If your children aren't taught the state's official curriculum by a state-certified teacher, they'll be taken from you.

[Modelworks]

Even if you don't believe in God, thats ok, he believes in you.

 

[Fern]

Bah, they just need to import some Muslims into their community, then have them say that they will be offended by evolution and alt life stlyes.

The way things seem to be going, that should prolly get the gov oficials to back off real quick.

Fern

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Noise ordinances are when your home is infringing on the rights of others. Same with building a bomb or cooking meth, or any other "hazardous to the neighborhood" activity you do at your home. If you are going to make analogies, you might want to try one that is accurate and relevant.

Those constitutional freedoms that protect our "right to privacy" (which is a whole topic in itself) from spying also protect our right to raise our children the way we want to. If that means we want to teach them the UFO's are coming, it's our right. Socialism is not built into the US constitution. I've obviously given this much more thought than you have since your only answer is "for the good of society".

There is no such right as raising your children the way you want - if there was there would be no such things as child services, foster homes etc.

Once you've realized that, its a question of whether its a good idea to let people pull their kids out of school to teach them whatever wacky shit they want. To use your UFO idea, do you think that if someone doesn't let their child go to school but instead tells them to stay at home and read UFO books and watch UFO documentaries, that it somehow magically won't affect the kid?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: alchemize
Noise ordinances are when your home is infringing on the rights of others. Same with building a bomb or cooking meth, or any other "hazardous to the neighborhood" activity you do at your home. If you are going to make analogies, you might want to try one that is accurate and relevant.

Those constitutional freedoms that protect our "right to privacy" (which is a whole topic in itself) from spying also protect our right to raise our children the way we want to. If that means we want to teach them the UFO's are coming, it's our right. Socialism is not built into the US constitution. I've obviously given this much more thought than you have since your only answer is "for the good of society".

There is no such right as raising your children the way you want - if there was there would be no such things as child services, foster homes etc.

Once you've realized that, its a question of whether its a good idea to let people pull their kids out of school to teach them whatever wacky shit they want. To use your UFO idea, do you think that if someone doesn't let their child go to school but instead tells them to stay at home and read UFO books and watch UFO documentaries, that it somehow magically won't affect the kid?

Wrong. A child until he/she turns 18 is under the domain of the parent. Legally, an extension of that parent.

Child services and foster homes are in place to support abused kids/separate them from the abuse. Looks like socialists like you want to expand this to belief systems as well. It's a "good idea" to socialists, therefore all that crap a bunch of tottering old men made up about individual freedoms goes out the window!

Well, I'm no taking down my Velvet Flying Spaghetti Monster painting, I don't care if you send your best Janet Reno goon squad...

Edit: ah another Canuck I see - nevermind, just keep your socialism where it belongs...I really should just say "fine, go crazy Canadians". Any US folks want to argue with me about it?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: alchemize
Noise ordinances are when your home is infringing on the rights of others. Same with building a bomb or cooking meth, or any other "hazardous to the neighborhood" activity you do at your home. If you are going to make analogies, you might want to try one that is accurate and relevant.

Those constitutional freedoms that protect our "right to privacy" (which is a whole topic in itself) from spying also protect our right to raise our children the way we want to. If that means we want to teach them the UFO's are coming, it's our right. Socialism is not built into the US constitution. I've obviously given this much more thought than you have since your only answer is "for the good of society".

There is no such right as raising your children the way you want - if there was there would be no such things as child services, foster homes etc.

Once you've realized that, its a question of whether its a good idea to let people pull their kids out of school to teach them whatever wacky shit they want. To use your UFO idea, do you think that if someone doesn't let their child go to school but instead tells them to stay at home and read UFO books and watch UFO documentaries, that it somehow magically won't affect the kid?

Wrong. A child until he/she turns 18 is under the domain of the parent. Legally, an extension of that parent.

Child services and foster homes are in place to support abused kids/separate them from the abuse. Looks like socialists like you want to expand this to belief systems as well. It's a "good idea" to socialists, therefore all that crap a bunch of tottering old men made up about individual freedoms goes out the window!

Well, I'm no taking down my Velvet Flying Spaghetti Monster painting, I don't care if you send your best Janet Reno goon squad...

Edit: ah another Canuck I see - nevermind, just keep your socialism where it belongs...I really should just say "fine, go crazy Canadians". Any US folks want to argue with me about it?

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Idontcare

"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

There is a difference between min standards and standardized result than forcing one to go to a state run school or else!

