Sununu rips Scott after Trump endorsement: ‘Nobody’ thinks he will unite the country

[GreatLakes4Ever]

L

What? No. There is no teaching of religious beliefs in public school. You are the one consistently bringing religion into it. Sex ed is not religion. Political anything is not religion. Social issues- not religion.

@ralliann doesn’t want anything taught that goes against their deity. That actually is a wider net than you are thinking. You can’t teach that genocide is bad because their deity has ordered a couple of those. You can’t teach that it is wrong to own human beings as property because their deity has given rules on how to do that. It is a ridiculous request they are making.

@ralliann, you have a right to teach your child whatever you want inside your home, but you don’t get to force the rest of the world to bend to your demands. If you don’t like it you can lock your kids in your house and not let them interact with the outside world.

 

[Belk]

Oh, who does? You?
See this is the kind of hateful dismissal I am talking about.

No one. That is not something anyone has a right to do. It is not hateful dismissal it is pointing out reality. No one has a right to limit what other people experience. That is one of the basic concepts of freedom the country was founded on.

 

[wing2000]

You are not even willing. This is the problem. You want to force your views on issues of religion onto people's kids. Violating parental rights of their freedom of religion in our public schools. School choice asks to stop this violation.

You're free to remove your kids today.
You're not free to force me to pay for your choices.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We are asking you not oppose. There is utterly no reason to. I do not have to answer to you concerning my beliefs. Which your above assumption is ignorant. And no, I do not need to explain how to you.

Nobody's trying to oppose you telling your kids whatever you want when they're at home.

You're free convey your religious ideas to the fullest extent and make as compelling of a case as you can muster up when explaining it to your children...nobody's trying to stop you.

Everyone else's kids don't have avoid talking/learning about something just because you feel that makes your self-imposed task more difficult.

Again you are off base. And no I don;t answer to you. I do not need your permission for anything here. Get your nose out of these things. But for some reason you just cannot seem to.

You're not making any sense, who's telling you you're not allowed to promote your ideas at home?

I've simply said that you don't have a right to insist that public schools should have to walk on eggshells in order to not say anything that may challenge what you're viewpoint is.

For instance, if you wanted to teach your kids that the US was founded in 1986 by the lead singer of Duran Duran...go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

However, if your kids are going to participate in the public school system, that school shouldn't be expected to avoid talking about the actual framers or the year 1776 because it may cause your kids to question your Simon Le Bon theory when they get home. That's not how this works.

It does not need to go into sexuality, or politics. Especially in lower grades.

If you recall, I agreed that I don't feel there's a need to delve into certain topics at the younger grades. But that's not the ask from many conservatives.

I was a defender of the Parental Right in Education bill in Florida when they specified "From K-3"...I would've still be a defender if it had read "From grades K-5". However they waited all of 8 weeks before they opted move the goal posts and make it K-12.

So let's not try to pretend that this is just about the "lower grades". I gave the Florida GOP the benefit of the doubt on that one for 2 months before they played the bait & switch game and tried push for their restrictions k-12.

You have no right to infringe on my religious freedom over my household. Get your nose out of religious pushback.

Again, you're using certain words, but you're using them in a way that doesn't make sense.

You have religious rights, it's an individual right (in the US) which means you don't have that freedom "over" anyone else.

Much like it would be silly to say "I have voting freedoms over my household"

Ah, yeah you have the power to speak whatever you think is right. And you dislike the idea of ANYONE who might disagree. You don't know the difference.

I'm not the one suggesting that teachers shouldn't be able to say something I don't like merely because it would challenge someone's ability to steer their kids in a certain religious direction.

Then why are you so offended? Because only you can be offended?

I'm not the one asking anyone to implement a "teachers can't talk about anything that could make kids not believe what I believe" framework.

LOL. You just cant tell the difference between You are not doing, vs you are doing here can you? Let parents do the doing, and get your nose out of it. See, nobody is asking you to DO anything. Get out of it. But for some reason you just do not want to.

Yes, you are...you're asking teachers to adjust their lesson plans and intentionally omit something (that the majority of parents actually want their kids to learn about) because it may challenge your religious views.


How about you take a crack at the analogy I provided before and give me your thoughts on it.

If 10% of the kids in your school district were from Jewish or Hindu households, and their parents were demanding a "religion neutral foods" for the cafeteria (out of fear that if their kids saw other people eating bacon cheeseburgers, they may want to try them which would be against the religion they're trying to instill in them)

If you and the other 90% parents & students had no ethical/moral qualms with the burgers and want your kids to be able to eat what they like at lunch, should your kid be denied the ability to enjoy a slice of pizza or a burger at lunch? If those 10% of parents said "you just need to not stick your nose in my family's religious business and get those burgers out of the cafeteria and let me make the decision about what religiously approved foods I want my child to be exposed to!"

