Would you have voted for the Oregon Compulsory Education Act?

[Communists For McCain]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

EDIT: Caught the enormous omission of words.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

What. The. F**k. Is. This. I. Don't. Even.

Is Red trolling for a purpouse or... I'd say something but I don't want to be infracted.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

You're right, it obviously wasn't right either. My thing though is that since I know people who quit the Catholic church WITHOUT societal benefit, I know they clearly would with it. I know I would too, I mean you all know with the way I talk I wouldn't renounce Jesus to get food, but if I was raised Catholic would I renounce the Pope to do so? Of course, because I wouldn't care too much about the Pope in the first place.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

Well yeah this is clearly a case of different perspectives, you being in Oklahoma after all. But I will note that as stupid as the Sharia ban was, the vast majority of people think of Sharia Law as what's used in Saudi Arabia and Iran to execute homosexuals and rape victims. We all know that's not coming anytime soon to anywhere in the US regardless of the passage of stupid measures like that, but it's why they are so easy to pass, it's more ignorance than bigotry.

And if you'll note, I did state above that I'm sure the vast majority of Catholics today would be disgusted by that type of thing I'm railing against.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

Once again you're in Oklahoma, so your definition of "mainstream Protestant" is clearly going to differ from mine. I do know plenty who also would flip if their kid became a Catholic, but because that meant that they'd be joining something ran by a reactionary, sexist and homophobic hierarchy, not because of it being the Whore of Babylon or whatever. But from personal experience, my family was not bothered by me being baptized again in a neocharismatic church, or my youngest brother who still lives at home identifying as agnostic. But as I stated above even most Catholics here wouldn't care too much about their kid converting or getting married outside a Catholic church, which is why I'm condemning the attitudes of 1920s Catholics or 19th century Irish which clearly aren't as common today.

[Communists For McCain]

Now, I agree, denouncing converts and saying they should be damned isn't something to be praised.  However, what can you really say about Anglican charities that forced the Irish to give up their religion to get food?  Why didn't you complain about that BRTD but instead focused on what the Catholics did?  I mean, are they really any damn better for requiring a sacrifice of religion in order to avoid starving to death?  Arguably, this is an evil that shows how corrupt institutions, both Anglican and Catholic, were back then to demand obedience to one hierarchy over the other or suffer extreme consequences.

You're right, it obviously wasn't right either. My thing though is that since I know people who quit the Catholic church WITHOUT societal benefit, I know they clearly would with it. I know I would too, I mean you all know with the way I talk I wouldn't renounce Jesus to get food, but if I was raised Catholic would I renounce the Pope to do so? Of course, because I wouldn't care too much about the Pope in the first place.

However, I take issue with this idea that staunchly religious protestants aren't as bad as religious Catholics when it comes to the subject of condemnation.  I happen to come from the Religious Southland, where protestant bigotry towards all sorts of people isn't anything that's rare.  It was here, in barely Catholic at all Oklahoma, where a voter supported ban on Sharia Law was passed in 2010.  Yes, it is on it's way to history by now thanks to judges loyal to the Freedom of Religion, but it still happened.

Well yeah this is clearly a case of different perspectives, you being in Oklahoma after all. But I will note that as stupid as the Sharia ban was, the vast majority of people think of Sharia Law as what's used in Saudi Arabia and Iran to execute homosexuals and rape victims. We all know that's not coming anytime soon to anywhere in the US regardless of the passage of stupid measures like that, but it's why they are so easy to pass, it's more ignorance than bigotry.

And if you'll note, I did state above that I'm sure the vast majority of Catholics today would be disgusted by that type of thing I'm railing against.

And I call 'BULLF***INGSH*T" on the idea that damnation of converts is something that is only common in Catholic Christianity.  Many Mainstream Protestants that I know would flip half a sh*t if their kid came out as a Muslim, an atheist, or *gasp* a Catholic.  SO you can keep on acting like the great evils of prejudice are only in the communities in which you are naturally predisposed to hate (yes I used the h word) or you can admit that this is a problem brought on by the greed of American culture to divide people.

Once again you're in Oklahoma, so your definition of "mainstream Protestant" is clearly going to differ from mine. I do know plenty who also would flip if their kid became a Catholic, but because that meant that they'd be joining something ran by a reactionary, sexist and homophobic hierarchy, not because of it being the Whore of Babylon or whatever. But from personal experience, my family was not bothered by me being baptized again in a neocharismatic church, or my youngest brother who still lives at home identifying as agnostic. But as I stated above even most Catholics here wouldn't care too much about their kid converting or getting married outside a Catholic church, which is why I'm condemning the attitudes of 1920s Catholics or 19th century Irish which clearly aren't as common today.

