Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Ikari · Aug 2, 2013

CLAX1911 said:
There are churches full of people who have seen proof. People have proven it to others billions of times. It's called conversion, just because out doesn't meet your rigor of proof doesn't mean it isn't proof.

I don't know what your measure of proof is but that is a highly subjective thing. All I need for proof that gravity exist is that things fall, Isaak Newton didn't think that was enough. I am not saying that is wrong, just that my burden of proof is not as rigorous as Newtons or yours.

but I can show someone that God exists to people, not you, your mind is made up, but others yes, I have.

They have experience something they equate to personal testimony and contribute significance to it without verification. That is not proof.

BTW, things falling is a reproducible demonstration.

Also, I have no doubt that gods exist to people. Not that it means they exist.

CLAX1911 · Aug 2, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
your stating to me, that if the schools teaches homosexuality is wrong...its oppression...which i buy that argument.

then your stating to me if they dont teach homosexuality it right............its oppression........but i dont buy this one.

explain to me how these are not oppression.

Wait a minute, teaching that homosexuality is okay is perfectly fine, meaning it's okay that you are gay. Teaching that homosexuality is right us not the same thing. Because that also says that heterosexuality is not as right.

You are interchanging the words that mean permissible with words that mean correct. I don't agree that homosexuality is right, if my kid was heterosexual and a school said that isn't correct that would be unacceptable, my kid would be out of that school in an instant. Enrolled in a private school that day. But telling my homosexual son that it's okay that he is gay is very different.

ernst barkmann said:
Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

picket the school, sue, pies sexual harassment charges, do something. Don't just get outraged and expect the world to deal with it, GET INVOLVED IT'S YOUR KID FOR CHRIST SAKES. If you don't give a damn, I don't.

ernst barkmann said:
By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents.

They are, explain how they are not.

ernst barkmann said:
In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

if the moron knew that was going to be discussed, find another school before enrolling. I have no sympathy for lazy parents.

ernst barkmann said:
Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

So what, there are private schools and home schooling. Again lazy parents no sympathy.

ernst barkmann said:
In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

i agree with the judge. Did he rule that it is illegal to leave public school or leave the state? Again lazy no sympathy.

ernst barkmann said:
Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

solution, if parents disagree with the school, find alternative schools. There is no law mandating children attend public school. Parents approve of the curriculum by absenteeism. They don't care to learn the curriculum, they don't care to fight for their rights, they must not be that important.

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Before you answer, there is a solution that doesn't involve the expense of private school, teach your kids that the school isn't always right about that. Lessons learned from parents have such a longer lasting affect. I often say "my father once told me..." I rarely or never tell people "My teacher once told Mr..." You have far more influence over your children if you are not a worthless parent.

ernst barkmann said:
In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

the only problem I have with this is the part where the Trans said now. There have always been different families. see the above post for the complaint of the parents.

ernst barkmann said:
Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

proof.

ernst barkmann said:
Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

So what?

ernst barkmann said:
It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

So what, should the state say they can't? If so same for heterosexuals.

ernst barkmann said:
“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Private school.

ernst barkmann said:
Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Good, it's about time.

look, homosexuality is normal, it is okay, and all these complaints are either lazy parents or xenophobia. This all falls on deaf ears as it should.

CLAX1911 · Aug 2, 2013

Ikari said:
They have experience something they equate to personal testimony and contribute significance to it without verification. That is not proof.

Explain how it isn't proof id it occurs billions of times. That is reproducible. It isn't necessarily through testimony. It ifs definite proof, just because you don't accept it and can't test it with science doesn't mean it isn't proven.

BTW, things falling is a reproducible demonstration.

so is conversion, buddhists, hindus, Jewish people, Islam, christianity. I think that accounts for billions of reproduced demonstrations. So you should have absolute proof just in that.

Also, I have no doubt that gods exist to people. Not that it means they exist.

Things only exist to people. The measurement of existence is compensable by the human mind. Nothing exists out side of us, we aren't here to say it exists, so therefore nothing would exist without humanity, before you go off saying things can exist without human perception I want absolute proof that it can.

Ikari · Aug 2, 2013

CLAX1911 said:
Explain how it isn't proof id it occurs billions of times. That is reproducible. It isn't necessarily through testimony. It ifs definite proof, just because you don't accept it and can't test it with science doesn't mean it isn't proven.