Are you and the other 90% of parents the ones sticking your noses into their business? Or is it actually the other way around in that scenario?
(hint: it's the latter)


It may be worth reading up on the concept of "positive vs. negative" rights. (and they don't mean positive/negative in terms of good/bad)

Negative rights are non-rivalrous, and merely oblige inaction.
(like speech, me speaking doesn't take away your ability to speak)

Positive rights are rights that are rivalrous, and require everyone else to give something up or to adjust their own behavior in order for you to have it.
(like when people talk about the right to taxpayer funded healthcare, that would be considered a positive right because it requires everyone else to pay something in order for them to have it)


Religious rights in the US are intended to be within the framework of the former (everyone can have their own religion, and nobody has to give up anything or pay anything in order for the other person to have it). What you're proposing is something resembling the latter framework, in which every other kid in the district has to give up their ability to learn about something they may want to learn about, so that your child doesn't hear something that may cause them to question your religious viewpoint.


As I've heard it coined before, the constitution protects your right to speech & teach, but does not guarantee your reach.

Which means you're free to espouse the beliefs that you want, and you're free to give a 110% effort to try to make sure your kids end up in the same religion as you. What you're not allowed to do, is dictate what everyone else can and can't say (or hear) in order to make your proselytizing task easier.

 

[ralliann]

What? No. There is no teaching of religious beliefs in public school. You are the one consistently bringing religion into it. Sex ed is not religion. Political anything is not religion. Social issues- not religion.

Sex ed does not need to be taught either. It can be an elective. And social issues can and have been in opposition to religion. Let parents opt out

 

[ralliann]

You're free to remove your kids today.
You're not free to force me to pay for your choices.

I am paying for your choices.

 

[comana]

Sex ed does not need to be taught either. It can be an elective. And social issues can and have been in opposition to religion. Let parents opt out

Sex ed is a necessity. The fact that you find discussion of certain social issues in opposition to your religion is in fact a matter for you to deal with, not the public system. You, as a parent, have every right to opt out of the public school system.

Now when I was in the public school system there were a few students who had strict religious backgrounds and they were given the option to opt out of objectionable material. You could always make a similar request.

 

[ralliann]

Sex ed is a necessity. The fact that you find discussion of certain social issues in opposition to your religion is in fact a matter for you to deal with, not the public system. You, as a parent, have every right to opt out of the public school system.

Now when I was in the public school system there were a few students who had strict religious backgrounds and they were given the option to opt out of objectionable material. You could always make a similar request.

No it is not a necessity. There are people that send their children to religious schools. They can be completely prepared for college. They can graduate with degrees like any other student. The point is whether public school or private, it in no way affects their outcome. So the necessity stuff is a farce.
Go ahead and offer these things as electives.

 

[comana]

No it is not a necessity. There are people that send their children to religious schools. They can be completely prepared for college. They can graduate like any other student. The point is whether public school or private, it in no way affects their outcome. So the necessity stuff is a farce.

No one is stating religious schools don’t prepare students for success in college.

Believe it or not, there are religious schools that do teach sex ed. children do need to learn about their reproductive organs, puberty, and how it all works. They do need to learn about STDs and pregnancy prevention. While most of these topics are more appropriate for the teen years, younger children also need age appropriate knowledge About their bodies and safety. Most would rather hear it all from a teacher than their parents. Parents also have historically been very bad at teaching beyond puberty basics.

Public schools have a responsibility to educate all and are not going to cater to certain religious sensitivities. If what they are going to teach goes against your religion, you have options.

 

[ralliann]

No one. That is not something anyone has a right to do. It is not hateful dismissal it is pointing out reality. No one has a right to limit what other people experience. That is one of the basic concepts of freedom the country was founded on.

Your reality.
Here is the reality, Kids going to private scfools are just as prepared for college as any other student. So all these so called necessities to prepare children for success in the workplace is a farce. It had nothing to do with that private school being religious or not. The skills and knoweldge they need for life success in the workforce for a career is present despite those things.. So stop with the Modern variety on social issues being a necessity.

 

[ralliann]

No one is stating religious schools don’t prepare students for success in college.

