Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)
  • Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 02:20:01 -0500 (EST)

In reference to Michael Best's message:
> You are speaking of a law that says I CANNOT do something I want
> to do. But many laws are restrictive economically...
> //SNIP//
>
Yes, most laws are restrictive, usually in the sense of not trampling
someone else's rights, life, or limb: don't kill anyone, don't steal from
anyone, don't run red lights (risking running into anyone), etc.

The educational analogy is an orange to the apple argument at hand.


> Is the public school system "left" or "right"? I don't know. But
> my general idea is that most laws are restrictive at least to some
> people. Let's look at the public school system again. Laws that
> forced racial integration of schools allowed blacks to attend
> schools they previously did not have access to. But it also
> restricted the ability of whites to choose to send their kids to
> an all white school.
>
...??!

I'm not even going to touch that.


> More recently, prayer and even the mention of God has been an
> issue in schools. Again any law that *allows* prayer also
> *restricts* those who do not want their children exposed to prayer.
> And a law that *restricts* prayer is, well, obvious.
>
It's all very simple, really; what is the best way either to step on the
fewest toes or no one's toes at all? The laws of your last example are
designed to enforce the separation of church and state, not restrict
prayer. If kids want to pray or have a seance or perform a drum circle or
whatever before homeroom or during lunch or before the big game, then
that's all well and good for those kids**. Let them; it's their right.
The teachers and staff can pray all they want, too. However, it's wrong
for religious activity to become a function or element in a public school,
or any public institution -- class prayer, religious text on the walls of
a court, "in god we trust", etc.

**(except we all know there won't be any seances or drum circles; this is
all about Christianity vs. the heathen masses)

Conversely, if, say Michael and Richard want to get married, then why is
that any of your (figuratively) business? If they marry, does that harm
you in any way, trample your rights? I seriously doubt it. But if you
tell them that they don't have the right to get married, then you are very
much infringing on their life. God said it's wrong? Tough; it's still
none of your business. God didn't give anyone a mandate to go out and
control anyone's life but their own. **Oh yeah, there we are again:
Christians vs. Heathens. I wonder what the Buddhists think?

like Ted said, "Be excellent to each other!"
Alan

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sil Greene [address withheld]
>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:15 PM
>> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
>> Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)
>>
>> There's a difference between a law that RESTRICTS my freedom to make a
>> lifestyle choice, and a law that ALLOWS me the freedom to make a
>> lifestyle
>> choice. It seems that the "right"'s morality is much heavier on the
>> restricting than the allowing. If you have examples of the "left"'s
>> morality being restrictive, please share; I'm likely against those as
>> well.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page