You ever heard of the camel's nose coming in through the tent flap without the rest of the camel following? What if the government decided that under no circumstances may *we* (that's you and I, Steve) distribute religious literature freely to anyone who wants it? Because doing so is liable to be construed as "hate speech", intolerance, make someone mad at us, incite a riot, inspire someone to crimes they would not otherwise do, all kinds of terrible things might happen so we just can't allow it. BTW, it's interesting that in socialist/communist countries it's easier to distribute Bibles to school kids than it is here in the States.
I would rather fight for less government in nearly all personal rights cases. (personal rights, in this case, meaning things that don't affect others directly, like smoking or seat belts.) Ok, I'm about to take a fairly unpopular approach, so ready your tomatoes. Think about this: Purely from a Darwinian point of view, wouldn't it stand to reason that our society would be in a better position if we stopped trying to legislate common sense? If we no longer REQUIRED people to protect themselves, less would. And if less did, then, well, honestly, it's population control of sorts. I KNOW that what I am saying is harsh. I know it may even be rude. I don't know, maybe it's unChrist-like. But I'm so frustrated with our society right now that I don't have any remorse for saying it.
Amie (and others), are you familiar with the Darwin Awards? They are given (posthumously, of course) to those who for lack of common sense have removed themselves from the gene pool - usually by trying something stupid, not by smoking or not wearing a bike helmet or not wearing a seatbelt. http://darwinawards.com
So why should it be law that English is the language of the USA? Why should children have to say the pledge in school? Why should laws prevent gay marriage? Why shouldn't guns be allowed in court? Why should children be educated at all? Why not let aggressive dogs roam free in our neighborhoods? Why force people with certain illnesses into quarantine? There are thousands of laws that restrict us in some way, and it would be unwise to repeal them all. The main question is how far those laws should be allowed to infringe on our lives. And to get back to my original point, I have no problem with experts, government of otherwise, offering guidelines. If a certain measure is useful, I have no problem using that measure to gauge my children's health or progress. In fact, I'm grateful for the advice.
I am a HUGE fan of the Darwin awards Steve, there's a big difference between being restricted in some way and restrictions of "person rights." Which is why I defined personal rights in the way I was meaning it. Why not let aggressive dogs roam free? Well, because they could hurt someone.. anyone... everyone... not just the owner who let them out (if there is an owner). Why not let someone choose not to wear a helmet? For their own good? Nope.. not good enough for me. It's the "for your own good" laws that infuriate me. If I want to kill myself smoking or drinking or driving without a seatbelt, LET ME! Of course, if I want to drink and drive, I could harm or kill someone else, and therefore drinking and driving should be outlawed. See? Big difference.
I don’t believe this is true. But would you really WANT someone to distribute religious literature to children in a school setting? If so, what if his/her beliefs differed from yours? Should you be required to strap your own children into seatbelts? Either way, should you have a higher insurance rate in case of a serious car accident (assuming we agree that individuals in car wrecks not wearing seatbelts may have more serious injuries than those who wear them)? Or should those who consistently wear their belts pay for the foolhardy?
Yes, donnamx, it is true that in many cases, it is easier to get permission to distribute Bibles in schools in foreign (often socialist/communist) countries than in the United States. That is a fact. AND you find (often) more kids willingly accepting Bibles in other countries, too. And yes, I DO want to distribute Bibles in schools, hospitals, hotels, police stations and prisons, any place where somebody might want one. I'm not going to force anybody to take one that doesn't want one, but I want everybody to have the opportunity to accept one if they want to.
I'd rather have the opportunity to distribute bibles in countries recovering from communist atheism than in largely Christian America, so let's keep that status quo.
Lindina...yeah what you said! lol. Love all your posts! Well stated. (of course I think that since I agree 100%)
Here is my issue with BMI. If you go by BMI alone I should weigh about 120 lbs, this is NOT realistic for me, if I weighed 120lbs I would look unhealthy because of the structure of my body. Now I know I need to loose weight, and I am working on it, BUT the best way to asses health is by taking all figures into account. My own Dr has told me I need to loose weight but he also gave me a more realistic weight to get to based on my body type and other factors.
A relative of mine is a missionary in a communist country. He does his work on the “down low” at great personal risk, so I am still somewhat skeptical. We have different views. I would be upset if my kids were in public school and someone distributed religious materials to them (but I would be quite happy for them to study world religions in a course). I feel their religious training is something that is my responsibility. I may be one of the more liberal forum members. I’m here for the homeschooling talk, but every once in awhile I’ll read something and think, “What?” or “Why?” and I am curious to know the answer. Lindina, thanks for not taking offense, and I appreciate your response.
I'm with Amie on the "for-your-own-good" laws. If you really want what's in my best interest, start listening to my pleas for you to take into consideration the opinions of the people who elected you to office. If you won't listen to me, at least read the Constitution that you swore to uphold.