It's not demonstrable, it exists only in someone's mind. Drop a ball a million times and the ball drops a million times. People can see that, photons can be measured, velocities recorded, etc. That's a reproducible measurement. People say "I saw X" or "I felt Y" are not repeatable measurements which can be demonstrated.

CLAX1911 said:
so is conversion, buddhists, hindus, Jewish people, Islam, christianity. I think that accounts for billions of reproduced demonstrations. So you should have absolute proof just in that.

Sure, there are lots of people who are believers is one form of god or another, or otherwise spiritual. It's a strong desire of mankind, a natural consequence of intelligence to wonder what next and want to have an answer for it. It's not proof. It's personal testimony.

CLAX1911 said:
Things only exist to people. The measurement of existence is compensable by the human mind. Nothing exists out side of us, we aren't here to say it exists, so therefore nothing would exist without humanity, before you go off saying things can exist without human perception I want absolute proof that it can.

Things existed before humans, we have measured account of that. The world can exist without us, it has in the past.

Boo Radley · Aug 2, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
a minute ago you wanted to use the 14th...now its back to article 1 section 8 again.

the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 7

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

I'm not limited to just one. My point is there s a legal route to where we are. No one has violated the Constitution. Read and learn.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The Supreme Court has primarily encountered the argument that there is a federal constitutional right to education in the context of equal protection cases decided over the course of the past two decades.79 How- ever, well before the heyday of equal protection, in Meyer v. Nebraska8,0 the Court advanced the notion that seeking knowledge has a constitu- tional dimension under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause."' In Meyer, a parochial school teacher challenged the constitu- tionality of a Nebraska statute under which he had been convicted for violating its prohibition against teaching foreign languages to students who had not yet passed the eighth grade.82

(Snip)

CONCLUSION

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.514 For all its apparent novelty, a positive constitutional right to education is not new either. Rather, it has lain quiescent in the Constitution all these years, occasionally glimpsed at through the musings ofjudges and legal schol- ars. That it is not new-that it has existed all along-should be warrant enough for its formal recognition. The Bible also says, however, that to every thing there is a season.515 If one season be more propitious than another, it would seem that the education crisis has brought the season for recognition of the right full upon us.

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=facpubs

Redress · Aug 2, 2013

I got some time now so I figure I would go through and look at the lies, the undocumented claims and the distortions in your source.

ernst barkmann said:
your stating to me, that if the schools teaches homosexuality is wrong...its oppression...which i buy that argument.

then your stating to me if they dont teach homosexuality it right............its oppression........but i dont buy this one.

explain to me how these are not oppression.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

The 8th grade teacher does not say that about the floodgates, but instead it is an anti-gay group representative. Further not mentioned is that she is a sex ed teacher. It is her job to discuss sex with kids. Also note that from the same NPR show it mentions: "In Massachusetts, local districts have broad discretion when it comes to sex ed, and schools range from this one in Brookline to many others that teach abstinence only or offer no sex ed at all." Damn local discretion, how dare local groups determine curriculum...

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

First, the book: Who's in a Family? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The David Parkjer who was arrested? The charge was trespassing after he refused to leave school grounds. His words: "Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested."

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

The book: King & King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the appeal when the couple lost the first court case: "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights"

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!<-----force being applied!

Ruling: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/...smiss_2007/order_motion_to_dismiss_022307.pdf

"In Brown, the First Circuit held that the
constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not
include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their
children and that teachings which contradict a parent's religious
beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right"

And the court found that this case was indistinguishable from Brown.

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

Actually what it ruled(same source) was that Mass. law banned discrimination based on orientation and and the curriculum has to encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, orientation. Basically, the case had zero legal basis under Mass. law.

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

I can find something happened, but not evidence of what exactly.

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

The book: About the Book | Courting Equality

Yup, that's right, it is a book yelling about the events leading up to SSM legalization in Mass. How dare libraries carry it...

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

So in other words SSM married teachers are treated like every one else, as the law requires...

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Not surprisingly there is no source for this claim and only two places mention it from a google search, the massresistance nutjob site source and WND from 2004. I can't prove it does not happen, but I can't find evidence it does.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

So your source has proven to be one big pile of stinking ****. Every claim I looked at was either unsourced, misleading or wrong.