If you cant see that as being oppresive then you need to open your eyes. What happens if the belief stick is on the other shoe and they are force feeding creationism in public schools and you dont want your kid to be indoctrinated? Should the state have the right to force you to send your kid to the state school or else?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Martin

I see you didn't answer the question, but tried to change to subject to something different. The thread (and article) isn't about minor things like what parents say to their kids, what kind of paintings they have etc. Its about the full time education of kids.

You obviously have no trouble accepting that abuse parents that are a harm to their children can have them taken away, but do you think that only applies to physical abuse? Is denying a kid an education not harmful to them?

Smoking in the home is harmful to a child, do we need to outlaw that? Feeding kids twinkies and Happy Meals is harmful to a child. Do we need to outlaw that?

I did answer the question, you just can't see the answer. If it doesn't break any criminal laws, then the parents can do whatever they please with their children. Is it always "the best thing to do"? No, but again this may be a difference in governments, but in the US it's the constitutionally supported correct thing to do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Idontcare

"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

There is a difference between min standards and standardized result than forcing one to go to a state run school or else!

If you cant see that as being oppresive then you need to open your eyes. What happens if the belief stick is on the other shoe and they are force feeding creationism in public schools and you dont want your kid to be indoctrinated? Should the state have the right to force you to send your kid to the state school or else?

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

You are a great example of how a left wing socialist is no different than a right wing fascist. Just different things they want to force down our throats.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus
Mennonites may flee Quebec town

ROXTON FALLS, QUE. - Members of Quebec's only Mennonite community say they may move to Ontario or New Brunswick so they can keep their children in a private school that suits their religious beliefs.

Fifteen English-speaking Mennonite families in this small community in the Monteregie region say they won't send their children to government-approved schools, balking at the teaching of evolution, the acceptance of gays and lesbians and low "morality standards."

They say they are considering relocation out of fear that child-protection officials will seize their children.

Other townspeople here -- mostly francophone Catholics -- support the primarily English school, deemed illegal by Quebec's Education Department.

"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen, who in the early 1990s was among the first Mennonites from Manitoba to move to Roxton Falls, a sleepy town on the Riviere Noire, about 100 kilometres east of Montreal.

"It's kind of sad because we enjoy the community, we have friends and we have good rapport with our neighbours.

"But when they threaten to take our children and put them in foster homes, that's beyond what we can accept," said Mr. Goossen, 56, a hog farmer who also works in a local factory.

News reports last year about unsanctioned schools led to a complaint to the Education Department about the Mennonite school.

Parents were warned they would face legal proceedings if their children aren't enrolled in sanctioned schools this fall. That could lead to children being taken from families, Mr. Goossen said.

Children are taught reading, writing, math, science, geography, social sciences and music. The education is mostly in English, but French is also taught.

For the school to be legal, the teacher would have to be certified and Quebec's official curriculum would have be taught.

"To do that, we would have to send teachers to schools we don't want to send our children to," Mr. Goossen said.

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

What the children are being taught sounds backwards as hell to me personally, but it's their parent's right to have them instructed any way they wish, in my opinion. Quebec is such a mess.

Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Idontcare

"It boils down to intolerance to our religion" by education officials, said Ronald Goossen,

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Ah yes, the old "we are the victims of people who are intolerant of our intolerance" philosophy.

Tyranny of the majority over the minority is tyranny all the same. I may find their views ridiculous, but they're still entitled to them.

That sounds good in principle but it breaks down in reality. Society makes this sort of judgement call constantly. It basically comes down to if you think that the state should be able to determine what the children in it learn because of that influence on society. I am a very big believer in "yes". The fact that the state can force people to go to school at all is an imposition of this type, but one I think our country (and Canada) are very much better off for having.

If you reject this sort of state control, then where does it stop? Is it okay for UFO cult members to indoctrinate their children? Things like that? Those might be considerably more extreme then just some idiotic evolution deniers, but it comes from the same logical path and the question of either the state can mandate some minimum standards on you, or everyone is entitled to whatever opinion/teaching they want.

If you don't reject it where does it stop. Suppose the state starts teaching a UFO cult to indoctrinate its children?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the parents be able to teach their kids never to see a doctor even if they are grievously sick? How about teaching them to strap on a bomb for Allah?

There are many sects that do not wish to have vaccinations and other medical treatments so I would imagine some don't go to the doc when they are ill either. point?