Which is why you would support legislation that was, in spirit, designed to be anti-religious and to soothe bigots?  Which was incidentally supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Again, I'm surprised you wouldn't be soulmates with the 1920's KKK (outside of the alcohol issue).

But before you think I'm painting you as little more than a reactionary, but I don't think it's fair to judge an organization wholly by it's hierarchy.  Yet you seem to do this all the time when it comes to the Catholics but not when it comes to Protestants.

Inconsistency much?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Which is why you would support legislation that was, in spirit, designed to be anti-religious and to soothe bigots?  Which was incidentally supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Well as noted I'm against any private schools and homeschooling. I wouldn't support it if it just banned Catholic schools, though the constitutionality of that would never be in question.

Again, I'm surprised you wouldn't be soulmates with the 1920's KKK (outside of the alcohol issue).

So you think I'm a racist, fundamentalist segregationist who'd love to go around lynching blacks and harassing people in interracial marriages?

But before you think I'm painting you as little more than a reactionary, but I don't think it's fair to judge an organization wholly by it's hierarchy.  Yet you seem to do this all the time when it comes to the Catholics but not when it comes to Protestants.

Inconsistency much?

The difference is that the Catholic Church is one consistent organization, Protestants aren't, and even individual Protestant churches aren't as tied to the hierarchy and dissent isn't as cracked down upon. That's the big difference between saying the Pope speaks for all Catholics and saying Pat Robertson speaks for all Protestants.

Obviously there are Catholics that don't agree with the Pope, but then I have to wonder why they are still Catholic. Like literally wonder because I just can't comprehend it.

[Badger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Compulsory_Education_Act

Absolutely. This is easily one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a state in US history, even if the courts struck it down. I'm actually amazed any state actually did ever propose to completely abolish private schools, I always assumed that was just a far out dream of mine.

People in the northern parts of the United States tend to have an authoritarian streak.

Yes, we have a history of being real slavedrivers there.

[True Federalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Compulsory_Education_Act

Absolutely. This is easily one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a state in US history, even if the courts struck it down. I'm actually amazed any state actually did ever propose to completely abolish private schools, I always assumed that was just a far out dream of mine.

People in the northern parts of the United States tend to have an authoritarian streak.

Yes, we have a history of being real slavedrivers there.

Yup, Northerners drove and sailed slaves to many places.  The North became anti-Slavery not so much because they loved freedom, but mainly because they didn't want niggers living among them, taking jobs from white men and driving down wages.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

This thread is not bad. This thread is extremely bad. You guys shouldn't feel bad. In fact, you should feel like Larry Craig's wife.

[CathKhan]

Really, are there that many on the Left that are so incredibly Statist?

[For Oklahoma]

This thread is not bad. This thread is extremely bad. You guys shouldn't feel bad. In fact, you should feel like Larry Craig's wife.

[TNF]

Absolutely not.

Homeschooling should be banned, but private schooling is fine so long as they follow a set of rigorous standards that promote high achievement, which Catholic schools are pretty well known for, as opposed to, say, private Bible Academies in the South.

This law was supported by the Klan for obvious reasons: to go after Catholics. I would never endorse such a measure designed solely to attack American Catholics.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Frankly, I have a very negative opinion on homeschooling. Of course, normal school sucks in many ways, but it's giving you a real life experience among other people. Homeschooling is keeping one under a jar.

[dead0man]

Really, are there that many on the Left that are so incredibly Statist?

Yes.

Homeschooling is keeping one under a jar.

It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be and obviously isn't always.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

[True Federalist]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

That's probably the most persuasive argument that could be made in favor of the act.

[For Oklahoma]

Homeschooling should be banned

um

[Insula Dei]

Homeschooling is really a horrible idea 95% of the time. No problem with religious schools, though.

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

Homeschooling is really a horrible idea 95% of the time.

[oakvale]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

And suddenly everything makes a little more sense...

[Communists For McCain]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

And suddenly everything makes a little more sense...

Yes this is perhaps the most convincing argument in the history of histories.
Surely no argument could ever be as evidenced filled, rational, full of argument and counterargument with strong supporting theses such as this "F**k you guys."
I mean really!  My mind is blown!
You know what?  This kid is my hero!  I should go into my Philosophy final (that I should've been studying for all this morning but put off because I'm a lazyarse who is hoping that the question that is picked is something I know a lot about or can easily bullsh*t) and just write down these infamous words "F**k you guys" (Pingvin 3:16).  Surely it will be an instant "A" and the professor will recommend me for Oxford after I graduate despite me having no future.
I mean really, all the defenses of home schooling can't be as accurate and as deep hitting as this.  This is the most persuasive argument ever in favor of home schooling.  While public schools and private school and gay schools may teach everyone to use proper syntax and to throw in a thesis and at least 900 words in every argument with thorough documentation and evidence of arguments and counterarguments, the homeschooler simply takes a whiff of air and says "F**k you guys!"
Truly a superior brand of education right there!