CLAX1911 · Aug 3, 2013

Ikari said:
It's not demonstrable, it exists only in someone's mind. Drop a ball a million times and the ball drops a million times. People can see that, photons can be measured, velocities recorded, etc. That's a reproducible measurement. People say "I saw X" or "I felt Y" are not repeatable measurements which can be demonstrated.

This is why I said you don't understand, it wasn't to be rude or condescending, though I know it may have felt that way.

I want to say this without offending you, know that isn't my intent.

You are a single note person, you can only accept things that have been scientifically proven. Perhaps you simply think differently, I don't understand your thought process. You can't use science in a spiritual situation it's like using music to solve differential equations. Now understand please that I haven't completely abandoned science, it has it's place, but not in spirituality, it is an ineffective tool for that project. It's like using a paint brush to drive a nail. All that is to me isn't science.

Sure, there are lots of people who are believers is one form of god or another, or otherwise spiritual. It's a strong desire of mankind, a natural consequence of intelligence to wonder what next and want to have an answer for it. It's not proof. It's personal testimony.

it's proof enough for those that have it. Your rigor of proof isn't even on the same plane of existence. I agree April proof isn't scientific proof, but you would certainly agree that scientific things shouldn't be proven spiritually. If we go by that method a dude in the clouds throws lightening at the earth.

Science can't began to touch spirituality and vise versa. You want a scientific definition, that isn't possible.but that doesn't mean because I can't paint with a hammer so to speak that there isn't proof, it's just proof that you don't accept.

Things existed before humans, we have measured account of that. The world can exist without us, it has in the past.

We measures that, if we didn't how would we have proof. All proof is, is the ability to convince others. Let's say for a minuet that you were the one human that existed, everything you thought would be absolutely proven because the only person to convince would be you, you would have 100% agreement in all fields of humanity.

The reality is the things existed before humans and we know that only because we are able to perceive it. Again it is only our perception, measurements we dreamed up and instruments we created to tell us things about the past.

Think of the world prior to the understanding of microscopic viruses and bacteria. Now we accept because we couldn't measure, we didn't even know what to measure that germs in the past with out our knowledge was what was making people sick. That of course means that germs didn't magically appear but we just never perceived them. Say you had a time machine and you went back in time and told people five hundred years ago that illness wasn't God being angry with you but tiny little organisms wreaking havoc on your biology. Nobody would believe you even if you had a micro scope that would be an evil device. So it is definitely perception that allows for proof.

On top of that this may sound odd but we can't know the things that we do not know. Meaning the only answer to the question "what don't you know?" Is, I don't know.

I don't think we as people have as much figured out as some people think we do. When you say universe I know you have a physics answer but that is limited by the language we invented called physics.

We made everything up everything that we know, it can only be known by humanity until we find an alien race that can tell us otherwise. Where i imagine an alien race would be intrigued by our physics but I doubt they would use the same language. But until that happens all we have us what is in our mind.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

CLAX1911 said:
Wait a minute, teaching that homosexuality is okay is perfectly fine, meaning it's okay that you are gay. Teaching that homosexuality is right us not the same thing. Because that also says that heterosexuality is not as right.

You are interchanging the words that mean permissible with words that mean correct. I don't agree that homosexuality is right, if my kid was heterosexual and a school said that isn't correct that would be unacceptable, my kid would be out of that school in an instant. Enrolled in a private school that day. But telling my homosexual son that it's okay that he is gay is very different.
picket the school, sue, pies sexual harassment charges, do something. Don't just get outraged and expect the world to deal with it, GET INVOLVED IT'S YOUR KID FOR CHRIST SAKES. If you don't give a damn, I don't.
They are, explain how they are not.
if the moron knew that was going to be discussed, find another school before enrolling. I have no sympathy for lazy parents.

So what, there are private schools and home schooling. Again lazy parents no sympathy.
i agree with the judge. Did he rule that it is illegal to leave public school or leave the state? Again lazy no sympathy.
solution, if parents disagree with the school, find alternative schools. There is no law mandating children attend public school. Parents approve of the curriculum by absenteeism. They don't care to learn the curriculum, they don't care to fight for their rights, they must not be that important.

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Before you answer, there is a solution that doesn't involve the expense of private school, teach your kids that the school isn't always right about that. Lessons learned from parents have such a longer lasting affect. I often say "my father once told me..." I rarely or never tell people "My teacher once told Mr..." You have far more influence over your children if you are not a worthless parent.

the only problem I have with this is the part where the Trans said now. There have always been different families. see the above post for the complaint of the parents.

proof.

