We know an x-marine, who REFUSED to pay the taxes mandated from your paycheck into a system he didn't believe in. He and everyone else is allowed the same. He did work and receive his entire paycheck that he worked for. However, he was never 'entitled' to receive any government benefits or allowed to purchase a home. Can I say the guy does just fine....so far!
just sayin.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
We know an x-marine, who REFUSED to pay the taxes mandated from your paycheck into a system he didn't believe in. He and everyone else is allowed the same. He did work and receive his entire paycheck that he worked for. However, he was never 'entitled' to receive any government benefits or allowed to purchase a home. Can I say the guy does just fine....so far!
just sayin.
why couldn't he purchase a home?
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
First, marriage licensing is use of government force because it incentivizes a behavior in return for government benefits. Government benefits that you are FORCED to pay into. So the government says, if you get your marriage licensed by the government, you are eligible to collect the money you are forced to pay to the government. Like receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits of a spouse. If you do not have the government recognized license, you can't collect.
Then you would also consider a driver's license as use of force, because it offers incentives to the licensee?
I really don't see government laws or regulations, as use of force simply because it offers incentives.
Only because your personal acceptance of the government acting on your behalf, is voluntary. You are not forced to license your marriage, or yourself to drive. You do so because of the greater opportunities afforded to you, because of your previously agreed to membership into the representative system of government.
The entire system is voluntary, however, non-membership will result in disqualifications of any member benefits.
Then you would also consider a driver's license as use of force, because it offers incentives to the licensee?
I really don't see government laws or regulations, as use of force simply because it offers incentives.
Only because your personal acceptance of the government acting on your behalf, is voluntary. You are not forced to license your marriage, or yourself to drive. You do so because of the greater opportunities afforded to you, because of your previously agreed to membership into the representative system of government.
The entire system is voluntary, however, non-membership will result in disqualifications of any member benefits.
That isn't really force.
as long as it doesn't get as bad as Demolition Man......I HATE TACO BELL!!!!!!
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
You can opt out of EVERYTHING! But the government, now, has the system rigged, by the rhetorical fear tactics, that you think you can't survive without GOV ALMIGHTY!!! GOV ALMIGHTY makes it impossible!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Then you would also consider a driver's license as use of force, because it offers incentives to the licensee?
I really don't see government laws or regulations, as use of force simply because it offers incentives.
No, my income doesn't get directly taxed, and the only way to collect it is to get a drivers license. If the law said my significant other couldn't collect on my social security that I was forced to pay into my whole life, unless I receive drivers license, then I would have the same argument.
Second, state licensing of same sex marriage will also inevitably result in a change in the sex ed curriculum in the compulsory education system. If public school teaches about heterosexual sexual behavior, it would eventually be pushed into teaching homosexual sexual behaviors in the name of equality. If you can afford to pay compulsory school taxes and and afford to send your child to private school where you have more control of the curriculum, great...If not, like a majority of Americans, your child will be forced to sit though state sex ed that teaches values that run counter to your religious teaching. Church has a tough time swimming against those currents.
While I agree that it will inevitably become standard educational practice to teach about both hetero and homo sexuality, I just don't see the harm. Most parents know full well their children are taught things that they themselves would disagree with. They still accept the consequences of their own act of voting for a representative to make the education curriculum decisions for them.
What I see lacking is the church and the families failing to teach religious and family values so that the children can make decisions regarding these subjects, based on their own personal beliefs. I don't see it as the government taking anything from the family values or the religious beliefs of the families or the church itself. I see it as an utter failure on the part of parents and the church to teach these beliefs to the children. Parents must be the first line of education and instill personal responsibility in the children to make decent, healthy informed choices in their lifestyles. Children have no choice but to learn what is available to them. Blaming the government is not going to accomplish anything. The finger of blame needs to be turned around to themselves for not teaching children better values and beliefs.
While I agree that it will inevitably become standard educational practice to teach about both hetero and homo sexuality, I just don't see the harm. Most parents know full well their children are taught things that they themselves would disagree with. They still accept the consequences of their own act of voting for a representative to make the education curriculum decisions for them.
Is your argument that failure to win an election means the winning majority get to force the minority to pay for a curriculum they don't agree with? So you believe in mob rule when it comes to compulsory public schooling?
So I agree that government has no ability to regulate religious events, they do have the ability to promote the secularization of marriage by incentivizing it with financial government benefits. They also have the ability to use the pubic education system to impress on young minds the states definition of marriage. Both religious and state marriage can coexist, but I disagree that the church won't be affected, it is my opinion that the state will consume the church, if it hasn't already.
Oh the church is affected, for sure. Indirectly, and as a result of the children getting only 1 viewpoint. Failing to provide your own personal beliefs and values to the children does not make the government wrong for teaching all available non-religious topics. The government is not wrong to fail to teach religion and religious values and beliefs, because it only applies to a minority of the general population of the country as well as the planet. They are forbidden from interfering in religious teachings and religious values. That is exactly how it should be. The government should not be basing laws, regulations or licensing, on religious or personal family values. That is not their job.
It is yours. Children will understand that abortion is not right. Children will understand that life should be regarded as precious. Children will understand the importance of strong family values and healthy lifestyle choices.
The problem is that family planning and family values are not taught by schools. They must be taught by parents and the church.
For as much as you wish the government to base laws on your personal Christian beliefs, others would seek to have the laws based on the teachings of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Rastafarian, Rosacrucian, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
The government can not possibly teach all religions and the differences. It must be done outside the school system.
No, my income doesn't get directly taxed, and the only way to collect it is to get a drivers license. If the law said my significant other couldn't collect on my social security that I was forced to pay into my whole life, unless I receive drivers license, then I would have the same argument.
The law offers the incentive of allowing you to drive, if you pay the driver's licensing fees.
I'm missing something in your argument. How does your significant other change the definition of force of licensing, marriage or driving?
Oh the church is affect, for sure. Indirectly, and as a result of the children getting only 1 viewpoint. Failing to provide your own personal beliefs and values to the children does not make the government wrong for teaching all available non-religious topics. The government is not wrong to fail to teach religion and religious values and beliefs, because it only applies to a minority of the general population of the country as well as the planet. They are forbidden from interfering in religious teachings and religious values. That is exactly how it should be. The government should not be basing laws, regulations or licensing, on religious or personal family values. That is not their job.
The government is wrong by forcing parents to pay into the public school system in the first place. The second problem with compulsory schooling is that your impressionable child is subjected to many teachers that will have both a positive and negative impact on your child beyond the 3 R's.
I'm not disagreeing with your emphasis on parental responsibility and instilling personal and religious values. But I think it's a bit naive to think that the 8 hours in a government school won't leave a lasting impression on a child's mind.
The problem isn't necessarily the curriculum of the government school, but the fact the parents are forced to pay if they choose alternative education. Paying for public school isn't optional. You can't opt out.
Is your argument that failure to win an election means the winning majority get to force the minority to pay for a curriculum they don't agree with? So you believe in mob rule when it comes to compulsory public schooling?
Democratic election of representative government to decide a school curriculum isn't mob rule any more than electing a President would be.
So yes, I do believe in Democratic choices of representatives.
I don't agree with everything in the curriculum, but my children were taught by me that certain things that are taught are against my own personal beliefs.
Schools teach that military actions are needed and justified. I taught my children that all life is sacred and use of force is not to be used proactively.
I taught them that although abortion is legal it is against my own personal beliefs.
I accept personal responsibility for keeping my children and grandchildren informed and educated as to the failings of the school system, and that they must make their own choices based on what they learned from both the school and from me.
Logged
