Speaking Of Communities And Ownership

Hammer Sickle

Alright, now that the left has come clean on kids:

My question to my liberal friends:

What if my “community” is one of devote Christians that love to pray before breakfast, lunch, dinner, Communion and school?

Can my community be defined by anything other than State?  Cause when you say “community” I know that’s dog whistle for “State”.

4 responses to “Speaking Of Communities And Ownership

  1. Let’s think about education. Most education policy is set by local school boards, some of which have mandated teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution in conservative areas. I think that’s anti-scientific, but part of me respects that they are the locally elected governing unit for that school district.

    So her argument – which is a very benign argument that more money should be spent on education so that our children are better equipped for the future, that this is in the community’s interest – is at base a plea for taxpayers to recognize the importance of education. It’s certainly NOT a claim that children belong to the state. In fact, the US Federal Government is less involved in K-12 education than any other national government in the western world, save perhaps Switzerland.

    As to communities, there are many devout Christian communities, and they often do have Christian schools where they pray. In our democracy we have a constitution that limits religious activity (no single religion can be given preference over others). So that creates legal limits on how tax payer money can be used. The people do have the power to amend that if that were to be the wish of the people. But I would begrudge no Christian, Muslim or Jew the right to create private schools and private communities to pray and commune together.

    • So her argument – which is a very benign argument that more money should be spent on education so that our children are better equipped for the future, that this is in the community’s interest – is at base a plea for taxpayers to recognize the importance of education.

      That may be her argument, but her justification is that kids don’t belong to their parents. The private notion of children.

      But speaking of education, you cannot show me that adding more money to the system makes it better.

      It’s certainly NOT a claim that children belong to the state.

      It certainly is. The state is the only community the left is comfortable. This is why you have state schools, state healthcare, state food care, state unemployment care and state retirement care.

      In our democracy we have a constitution that limits religious activity (no single religion can be given preference over others).

      Our constitution says no such thing. It says that we cannot have a state religion. Like in England when the folks left. The King of England was also the ruler of the Church of England. There is nothing that says one religion can’t be given preference.

      But I would begrudge no Christian, Muslim or Jew the right to create private schools and private communities to pray and commune together.

      Why does it have to be private? The community is Christian. The schools can be Christian too. And the kids, well, they belong to the Christian community.

      Unless you mean the kids DON’T belong to the religious community but only to the state community.

      Which is what she means.

  2. If you try to say the Left wants to view children as property of the state, you’ll have the red meat right wingers with you, but that’s so over the top that you’ll get moderates to just laugh. Clearly the left does not want the state to control children or see them as state property, that’s a silly claim – and you have to take linguistic leaps (as in shifting the meaning of belong) to reach that in anything she says.

    Our constitution has to be interpreted, there we look to supreme court rulings. And for the Court, protecting minority rights in terms of how public money is spent is part of our constitution – preventing tyranny of the majority. Kids belong to the whole community – all of us working together to build a better future, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Jew, Buddhist…etc. That whole community benefits all, including the sub communities.

    • Clearly the left does not want the state to control

      Explain the left’s position on private school vs how many rich leftists put their kids in private school.

      Our constitution has to be interpreted

      Yes. And it is interpreted as meaning that the King of England can’t be the head of The Church of England. There is no single aspect of the constitution that supports banning religion from the public square.

Leave a Reply