them from doing their jobs then they should get another one.

I wish someone would make an attempt to take this to court as there is no doubt that it will be thrown out as fast as you can say "jack robinson"

Presumably you filed "Friend of the Court" briefs supporting the Muslim in Florida whose "moral belief" was that she could take her driver's license photo in a burka."

Your position is so fundamentally in opposition to the principles of freedom and liberty, as well as the principle of freedom from religious oppression, that I hardly know where to begin. You must actually feel that only pro-abortion people are eligible to be pharmacists and physicians.

The provision of the baby killing "morning after pill" is a tiny part of the practice of medicine and pharmacy. Your position is that a Pharmacist should, in order to avoid losing his job, with it's income and ability to care for his family, be compelled to dispense a drug that in his belief system kills babies. INCREDIBLE! We have absolutely no common ground, and to further discuss the issue with you is pointless. I find it actually mind boggling that Freepers are actually arguing that people lose their jobs if they refuse to cooperate in killing babies. This is definitely an example of someone blindly sticking to a "principle" [right of the employer, perhaps] in all defiance of what is good and right. It is a choice of blind consistency over common sense. THINK, THINK; we have a good man who is at risk of losing his livelihood over his good and right decision to refuse to cooperate in killing a baby! I am actually so disgusted with you people that I will no longer post on this subject, and will delete all reply posts and mail from you [unread]. I have no desire to hear any more from people who advocate such self serving, principle sacrificing, blind obedience to authority pitiful opinions such as yours. may God have Mercy on you, and help you.