So what?
So what, should the state say they can't? If so same for heterosexuals.

Private school.

Good, it's about time.

look, homosexuality is normal, it is okay, and all these complaints are either lazy parents or xenophobia. This all falls on deaf ears as it should.

this is only your point of view, its not shared by other people.

as stated before... parents are not given their tax money , and are mandated to send their children to public schools, where they have been told they will comply.

as a libertarian, ....you have to know the power of force is never acceptable.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Redress said:
I got some time now so I figure I would go through and look at the lies, the undocumented claims and the distortions in your source.

The 8th grade teacher does not say that about the floodgates, but instead it is an anti-gay group representative. Further not mentioned is that she is a sex ed teacher. It is her job to discuss sex with kids. Also note that from the same NPR show it mentions: "In Massachusetts, local districts have broad discretion when it comes to sex ed, and schools range from this one in Brookline to many others that teach abstinence only or offer no sex ed at all." Damn local discretion, how dare local groups determine curriculum...

First, the book: Who's in a Family? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The David Parkjer who was arrested? The charge was trespassing after he refused to leave school grounds. His words: "Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested."

The book: King & King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the appeal when the couple lost the first court case: "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights"

Ruling: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/...smiss_2007/order_motion_to_dismiss_022307.pdf

"In Brown, the First Circuit held that the
constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not
include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their
children and that teachings which contradict a parent's religious
beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right"

And the court found that this case was indistinguishable from Brown.

Actually what it ruled(same source) was that Mass. law banned discrimination based on orientation and and the curriculum has to encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, orientation. Basically, the case had zero legal basis under Mass. law.

I can find something happened, but not evidence of what exactly.

The book: About the Book | Courting Equality

Yup, that's right, it is a book yelling about the events leading up to SSM legalization in Mass. How dare libraries carry it...

So in other words SSM married teachers are treated like every one else, as the law requires...

Not surprisingly there is no source for this claim and only two places mention it from a google search, the massresistance nutjob site source and WND from 2004. I can't prove it does not happen, but I can't find evidence it does.

So your source has proven to be one big pile of stinking ****. Every claim I looked at was either unsourced, misleading or wrong.

the power of force is never acceptable thing in a true in a free society.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
I'm not limited to just one. My point is there s a legal route to where we are. No one has violated the Constitution. Read and learn.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The Supreme Court has primarily encountered the argument that there is a federal constitutional right to education in the context of equal protection cases decided over the course of the past two decades.79 How- ever, well before the heyday of equal protection, in Meyer v. Nebraska8,0 the Court advanced the notion that seeking knowledge has a constitu- tional dimension under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause."' In Meyer, a parochial school teacher challenged the constitu- tionality of a Nebraska statute under which he had been convicted for violating its prohibition against teaching foreign languages to students who had not yet passed the eighth grade.82

(Snip)

CONCLUSION

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun.514 For all its apparent novelty, a positive constitutional right to education is not new either. Rather, it has lain quiescent in the Constitution all these years, occasionally glimpsed at through the musings ofjudges and legal schol- ars. That it is not new-that it has existed all along-should be warrant enough for its formal recognition. The Bible also says, however, that to every thing there is a season.515 If one season be more propitious than another, it would seem that the education crisis has brought the season for recognition of the right full upon us.

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=facpubs

its very simple .....in order for congress to act, it must be given authority in it powers, education is not a (listed) delegated power.

during the constitutional convention, a proposal was made for the federal government to be involved in education...it was rejected.

the founders are very clear, congress powers are few and defined...........what is the meaning of "few" and "defined"

constitutional law is the highest in the land no federal law, can override constitutional law.

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
its very simple .....in order for congress to act, it must be given authority in it powers, education is not a (listed) delegated power.

during the constitutional convention, a proposal was made for the federal government to be involved in education...it was rejected.

the founders are very clear, congress powers are few and defined...........what is the meaning of "few" and "defined"

constitutional law is the highest in the land no federal law, can override constitutional law.

Again, those who actually study and know all the ins and outs of the matter say you're wrong. I'm sure I should ask a novice over an expert, as we all know, someone not knowing about something is always better than someone who does. The point is, you haven't addressed. The arguments made in rebuttal.

