Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Originally Posted by Wesker

Although this decision was made in 11/05, I think it merits discussion. The 9the Circuit Court determined that parents have to exclusive constitutional right to determine what their children are taught regarding sexual matters. The court ruled that the parents rights end at the school door.

That's not surprising. Parents are required to surrender their children to the state for their... education. Under threat of imprisonment. The state has and always will decide what needs to be taught.

Originally Posted by Wesker

It would seem to me like a violation of the parents first amendment right to practice the religion of their choice.

School is a religion. Where you're taught to obey authority without question. It does wonders preparing children to be complacent members of a modern capitalist society. Smart people are dangerous after all.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Wesker

The problem here, as I see it rests with the subject matter. Science, math, English, etc are valid subjects,

Hello? This is America we're talking about here. You can be a scientist... just don't talk about evolution. You can be a climatologist... just don't talk about global warming. You following?

And people wonder why Americans are behind other industrialized nations in the sciences.

Originally Posted by Wesker

I find it interesting the idea put forth by the court that parents have no "exclusive Constitutional right" to the education of their kids. Taken to its logical conclusion that though would end homeschooliong and private schools and mandate government approved brainwashing..i mean "education".

"Brainwashing" is such a harsh word. It's more like socialization. Or if you really have to be negative about it "conditioning". Society needs to be maintained, and public/private education is maintenance required to maintain the existing order of things.

Furthermore, home schooling materials still have to be mandated by the State. Private/public school teachers are typically certified by the State. So home schooling really won't be illegal.

Originally Posted by Wesker

And what sick pervert is studying how many times a frist grader considers matrubation...thats just sick.

That really wasn't what the article was about, but considering the quality of my "sex education" when I was in public school... well calling it a "education" is a insult to my senses.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Nobody seems to have brought it up, but what I gathered from the statement was that the questionnaire was designed to bring to light any trauma (violent or sexual) which might be inhibiting a child's learning.

It's also been my impression that touching oneself as such a young age is indicative of sexual trauma. I think asking whether a kid touches himself out of a neurotic response to rape is more valid than wondering whether 6 year olds get horny.

That was probably the real reason. I don't see much point to a questionnaire though, since the signs would be physically manifested at that point.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

You have a point Watts. The questionnaires would be useful if they indicated specific children who had been traumatized, allowing those children to be helped, or to find relations between specific learning problems and specific traumas, allowing the former to be solved by treating the latter.

True, but how effective could a comparison be? All too often sexual abuse is only the first worm in a very large can of worms.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

However, if anonymity is guaranteed, then the only thing you get is a statistic analysis of children who have been traumatized. A comparison with one regarding children with learning problems might indicate a relation. However, I thought we already knew that there was a link between the two.

Right, which is not in the interests of protecting the children. They're being used as lab rats at that point. I can't say I'd be for that.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:

This just means they don't have the right to sue anyone who allows the kid to learn something not explicitly approved by the parent. I think that's reasonable. Well...they can't successfully sue, at any rate.

No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.

That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Devo

There have always been government laws that supercede a parent's right to raise their child how they "want to" though. One of the more obvious being education itself. Parents who do not let their child partake in some form of education; public, private,homeschooling or otherwise are prosecuted.

Of course, I cited that example much earlier in the thread. All I'm saying is that a government should not be able to legislate morals/ideas/etc because that is the parent's job.

Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

and or education of anatomy/intercourse is in conflict with "morals."

"By informing them you're encouraging them to have sex! Which is wrong!"

Is that not the basic line that the conservative movement take's on such issues? It surely is the reason why sex education is so horribly outdated and uninformative.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

Which is just nonsense, since when is being educated about a subject encouraging people or kids to commit acts?

People are seriously retarded sometimes I swear.

Yeah I agree. Which is where my argument pretty much falls apart.

That still does not change reality with people who disagree.

Originally Posted by Devo

We're educated about murder, rape, stealing, abuse, molestation all within history. Should we prevent kids from learning history too since apparently "informing" means education is prompting kids to commit illegal and immoral acts?

But not all sides of history are taught. Only the winner's story get's told. I could probably say something about how kids are being brainwashed with blind nationalism to inspire "justified" murder. But I'd be stretching a little too much.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

But saying that the parents have a fundamental right to influence the public education of not only THEIR child, but also implying that they have the right to influence OTHER children is bull. And you know something? If they DON'T like what the public school's doing, then they can pull them out and do something else.