Donnamx, we on this board come from ALL sorts of backgrounds with ALL sorts of religious/political/whatever-you-care-to-mention and any combination thereof, and most of the time, we support the rights of others to express opinions that don't necessarily jibe with our own. Free discussion is what it's all about, right? "Come, let us reason together." Someone else might bring up a viewpoint we hadn't explored before, and that's a good thing. I am a member of an organization of which the primary purpose is the distribution of Bibles, free, whereever we can gain access. I hear all the time about how schools in our own backyard would not let Gideons on campus to offer Bibles to students (only to those expressing an interest in receiving one, not forcing one on anybody), and about how schools in countries such as Russia and the former USSR countries were surprisingly open for this, and the students are often eager to receive one. Some of our own schools would only allow the Gideons to place some Bibles on a table in a hallway or someplace with a note, where the students who passed by could take a Bible or not, but would not allow people to enter classrooms or stand near the table or in any other way make face-to-face contact with students. In the countries I just mentioned, however, those distributing Bibles were welcomed into classrooms to meet students face-to-face, and found a great many of those students eager to receive one. I'm pretty sure this is not true as often as this in certain other countries, especially those where missionaries must operate on the down-low, while working in other types of secular jobs "during office hours."
FYI, my brother's entire life was destroyed in a car wreck. BECAUSE he wore his seatbelt. They aren't the end-all safety devices our society has made them out to be. Yes, you should have to buckle your children. Because, until they are old enough to choose for themselves (meaning, a legal adult), this is not a "for your own good" thing. If I don't wear mine, I'm only endangering myself. If I don't buckle them, I'm endangering other people (the children). That's pretty obvious. And I have no problem with insurance companies establishing rules that say, "if it is found that your injuries would have been lessened if you'd be wearing a seatbelt, then you will pay $x fee." It's all about PERSONAL responsibility. We all gripe and complain that our society if filled with people who want everything handed to them. Well, if they are not encouraged or, in some cases even allowed, to take care of themselves as they see fit, we can't expect them to have any grasp of personal responsibility. We all know parents who just accept everything the school system does with their children and expect the school to know best. Why? Because they were raised to believe that the school system is the end-all of education. So there is NO personal responsibility. The same principle applies here. In order to be responsible for one's self, one must be given control of their own life.
No, I don't think you should have to buckle in children. Sorry! And if I'm not wearing it and am in wreck and am paralized for the rest of my life, it's also hurting my children as much as me. I don't see anything wrong with a mother nursing a crying infant while she is riding (NOT DRIVING!!!) a car. Is there a possibility there will be an accident and the child seriously hurt? Yes, but there's also a chance that there WON'T. And I find it very interesting that school buses don't have to have seatbelts!
Just watched Sicko by Michael Moore and that adds to all the other issues you ladies have brought up on this post!! My oh my . . . . . thank goodness we live in Australia!!!
Hey Jackie, and other posters! I have read ALL of this post but have commented a limited amount, but I see a space I can give my input here so I will! lol You talk about nursing a crying infant while riding, I've done it. It's been vitally necessary (stuck in traffic, crying hungry baby, no end in sigh for traffic) . I also have a story to tell: Last year in winter time we had TERRIBLE snow, I mean it was never any less than 10 inches of snow outside, and we had 3 to 6 foot drifts most of teh time. Our Youngest DS, Paddy, was VERY SICK (104 fever, unresponsive at times) We lived relatively close tot he hospital at the time, so we hopped in the car and drove to the hospital. Afraid he was going to have a Febrile Seizure, I held ihm in my arms in the passenger seat. I knew there was a risk we could get pulled over, or get into an accident, but at the time I was moer concerned with my child's safety. As our luck goes we DID get pulled over and the officer noticed he was very ill, but made us put him in his car seat anyway. From where he was parked we could see the hospital and we very close, but we had to place him in a car seat or risk getting a VERY hefty fine. For speed's sake, we just did what he asked. My Point: HELLOOOOOOOO, my kid is SICK! OBVIOUSLY! I know the risks, but I'm not going to put my baby out of my sight in the back seat while he's that sick. I'e got the common sense and reasoning skills to assess the dangers on my own. I don't need someone telling me what to do and signing it into law, and FINING me for executing my personal choice (IE: not wanting to wear my seat belt while I'm pregnant. Had an aquaintance who lost her baby due to a seat belt in an accident.) The government is taking away American's Common Sense, the ability to think for themselves, and make their own choices if you ask me.
EXACTLY!!! You make choices every day, and they ALL lhave some risk involved. Rachael just came in from Jamaica last night on a plane. Guess what! There was a risk her plane would be bombed! Was I concerned about that? NO! There's a risk someone will break in my house while I sit her typing this. Am I concerned? NO! You cannot live life risk-free!
It's kinda like medicines, you know? Your doctor says you need to take X medicine for Y condidtion. He says, "Take it or suffer the consequences." But Medicine X has terrible complications that can be worse that what the medicine is treating in the first place. The patient has the ability in some cases to choose to not take the medicine, thus living with the original condition and not suffering the side effects. Just like seat belt wearing: The law says, "Wear this or you'll suffer the consequences of the law." Although, the effects of wearing your seatbelt can sometimes be worse than the effects of not wearing your seatbelt. We need the ability to make that choice to either live with the original condition (knowing something can or cannot happen at anytime) or we can choose to take the medicine (follow the seatbelt law, for example, to a T and have something terrible go wrong).
