1 - 10 Next
It is not that it would or would not take way from the child. It is not the place of the state to do so. When they do it, THEY decide what is said, not ME. Indoctrination is indoctrination reguardless which direction it comes from. I have thought it through, thouroughly. You would advocate the state have an influence in that part of my child's upbringing. What bothers you currently is that the states part in that upbringing does not conform to YOUR standards or your interpretation of scripture. What I am saying is the state HAS NO RIGHT TO HAVE ANY SAY in this matter as that responsibility is placed upon ME by my creator, and interference by any othr entity is unaceptable.
Fascism, as with all the other 'isms' which purport to provide society with a form of Utopia, must by necessity downplay the individual an the individual's rights, as trying to gain a consencus to get anything acomplished with a group of individuals is like herding cats. To bring the people who still demand to be individuals into line, each of these has an enforcement arm. In the leftist 'isms' this usually takes the form of a gestapo, kgb or stazi. The US, as developed, was one of the only countries to hold the individual prime. And this is one of the current complaints is that we have fallen from that ideal, much of the fall can be laid at the feet of the progressives, the balance on we who did nothing
In addition, any time they ban a bible or koran or any expression of religous faith, they come down on the side of those who either are unsure of their religous belief or who hold there is no deity, which is, in and of itself, a religous belief, albeit a negative one. (as braking is simply a negative acceleration). And perhaps you are correct, there should not be provisions for establishment of a chapel on base. However, in the same vein, the military should not then be able to prevent a soldier so trained to lead his fellow soldiers in a service on thier off duty hours at a base facility if it is paid for either from the soldiers own pay or from outside donations. To do otherwise would violate their right to freely practice their religion
Chances are, if you answer yes, you are a narcissist (sp?) in the vein of Obama
(cont from prev) I am a Christian, however I do not want a public shool teacher leading my child in prayer. It is not their place nor responsibility for the moral upbringing of my child, it is mine. Part of the problem we have today is many parents offload the moral instruction of their children to others, be it the school, or the church. Then they wonder why the child has no respect for them when they reach their teens. A theocracy, as components imply above, is as bad as the tyrany we currently experience. I for one will oppose it. That is not to say that we should not have any mention of religion by those in gov't, however it is not to be the driver.
As one of the tea party, I would have to disagree with a number of things Mr Hawkins has posted here. From the others I have met at meetings, the group is hardly homogeneous christian, though they do make up a substantial percentage. They are overwhelmingly conservative, however, getting a concensus for the kind of things outlined here, with the exception of fiscal restraints on government and adherance to the constitution, would be akin to herding cats. It would require the same level of tyrany which the tea party gathered to protest. (contd in next post)
Regardless of whether the state acknowledges my marriage to my wife or not, The covenant between myself, my wife and our God remain. The state may have a vested interest in seeing us procreate as has been mentioned, however their right to claim that is diminished when they advocate abortion. Their is a benefit to me in it being recognized in the dissolution of my assets after my death, however with the likes of the left, there is no guarantee that that chain of inheritance will be followed or allowed.
I have said for some time that if the move is to civil unions, ALL unions shoulc be civil unions in the eyes of the state. The only thing required would be signing of a document, signed by an officiator and two witnesses. Essentially the same as is done now with traditional weddings. The Officiator could be any of the people now granted with that ability, however no ceremony would be tied to it. What this would do would be to insulate the religious organizations from "discrimination" charges if they refuse to officiate a homosexual union. The church would retain it's sanctity. It does not lessen a traditional marriage, as that is a covenant between the couple and the god they choose to follow. and is independent of the state
1 - 10 Next