Isn't that what the parents that didn't want 'intelligent design' taught in their schools did? They took it to court and challenged it legally, and immediately there after kicked the whole school board out of office. What if the state were to take a very liberal interpetation of this ruling and say that "in this case, parents do not have the privilage of deciding what is getting taught in the science classroom?".

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Bullshit. I was talking about legal precedents too. [b]There is no such thing as a necessary connection.

I disagree. There is a necessary connection between morality and law. Law is required to comform to society's standards of the time. Otherwise law has no legitmacy. There is no such "probability" of this ruling not being used. Chances are widely in it's favor that it will be cited at a later date. It'll be up to whoever cites it to misconstrued it in any matter they deem necessary to win their case.

Originally Posted by Wesker

In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges,

Gah. Did you really need to make this political? A independent judiciary is the only thing that keeps our freedoms intact. They can only interpet what's basically written in the Constitution. That doesn't mean they had to so vague, but that doesn't make them a bunch of bleeding heart liberals either.

Originally Posted by Wesker

The court says that parents no longer have this right exclusively. The state can now supersede our wishes in these matters. The ruling is open enough that the state, should it chose to, can go beyond these matters and supersede parental authority wherever it deems fit.

Yes, and no. The court was more or less vague in this ruling. Which means it could be worked in favor of parental educational rights, and it could also be used in opposition of parental educational rights. That's the law and lawyers at work.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Again, I was talking about a fundamental right. Clearly you need a short lesson in philosophy.

There are two kinds of rights. There are fundamental rights, which include the right to life, the right to liberty, bodily autonomy, etc. These rights are natural (we have them because we are who we are and for no other reason), universal (they apply to everybody), and inalienable (they cannot be surrendered or taken away).

The right to influence your child's education is a derivative right, not a fundamental right.

You're not going to change what I think nor am I going to change what you think.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Take the 1st Amendment. If times were right, the sheep were guided well enough, and enough crying was done, we could have a constitutional amendment that annuls the 1st amendment, and poof! No freedom of religion. Or freedom of speech, or the freedoms that we take for granted.

Oh boy. Freedom of speech is misconstrued anyway. Do I need to redirect your attention to the Alien and Sedition Act? Perhaps the Smith Act? Take a look at the scarier provisions of the Patriot Act. Those freedoms are not a bastion of freedom that you think it is.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

O RLY?

EDIT: Oh, and if that's not enough, then on the top of my head, I can recall several of these laws:

It is illegal to whistle underwater.
In Texas, you may not carry wire cutters in your pocket.
If two trains meet on a track, then both must stop and neither may continue until the other has passed.

And you claim that laws have to follow society's standards?

No I claimed that legitimate law has to follow society's standards. Prohibition and the other examples only confirm my point. They were examples of laws that are/were not taken legitimately by society at large. I mean, isn't that why the 30's were called the "Sober 30's" instead of the "Roaring 30's"? Or was it 20's? I forget.

*edit* But that's probably another point we won't agree on.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Legitimacy has nothing to do with your argument. The fact remains that a) We live in a social contract society (i.e. we, by being citizens, agree to obey the laws of the land), and b) those examples became laws.]

Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You are claiming that there is a necessary connection between laws and morality, and then turning around and explaining away counterexamples by claiming that they're not "legitimate." Bullshit! If they weren't legitimate, then they wouldn't have become laws. The very concept of an illegitimate law is contradictory. :lolsign:

If it was legitimate they wouldn't be disregarded by pretty much everybody, even the moral crusaders that voted for it. President Harding voted for Prohibition when he was a Senator, but kept the White House stocked with bootleg alcohol. Our own president at the time disregarded such a illogical and illegitimate law.

Saying "Well they're legitimate because they're laws!" is false. Just because they're laws does not make them legitimate. Society as a whole must accept them as the standard. Thus when society doesn't accept them, the laws become illegitmate quickly. Laws are required to evolve over time to retain their relevancy and legitimacy or they die.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate.

I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights. (Had to stay on topic somehow! Or tie-in)

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here.

Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

You're half-right. I am putting forth the idea that law is not based upon objective standard. However, I'm not saying it's based on the whims on the public. Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

It doesn't matter who violates the law. You violated the law, and thus you are punished (assuming you get caught). How hard is this to understand?

Everyone who violates the law and get's caught get's punished? I wish.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Funny, It's estimated that around 5 percent of Americans evade taxes via offshore tax havens alone. And consider that a tax haven is one of the least used. Of the 1.5 trillion in taxes collected in 1998, it's estimated that there was at least another 232 billion that was never collected. Even accounting for corporate evasion, that's still a pretty penny of people whom, according to you, hate taxes but pay them anyway (which coincidentally makes taxes legitimate).

