School Vouchers and Segregation: The school voucher system promoted by conservatives will result in establishing a segregated school system at tax payers expense. The voucher system is presented to Christians as an opportunity to have your children educated in a Christian environment and as an opportunity to return to a morals based education system. While these goals may be laudable, the real effect of the voucher system will be to return the country to a system of segregated schools. This is why the voucher system is so strongly advocated by reconstructionists, segregationists, and white supremacist groups.
We should only accept a school voucher program if the vouchers can only be used in racially balanced schools. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
So I am pro-life but not pro-fetus; pro the life of the baby and the life of the mother and in fact all life. The pro-fetus group calls themselves pro-life but they are actually only pro-fetus. As soon as that baby is born, they want nothing to do with it. They want nothing to do with making sure the baby is properly fed, they want no responsibility to assure it is properly clothed, or that the baby gets a good education and that the mother has the resources to give the baby a chance to grow up to be a productive citizen.
In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."
Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.
Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.
It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.
I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.
A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
In fact, some people in the "pro-life" movement are strongly opposed to using taxpayers money to protect mothers and children. I have met "pro-life"-ers who say things like "if we make it too easy for these people, they will just have more welfare babies." The implication is that they want to make sure that the mother gets punished for having a baby out of wedlock: "If she suffers enough and sees how bad she and the baby have it, maybe she won't be so quick to have another illegitimate child."
Ok. So making babies suffer is a family value.
Wait a minute. These people are not only not pro-life. Their position is immoral to the core.
It is immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world and then structure society to assure the child will suffer for a lifetime for the "sins" of his or her mother.
I'm sorry. Whenever a "pro-life"-er plays the morality card, those of us who actually care about morality need to scream at the top of our lungs and call attention to the moral fraud this group is perpetrating on our nation.
A constitutional amendment to protect the fetus should only be considered if the amendment also provides for protection of the baby and mother. (Hide and watch the conservatives run from that one.)
Sometimes Baptist preachers say things from the pulpit that are utter nonsense. While this is never excusable, when a small time country preacher does it, it is at least understandable. Mike Huckabee is running for leader of the greatest country in the world. When he demonstrates himself to be ignorant and uninformed, he demonstrates he is unqualified to be president. "We really don’t need a lot of law if we’re people of morality," Huckabee said at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, according to a report in the Lynchburg News Advance. "There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."
Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.
Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.
The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.
Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.
Some preachers have a penchant for proclaiming that the ten commandments are the foundation of all morality and the basis for our legal system. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
The constitution of the United States is careful to protect us from the ten commandments. Enforcement of the first four commandments is prohibited by the separation clause. For example, the first commandment states "you shall have no other gods before me." Yet religious freedom cannot exist unless people are permitted to worship other gods. That is what religious freedom is. Just as I have the right to take the name of other peoples gods in vain and they must be guaranteed the right to take the name of my God in vain (in violation of the third commandment). Religious freedom is clearly in conflict with these commandments.
Our legal system is based on British common law, which is based on Roman law, which was based on Greek, Persian, and Babylonian law. Many of the laws of the Old Testament are virtually quotes from Babylonian law which was based on the Code of Hammurabi. Only three of the ten commandments have any status in our legal system at all; it is illegal to steal, illegal to bear false witness, and murder is against the law. These three things did not come into our legal system through the ten commandments. These things are against the law in much older codes than the ten commandments and the Old Testament. Most of the commandments are not part of our legal system at all. For example, there is no law that requires you to honor mother and father, coveting is not against the law, and adultery is not against the law. In other words the ten commandments have virtually no relationship to our legal system.
The ten commandments make a very poor foundation for morality. Slaves are mentioned twice in Exodus chapter 20 and coveting your neighbors wife is a property issue. The wife is listed after the house and before the ox and ass. Who can argue that a code that condones slavery and treating women as property is an appropriate foundation for morality.
Sometimes you hear it said that outside of Christianity, there is no morality. ("If you invite an atheist to dinner, you'd better lock up the silver.") The implication is that if we don't incorporate Christian percepts in government and schools then there is no basis for morality in society and chaos will result. This is also historically and factually untrue. Throughout history there have been great, non-Christian, non-Jewish civilizations that have had high standards of morality that pre-dated or were developed totally independently of the Old Testament. Today, there are totally secular societies, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and pagan societies that have and operate on very high moral standards that they did not get from the Old Testament. Humans are moral creatures. Morality is essential for stable human societies to emerge. The Hebrews developed moral standards for their society, but they did not invent morality. Some of my atheist friends have higher moral standards than many of the Christians I know. Morality does not come from God and does not presume a God for its existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