MoSurveyor · Aug 4, 2013

Dooble said:
Thanks for the directions. But why are you giving them to me?

You honestly don't see the Conspiracy Theory lean in your post? Then you've provided your own answer ... LOL!

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Again, those who actually study and know all the ins and outs of the matter say you're wrong. I'm sure I should ask a novice over an expert, as we all know, someone not knowing about something is always better than someone who does. The point is, you haven't addressed. The arguments made in rebuttal.

do you ever read the founders, and see what they created?

one of the reasons Madison and Hamilton stated a bill of rights was not necessary...was becuase the new federal government was limited, and it had no power but the 18 in the constitution, and becuase they were limited, this prevented the federal government from violating the rights of the people, becuase no power of the Federal government have anything to do with an individual citizens ...except.......pirates counterfeiter and traitors.......and with the 16th......tax cheats.

the federal government was given no role in the social life's of the american citiznen.

MoSurveyor · Aug 4, 2013

Dooble said:
Thanks for the directions. But why are you giving them to me?

If you can't see the Conspiracy Theory lean to your posts then you have provided your own answer ... LOL!

First off, you seem to be assuming all scientist are atheists, which is complete BS. Even a cursory review of the history of science and scientists in general would show how wrong you are. Even scientists who are self-proclaimed atheists are often spiritual in one sense or another, though they often don't call it that.

Second, you're acting like science is the antithesis of religion, which is also complete BS. Religion and science can and do exist side-by-side. (In fact, that's the best place for both - on parallel paths.) Science is just trying examine our universe and understand why it works the way it does. There's nothing anti-religious about it. The only time there has ever been a problem between science and religion is when religious dogma finds itself on the wrong side of newly discovered reality. When that happens, religion must make the same adjustments as society and science itself must make, adapting to the newly discovered facts.

Finally, you have continued to show an unreasoned fear of reality, which seems to have resulted in a persecution complex. Apparently, the world isn't the way your religion would like it to be, therefore, everyone else must be wrong and against you. That's almost the textbook foundation of a Conspiracy Theorist.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Again, those who actually study and know all the ins and outs of the matter say you're wrong.

they can say all they want to, the constitution does not lie......education is not a delegated power of congress.

if it were the congress would have controlled it before jimmy carter

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
do you ever read the founders, and see what they created?

one of the reasons Madison and Hamilton stated a bill of rights was not necessary...was becuase the new federal government was limited, and it had no power but the 18 in the constitution, and becuase they were limited, this prevented the federal government from violating the rights of the people, becuase no power of the Federal government have anything to do with an individual citizens ...except.......pirates counterfeiter and traitors.......and with the 16th......tax cheats.

the federal government was given no role in the social life's of the american citiznen.

Clearly I've more than you have. They have a saying in medicine: he knows just enough to be dangerous. You're a novice who doesn't know what you don't know.

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
they can say all they want to, the constitution does not lie......education is not a delegated power of congress.

if it were the congress would have controlled it before jimmy carter

Same response as above.

Paschendale · Aug 4, 2013

I got about 8 pages into this thread before it just started making me sad. I skipped to the end and it continued to do so. So, enjoy reactions to some of the earlier posts. ^_^

lizzie said:
I suspect that it means the method by which one is forced into not stating what one believes, without paying dire consequences for said action, so it isn't really evolution in the least, but coercion by those in power. If I threaten you with bodily harm or death for not believing what I believe is right, will you really evolve, or will you just keep your mouth shut?

You mean like what Christians and Muslims have been doing to everyone else for thousands of years? Yeah, it's pretty uncool. I'm glad they're not allowed to do that anymore. Good thing all the atheists tend to do is make fun of people over their beliefs. And we don't let them pass laws over us that force us to conform to their religious mores. But that's okay, because the pretty cool guys who wrote the constitution made sure that they couldn't do that more than two centuries ago.

Dooble said:
You already have chosen; so has the SC, and many other Americans. Now I've shifted my focus to Ikari's mandate to "evolve, or die". Should religions have the freedom to deny SSM within their own congregations, or should they allow it? The consequences are already in place, right? Or is Ikari just blowing out noxious fumes?