Offshore tax havens are legal. Not that a liberal think tank would agree with me. There's plenty of gray area. Which is why the IRS doesn't go after tax shelters with much gusto. Especially since the laws have changed in favor of the offshore havens. Corporations are not citizens anyway. That doesn't mean they aren't granted privileges as such. That's beside the point.

Additionally you are only talking about federal income taxes. People that do not pay their taxes are in the minority. When you fill up your car with gas you're paying a tax. When you get a drivers license you're paying yet more taxes. Face it, we're taxed to death on everything. Most states have a sales tax. So if you buy anything you're being taxed.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Funny thing is, that prior to the Civil War era it was supported by the majority, and one of the main arguments from the South was that abolition would remove the strength of its economy. Also, it certainly isn't an institution protected by law today.

That's debatable, not that I'm expecting you to come to a agreement with me. Only a small wealthy minority actually owned slaves. But it was still an institution protected by law, for roughly let's say half this nation's existence. You didn't answer my question of; Did it benefit the public even if the majority were not slaveowners?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

And how can you say that "the vast majority of people violate this law thus it is illegitimate" is not saying "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion?"

When even a minority of people disregard the law, revolutions become a possibility. Revolutions in my mind are completely legitimate politicial actions. Self-determination and all that yeah? Yet they're still overthrowing "legitimate" laws right? Who's deciding what's legitimate?

Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time. Not everyone shares morals, nor do they stay the same. Which requires law to evolve with the times. The only real alternative to that is that the law loses it's legitimacy, and revolutions become a real threat to the established order. Which is part of the reason why Lincoln freed the slaves, and not Nat Turner.

Hmm, I don't know where to take it from here. This could probably go on forever. heh.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

I meant "caught" as in with no reasonable doubt. Granted, it becomes massively complicated with plea deals, but such technicalities are outside the scope of this discussion, neh?

I direct your attention to Oliver North. Infamous for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. Convicted of lying to Congress. His penalty? A show on Fox News. That's so harsh man! (I mean you're a liberal and all right? )

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist. When those people became revolutionaries, then in the eyes of the law they became criminals and were punished, usually severely, when they were caught. If the revolution succeeded, then the old system didn't exist anymore and the law was changed, thus the revolutionaries were no longer criminals.

So only winners write the history books. I can agree with that one.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

...what.

Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?"
[/b]

Tradition and customs. People with differing opinions typically share the same tradition and customs. We're all united in that one. The minorities rights don't get trampled on in such a case. Except when the tramping of the minorities is a custom. That combined with precedents set by judges is the basis of common law.

Now I guess we're going to argue over civil law... or statutory law. Shit, this is never going to end.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

And thus, they have an opinion on morality, based on customs and traditions. Therefore, you are claiming that legitimacy of law is based on the majority opinion.

Morality is relative. There can be no clear majority opinion since everybody has differing morals that they live by. Thus, law is not based upon the "majority's opinions". Which is why morality issues such as abortion are such sticky legal territory. Also why Roe v Wade make's no reference to "a woman's right to an abortion" and merely states that States do not have the power to ban abortion.

and 'round we go.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

I don't believe in much. I just like to debate. Keeps the mind in shape.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.

There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so: ."

Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.

This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right

But don't all societies preceive their way to be "the right way?". Moore was not trying to debunk that.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?

Perhaps. That's obviously not your skewed vision of what moral relativism is.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

What do you think they mean by "Absolute" and "Universal"? The only "absolute" philosophical thing I think that it could possibly refer to is the existence of a God. And "His" universal rules. Which is why I used the Catholic Church and Galileo as an example.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Yes I understand the point you're trying to make. The problem is, you don't seem to understand what I said. This is not a yes/no proposition. You're trying to boil it down into a simplistic AGREE/DISAGREE choice. My problem with your Shape Relativity is that lack of complexity dealing with complex questions. Only the most mundane of questions can be boiled down to agree or disagree. Moral relativity, (while not perfect) is certainly more complex then your Shapist theories since it encompasses tradition, custom, history, and personal choice.

The flaws I see of your shape theory is who is deciding what the group believes, and why are they choosing to believe that. How did they come to that conclusion? Name off all the examples you want, but until you can answer that then your theory is incomplete.

Again I ask, doesn't every society think their way is the right way?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Ethics are morals.?

Wrong. In the sense of what Moore was talking about. Ethics are the standards that govern groups. Morals are your personal perception of right and wrong. Do they sometimes cross and agree with each other? Yes. All the time? No.

Jam it back in, in the dark.