Making the personal political has been a tawdry affair. “What happens between two consenting adults in the the privacy of their own bedrooms” was a worthwhile endeavor for free governments to engage in, but this has devolved into people insisting on the right to living their sexual lives with glass walls.I think it would be best if the schools, media and government quit focusing on and policing sexuality. Who cares. It would be best if people kept their sex lives in the bedroom instead of dragging them out for everyone to see and comment on. Ugh. it’s really disgusting what is happening today. gross.
Sorry I tend to have a bit of a chip on my shoulder wih this type of stuff since it strikes a little close to home personally.Just wondering where you are coming from. I agree with you. :tiphat:
It isn’t okay from my perspective. I disagree with the school’s policy.
With that said, is it okay for the school to have that policy? In other words, is it okay for the school to have a policy you and I disagree with due to the protections our US Constitution grants regarding freedom of religion?
When a federal government makes funds slated for highway development contingent on states actually using those funds for highways and not for some other work deemed to be good and worthy by that state, this would be be very low on the tyranny scale. It is not so much the metaphor of a continuum, but the metaphor of a quantum leap for a government to make funds slated for feeding hungry school children contingent on the school upholding the “secular moral principle” of biological men sharing change rooms with little girls.There is a continuum between any kind of governance and tyranny, and the boundary is very often just a hairline fracture.
I’d say we in the USA have been on the wrong side of the fracture for over a generation now, without even feeling it.
ICXC NIKA
I wasn’t implying you were hostile but facts of what I have seen. If often feels like the view is basically well if one was better at being closeted, then they would not have to deal with any hostility. It shouldn’t matter but there is a substantial minority of christians who are hostile to people simply for having same sex attraction (my family members included). It feels like the pressure and weight is on an ssa person to basically deal with this all on their own else deal with hostility from certain people. Because it feels like some would say well what did you expect when you were open about it.First, where am I advocating any kind of hostility?
Second, why would a chaste person need to be disciplined by the school? If you have no sex life, what is there to report to the school officials?
Guess we are living under a tyrannical government.What you are describing is not a secular government, but a tyranny.
amen!!!Making the personal political has been a tawdry affair. “What happens between two consenting adults in the the privacy of their own bedrooms” was a worthwhile endeavor for free governments to engage in, but this has devolved into people insisting on the right to living their sexual lives with glass walls.
It shouldn’t. Keep them at the school and teach them with love and care what God expects of all of us.I do, yes. Why should homosexual behaviour get a pass?
I think it’s tyranny when the federal government makes funds available for anything it has no enumerated constitutional power over.When a federal government makes funds slated for highway development contingent on states actually using those funds for highways and not for some other work deemed to be good and worthy by that state, this would be be very low on the tyranny scale. It is not so much the metaphor of a continuum, but the metaphor of a quantum leap for a government to make funds slated for feeding hungry school children contingent on the school upholding the “secular moral principle” of biological men sharing change rooms with little girls.
That defines tyranny.
The whole point of secular government in America was to ensure that there was no state religion above and beyond the private moral beliefs of the individual citizen. Such a government would be deemed tyrannical and a revolutionary people are not beholden to uphold such a government, but indeed are beholden to the very opposite ends.
While I personally would not state that school lunch programs are categorically unconstitutional or tyrannical, for those who do, have you resigned yourself to tyrannical rule in the US now?I think it’s tyranny when the federal government makes funds available for anything it has no enumerated constitutional power over.
Jon
Well, it’s the continuum again.While I personally would not state that school lunch programs are categorically unconstitutional or tyrannical, for those who do, have you resigned yourself to tyrannical rule in the US now?
Or, are you a revolutionary people, as mandated by the founding documents of the United States of America?
Where did you get the idea that this school tacitly approves heterosexual fornication and other sins? Nothing in the article says or implies that. In fact, the impression given is that homosexual behavior is only one of many sins that might result in discipline by the school.This is selectively applied to what is numerically a very small group. Sins that are just as grievous but more common (heterosexual fornication) get silence and tacit approval. This isn’t about holding the line on sin but picking a very vulnerable group of individuals and singling them out for two minutes hate. It’s the very reason people are angry.
If the government created the wealth then i would agree with you, but governments can’t take wealth off people and then only give it back if they adhere to a secular morality. That is unjust and as Darryl has said it becomes a tyranny.Yes, it is. I agree with what you wrote. But religious institutions must be coizgnant of the fact that if they take the money, they might have to pay the piper. So they need to be prepared to refuse the money and go it alone.
Actually we do. We have the article V states’ conventionWell, it’s the continuum again.
The problem in this country is that we have no paradigm for “revolution” in a political sense other than involving weapons and killing. And by the time that would be justified, it would already be far too late, so there is nothing to be done.
What is desperately needed is a means for “taking it back” within the rubric of a stable, civil society.
ICXC NIKA
Before there is a plan, there must be the will.Well, it’s the continuum again.
The problem in this country is that we have no paradigm for “revolution” in a political sense other than involving weapons and killing. And by the time that would be justified, it would already be far too late, so there is nothing to be done.
What is desperately needed is a means for “taking it back” within the rubric of a stable, civil society.
ICXC NIKA
True, no-one in this country, with the exception of political refugees, knows what tyranny is; yet they obsessively fear it. Members of nations that have survived tyranny don’t fear it nearly as much.Before there is a plan, there must be the will.
And before there is a will, there must be a fairly good understanding of what tyranny is, and isn’t.
Now in my mind, if people are as equally incensed about universal access to federally funded school lunch programs as they are about having access to those lunch programs only accessible to those who sign on to the idea of men in girls’ change rooms, that means that they are not really incensed at all. They are resigned rather than revolutionary.
It makes a great constitutional argument to complain about the constitutionality of school lunch programs, but the end results of the metaphor of a continuum rather than a quantum leap is that any call to revolution is dead before it begins.
It is a placid people, and not a revolutionary people who equivocate and gets caught up on talk of where any particular event lies on the tyranny continuum.
It is the princess and the pea syndrome, where the pea is the moral equivalent of being left sleeping on a cold cement floor.
On the contrary, anyone who faces taxation without representation knows well enough what tyranny is. Smile faced fascism is still fascism.True, no-one in this country, with the exception of political refugees, knows what tyranny is; yet they obsessively fear it. Members of nations that have survived tyranny don’t fear it nearly as much.
ICXC NIKA
What about having your taxes pay for wars that you don’t believe in? Is that tyranny, too?Having your taxes pay for someone else’s free lunch and being left out of the loop because you believe that little girls ought not to be in the same change room as unclothed men defines tyranny.
No. The constitution provides the central government the mandate to conduct war. There is no constitutional enumerated mandate for food stamps, etc. nor is there an enumeration for the central government to interfere regarding state actions that protect the civil rights of people to expect that public restroom, locker and shower facilities are appropriately designated male and female .What about having your taxes pay for wars that you don’t believe in? Is that tyranny, too?