Teaching kids to murder? Hmm... I'll have to think about that one... :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

You are a great example of how a left wing socialist is no different than a right wing fascist. Just different things they want to force down our throats.

Again, your argument is absurd. You've now switched from 'government shouldn't interfere at all' to 'government should only intervene if criminal laws are broken'. In doing so you are implicitly accepting that some regulations on children are okay, and that the family is not sacrosanct. What are criminal laws other then what the majority decides they are anyway?

We both seem agree that the state can in fact put limits on what you can do with your kids, apparently we just differ on where that line is drawn. Meh. Enough with the hyperbole... it just sounds stupid.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

You are a great example of how a left wing socialist is no different than a right wing fascist. Just different things they want to force down our throats.

Again, your argument is absurd. You've now switched from 'government shouldn't interfere at all' to 'government should only intervene if criminal laws are broken'. In doing so you are implicitly accepting that some regulations on children are okay, and that the family is not sacrosanct. What are criminal laws other then what the majority decides they are anyway?

We both seem agree that the state can in fact put limits on what you can do with your kids, apparently we just differ on where that line is drawn. Meh. Enough with the hyperbole... it just sounds stupid.

What are you talking about? I never said that the government cannot ever interfere. In my very third post I drew distinctions of law against your silly examples. The family is not sacrosant when it comes to (commonly accepted) criminal law. You just want to expand criminal law to what suits your political agenda. No different than fascism.

 

[StageLeft]

Everyone hates Quebecers. Now they have reason to hate just a little bit more.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Ah ah ah, I see what you did there.

You are equating creationism and evolution. The problem with your argument is that one of those is a religious doctrine that is constitutionally barred from our school systems, and the other is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence which is the fundamental basis for all modern biology. You are arguing that parents have a right to purposefully render their children ignorant, to their considerable educational detriment.

I disagree.

You are a great example of how a left wing socialist is no different than a right wing fascist. Just different things they want to force down our throats.

Again, your argument is absurd. You've now switched from 'government shouldn't interfere at all' to 'government should only intervene if criminal laws are broken'. In doing so you are implicitly accepting that some regulations on children are okay, and that the family is not sacrosanct. What are criminal laws other then what the majority decides they are anyway?

We both seem agree that the state can in fact put limits on what you can do with your kids, apparently we just differ on where that line is drawn. Meh. Enough with the hyperbole... it just sounds stupid.

What are you talking about? I never said that the government cannot ever interfere. In my very third post I drew distinctions of law against your silly examples. The family is not sacrosant when it comes to (commonly accepted) criminal law. You just want to expand criminal law to what suits your political agenda. No different than fascism.

I think it's awesome that you said 'in my very third post'.

So now we have commonly accepted criminal law huh? Who decides what's commonly accepted? Do you see what's wrong with your argument? *sigh*. Quit with the stupid fascist arguments, they are juvinile.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize
What are you talking about? I never said that the government cannot ever interfere. In my very third post I drew distinctions of law against your silly examples. The family is not sacrosant when it comes to (commonly accepted) criminal law. You just want to expand criminal law to what suits your political agenda. No different than fascism.

I think it's awesome that you said 'in my very third post'.

So now we have commonly accepted criminal law huh? Who decides what's commonly accepted? Do you see what's wrong with your argument? *sigh*. Quit with the stupid fascist arguments, they are juvinile.

His logic is consistent. Government exists to ensure that society - in essence any gathering of people that rises above the level of 'mob' - treats each other fairly. As in, does not steal or hack each other to death (at least without penalty).

Everything that does not harm another consenting adult has no business being legislated by government, because there is no way to legislate to 100% of the people fairly. Now while there are always exceptions to the rule, in general it's quite simple and consistent.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize
What are you talking about? I never said that the government cannot ever interfere. In my very third post I drew distinctions of law against your silly examples. The family is not sacrosant when it comes to (commonly accepted) criminal law. You just want to expand criminal law to what suits your political agenda. No different than fascism.

I think it's awesome that you said 'in my very third post'.

So now we have commonly accepted criminal law huh? Who decides what's commonly accepted? Do you see what's wrong with your argument? *sigh*. Quit with the stupid fascist arguments, they are juvinile.

His logic is consistent. Government exists to ensure that society - in essence any gathering of people that rises above the level of 'mob' - treats each other fairly. As in, does not steal or hack each other to death (at least without penalty).