This sign of superiority in intelligence and in the art of argument makes Pingvin an easy future leader.  In fact, such is his superiority that I wouldn't be surprised if Congress repeals that part about only native borns being allowed to run for president.  A bipartisan agreement on that by the way, to insure that such a great one as Pingvin, with his charisma and superior brain waves, is elected President of these United States to enter us into a Golden Era.  All the nations of the Earth must fear us, for we will have Pingvin as our leader.



God be praised!

[Communists For McCain]

Also, I would like to take this time to apologize to BRTD for the extreme hyperbole I committed while debating him.  Yes, while I do believe that you are an ideological bigot it was unfair of me to make the comment about being surprised that you wouldn't be a soulmate with the 1920's KKK.  Yes, there was an anti-Catholic element, but there was also an anti-Jew element, an anti-black element, an anti-immigrant element, and probably even an anti-Ice Cream element.

The implications that you would be a KKK lover was uncalled for and inaccurate considering the wide scope of hatred the KKK has to the weirdly narrow and specific scope that you have.  In effect, I do admit that I have committed a grievous Category Error that Gilbert Ryle would facepalm at.

This was an exceedingly unfair characterization of a man of your character who occasionally has selfish principles that gets in the way of his predisposed prejudices towards certain groups in certain scenarios.

I apologize.

[jimrtex]

Not at all, I probably would like Irish immigrants in the 20s actually since they were the biggest opponents of Prohibition and responsible for providing me with a lot of my alcohol, and the KKK were in favor of it. I would've voted for Al Smith in 1928 because of that.

It was all a package deal, prohibition, outlaw public schools, direct election of senators, confiscation of property through the income tax, eugenics.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

And suddenly everything makes a little more sense...

Yes this is perhaps the most convincing argument in the history of histories.
Surely no argument could ever be as evidenced filled, rational, full of argument and counterargument with strong supporting theses such as this "F**k you guys."
I mean really!  My mind is blown!
You know what?  This kid is my hero!  I should go into my Philosophy final (that I should've been studying for all this morning but put off because I'm a lazyarse who is hoping that the question that is picked is something I know a lot about or can easily bullsh*t) and just write down these infamous words "F**k you guys" (Pingvin 3:16).  Surely it will be an instant "A" and the professor will recommend me for Oxford after I graduate despite me having no future.
I mean really, all the defenses of home schooling can't be as accurate and as deep hitting as this.  This is the most persuasive argument ever in favor of home schooling.  While public schools and private school and gay schools may teach everyone to use proper syntax and to throw in a thesis and at least 900 words in every argument with thorough documentation and evidence of arguments and counterarguments, the homeschooler simply takes a whiff of air and says "F**k you guys!"
Truly a superior brand of education right there!

This sign of superiority in intelligence and in the art of argument makes Pingvin an easy future leader.  In fact, such is his superiority that I wouldn't be surprised if Congress repeals that part about only native borns being allowed to run for president.  A bipartisan agreement on that by the way, to insure that such a great one as Pingvin, with his charisma and superior brain waves, is elected President of these United States to enter us into a Golden Era.  All the nations of the Earth must fear us, for we will have Pingvin as our leader.



God be praised!

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

To make situation clear: I was quite often bullied for the glasses and obesity in the public school. Then I punched on of the bullies's GF in face after she started to insult my parents. After the scandal in the school parents decided that homeschooling would be better for me.

[dead0man]

I don't understand how someone can look at the status of many many public schools in this country (granted, the vast majority of public school systems aren't as bad as different people want you to believe at different times depending on whether they want them to be perfect or sh**t).  Then look at the statistics of homeschooled kids and then come to the conclusion that homeschooling should be out and out banned.  Simply boggles my mind.  The arguments against it are weak and easily countered, but the overriding "win" for homeschooling is the freedom of choice parents and students should have in their choice of education.  Yes, abuses can take place, yes some students may end up screwed by sh**tty parents, but it's not like the exact same fricking things can't happen with kids forced to go to public schools.

FTR I was NOT homeschooled and for your average kid in your average town it's probably better for the kid to go to "regular" school, but taking away the option with a law (or even adding a large number of hoops to jump through) is a horrible horrible idea.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'm on homeschooling.
And do you know what I'm gonna say?
F**k you guys.

Here's the best argument against homeschooling I've encountered yet.