No, they can't deny anything. They can dislike it all they want, and they can say they don't want any part of it. But they cannot deny anyone's legal rights to marriage. And the more they try, the more they are doing the die part of the "evolve or die" mandate because the rest of society will look upon them as the backwards fools that they are proving themselves to be. There are consequences to speech. It's free legally, but people are still going to dislike and disrespect you if you say awful things.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Same response as above.

when i am right i am not going to change what i have to say.

CLAX1911 · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
this is only your point of view, its not shared by other people.

that is all you are stating.

as stated before... parents are not given their tax money , and are mandated to send their children to public schools, where they have been told they will comply.

Parents aren't the only ones that pay taxes. I didn't have kids in school I still had to pay taxes, I don't get that back either.

They are NOT mandated to keep their children in public schools. You can enroll them in private school. They jabber been told no such thing

as a libertarian, ....you have to know the power of force is never acceptable.

There is no force. You don't have to keep your kids in public school, you can home school and you can go to private school. I don't know why you keep ignoring that. You claimed that the state mandates all children attend public school, it DOES NOT!!! That is a complete lie there are private schools and home school options.

Librarian doesn't mean you ignore the options and pretend that the easiest one is the only one. Sorry, I know you are incorrect Wisconsin v Yoder established that the people of the United states have the right to homeschool in all 50 states. So the claim that there is force is absolutely false. Anybody can homeschool their kids, that is a first amendment protected right.

Of course they have to pay taxes people without kids have to pay taxes.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

Boo Radley said:
Clearly I've more than you have. They have a saying in medicine: he knows just enough to be dangerous. You're a novice who doesn't know what you don't know.

you wish to listen to men, who wish to use the constitution for there own vises.

i choose to listen to a man who laid its foundation.......who stated clearly the government is not supposed to be in education. and i posted his statement already showing you that he said it.

Master PO · Aug 4, 2013

CLAX1911 said:
that is all you are stating.
Parents aren't the only ones that pay taxes. I didn't have kids in school I still had to pay taxes, I don't get that back either.

They are NOT mandated to keep their children in public schools. You can enroll them in private school. They jabber been told no such thing

There is no force. You don't have to keep your kids in public school, you can home school and you can go to private school. I don't know why you keep ignoring that. You claimed that the state mandates all children attend public school, it DOES NOT!!! That is a complete lie there are private schools and home school options.

Librarian doesn't mean you ignore the options and pretend that the easiest one is the only one. Sorry, I know you are incorrect Wisconsin v Yoder established that the people of the United states have the right to homeschool in all 50 states. So the claim that there is force is absolutely false. Anybody can homeschool their kids, that is a first amendment protected right.

Of course they have to pay taxes people without kids have to pay taxes.

sorry there is force, when you mandate people must go to something, and then tell them, this is the way its going to be whether you like it or not...thats force.

give the parents their tax money and let them seek other schooling...........but the education system is against it.

CLAX1911 · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
its very simple .....in order for congress to act, it must be given authority in it powers, education is not a (listed) delegated power.

during the constitutional convention, a proposal was made for the federal government to be involved in education...it was rejected.

the founders are very clear, congress powers are few and defined...........what is the meaning of "few" and "defined"

constitutional law is the highest in the land no federal law, can override constitutional law.

And the United states supreme court agrees that it does not have that power.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't have to attend public school. And besides nobody has suggested that the federal government is involved in education. The tenth amendment made that a state right.

CLAX1911 · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
sorry there is force, when you mandate people must go to something, and then tell them, this is the way its going to be whether you like it or not...thats force.

there is no such mandate

Wisconsin v. Yoder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

give the parents their tax money and let them seek other schooling...........but the education system is against it.

why do people that have kids get their tax money back? I didn't have kids in school for 18 years I was paying taxes why did I have to pay for it? Everybody pays taxes no matter what. If your kids are adults and not in the school system you pay taxes to your local school district, if your kids live in another state you pay taxes to your local school district if you don't have kids you pay taxes to your local school district.

No, refund my taxes first, I didn't even have any kids yet I pay for them. No pay your taxes like everybody else. If you are too good for public school opt out, you can opt out.

There is no force, unless you mean the duty to pay taxes.

Boo Radley · Aug 4, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
when i am right i am not going to change what i have to say.

It is arrogant to believe you're right when you're but a novice.

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial

Freedom of Religion

Mandate to Evolve

Both are equally crucial

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Supreme knower of all

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Uncanny

Mixed Government advocate

Supreme knower of all

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all