Everything that does not harm another consenting adult has no business being legislated by government, because there is no way to legislate to 100% of the people fairly. Now while there are always exceptions to the rule, in general it's quite simple and consistent.

But that is the problem not forcing kids to attended a school does harm them and they are unable to consent to such a harm and it harms society.

 

[alchemize]

Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

Young people who drop out of high school are unlikely to have the minimum skills and credentials necessary to function in today's increasingly complex society and technological workplace. The completion of high school is required for accessing post-secondary education and is a minimum requirement for most jobs.1 High school dropouts are more likely than high school completers to be unemployed.2 Additionally, a high school diploma leads to higher income and occupational status.3 Interestingly, however, many youth who drop out of high school eventually earn a diploma or a GED. One study found that 63 percent of students who dropped out had earned a diploma or GED within eight years of the year they should have originally graduated.4

Studies have found that young adults with low education and skill levels are more likely to live in poverty and to receive government assistance.5 High school dropouts are likely to stay on public assistance longer than those with at least a high school degree. Further, high school dropouts are more likely to become involved in crime.6

http://www.childtrendsdatabank...1HighSchoolDropout.cfm

There proof that those who don't attend all of high school are more likely to be a drain on society. I don't think you will be able to find a study that is based students that don't attend any school because their are so few people and it would be unethical to deny them education just to prove that education is important.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

So your argument is "we should be free to teach people fairy tales because it is theoretically possible that they could teach them other different things that will be good". Unless you can somehow show that teaching evolution is somehow incompatible with these other good goals, then your argument doesn't hold up.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

Young people who drop out of high school are unlikely to have the minimum skills and credentials necessary to function in today's increasingly complex society and technological workplace. The completion of high school is required for accessing post-secondary education and is a minimum requirement for most jobs.1 High school dropouts are more likely than high school completers to be unemployed.2 Additionally, a high school diploma leads to higher income and occupational status.3 Interestingly, however, many youth who drop out of high school eventually earn a diploma or a GED. One study found that 63 percent of students who dropped out had earned a diploma or GED within eight years of the year they should have originally graduated.4

Studies have found that young adults with low education and skill levels are more likely to live in poverty and to receive government assistance.5 High school dropouts are likely to stay on public assistance longer than those with at least a high school degree. Further, high school dropouts are more likely to become involved in crime.6

http://www.childtrendsdatabank...1HighSchoolDropout.cfm

There proof that those who don't attend all of high school are more likely to be a drain on society. I don't think you will be able to find a study that is based students that don't attend any school because their are so few people and it would be unethical to deny them education just to prove that education is important.

Nobody is talking about them dropping out...

Members of Quebec's only Mennonite community say they may move to Ontario or New Brunswick so they can keep their children in a private school that suits their religious beliefs.

They should home school them, but there's probably some whacky socialist canadian law against freedom on that too.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

So your argument is "we should be free to teach people fairy tales because it is theoretically possible that they could teach them other different things that will be good". Unless you can somehow show that teaching evolution is somehow incompatible with these other good goals, then your argument doesn't hold up.

No, my arguement is "we should be free to teach other people fairy tales BECUASE IT'S A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT". Enough of you trying to twist my words. you are the one positing that it's "harmful to society", you prove it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

So your argument is "we should be free to teach people fairy tales because it is theoretically possible that they could teach them other different things that will be good". Unless you can somehow show that teaching evolution is somehow incompatible with these other good goals, then your argument doesn't hold up.

No, my arguement is "we should be free to teach other people fairy tales BECUASE IT'S A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT". Enough of you trying to twist my words. you are the one positing that it's "harmful to society", you prove it.

Where does the constitution give you the right to keep your children ignorant?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bullshit. For one, you have no evidence that it's "harmful to society" (other than to your partisan voting population). They are attending a school, you just don't like what they are teaching.

So they don't believe in evolution, but what if they produce really hard workers? What if their crime rate is lower? Then your net effect is positive.

The issue here isn't the impact to society, it's the impact to the way you want society to be.

So your argument is "we should be free to teach people fairy tales because it is theoretically possible that they could teach them other different things that will be good". Unless you can somehow show that teaching evolution is somehow incompatible with these other good goals, then your argument doesn't hold up.

No, my arguement is "we should be free to teach other people fairy tales BECUASE IT'S A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT". Enough of you trying to twist my words. you are the one positing that it's "harmful to society", you prove it.

Where does the constitution give you the right to keep your children ignorant?

for the troll.