Believe it or not, there are religious schools that do teach sex ed. children do need to learn about their reproductive organs, puberty, and how it all works. They do need to learn about STDs and pregnancy prevention. While most of these topics are more appropriate for the teen years, younger children also need age appropriate knowledge About their bodies and safety. Most would rather hear it all from a teacher than their parents. Parents also have historically been very bad at teaching beyond puberty basics.

Public schools have a responsibility to educate all and are not going to cater to certain religious sensitivities. If what they are going to teach goes against your religion, you have options.

Believe it or not, I know that. Know sex and all that is also a biblical theme. So is homosexuality. The comments that homosexuality exists, as if children with Christian education are not aware is ignorance. It is indeed known biblically. It is a farce to speak as though it is not known to Christian kids.
Ignoring what has been taught and advocated to be taught in schools, even grade school is ignored here. It does not belong in public schools.

 

[comana]

Believe it or not, I know that. Know sex and all that is also a biblical theme. So is homosexuality. The comments that homosexuality exists, as if children with Christian education are not aware is ignorance. It is indeed known biblically. It is a farce to speak as though it is not known to Christian kids.
Ignoring what has been taught and advocated to be taught in schools, even grade school is ignored here. It does not belong in public schools.

I can only conclude that a private school option is the best for you as a parent. You even acknowledge that the outcome is just as good if not better without all the topics you object to.

 

[ralliann]

I am paying for your choices.

Nobody's trying to oppose you telling your kids whatever you want when they're at home.

You're free convey your religious ideas to the fullest extent and make as compelling of a case as you can muster up when explaining it to your children...nobody's trying to stop you.

Quit twisting. To infringe on that at school is the point here. It is my freedom to do that without you or anyone else infringing on my religious right to teach my child these things.

Everyone else's kids don't have avoid talking/learning about something just because you feel that makes your self-imposed task more difficult.

I never asked you for that either. Quit twisting it. Letting parents have classes void of those things is the point.....Nopbody's kid is being imposed upon by any but the PARENT.

You're not making any sense, who's telling you you're not allowed to promote your ideas at home?

Nobody, because i9t was no a complaint. Accepting that fact might clear up the confusion you are bringing into the conversation.

I've simply said that you don't have a right to insist that public schools should have to walk on eggshells in order to not say anything that may challenge what you're viewpoint is.

Not asking you to walk on egg shells. Just a choice to Parents.

For instance, if you wanted to teach your kids that the US was founded in 1986 by the lead singer of Duran Duran...go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

However, if your kids are going to participate in the public school system, that school shouldn't be expected to avoid talking about the actual framers or the year 1776 because it may cause your kids to question your Simon Le Bon theory when they get home. That's not how this works.

Your way or the highway.

If you recall, I agreed that I don't feel there's a need to delve into certain topics at the younger grades. But that's not the ask from many conservatives.

Oh, lucky me?

I was a defender of the Parental Right in Education bill in Florida when they specified "From K-3"...I would've still be a defender if it had read "From grades K-5". However they waited all of 8 weeks before they opted move the goal posts and make it K-12.

Oh, you decide.

So let's not try to pretend that this is just about the "lower grades". I gave the Florida GOP the benefit of the doubt on that one for 2 months before they played the bait & switch game and tried push for their restrictions k-12.

Again, you're using certain words, but you're using them in a way that doesn't make sense.

You have religious rights, it's an individual right (in the US) which means you don't have that freedom "over" anyone else.

Much like it would be silly to say "I have voting freedoms over my household"

Never asked for that either. But you seem to like freedom only when you agree.

I'm not the one suggesting that teachers shouldn't be able to say something I don't like merely because it would challenge someone's ability to steer their kids in a certain religious direction.

You mean infringe on my religious freedom as a parent? Especially since it has no value to educate or prepare them for college?

I'm not the one asking anyone to implement a "teachers can't talk about anything that could make kids not believe what I believe" framework.

Yes, you are...you're asking teachers to adjust their lesson plans and intentionally omit something (that the majority of parents actually want their kids to learn about) because it may challenge your religious views.

No I am asking to have teachers that teach academics.

How about you take a crack at the analogy I provided before and give me your thoughts on it.

If 10% of the kids in your school district were from Jewish or Hindu households, and their parents were demanding a "religion neutral foods" for the cafeteria (out of fear that if their kids saw other people eating bacon cheeseburgers, they may want to try them which would be against the religion they're trying to instill in them)

If you and the other 90% parents & students had no ethical/moral qualms with the burgers and want your kids to be able to eat what they like at lunch, should your kid be denied the ability to enjoy a slice of pizza or a burger at lunch? If those 10% of parents said "you just need to not stick your nose in my family's religious business and get those burgers out of the cafeteria and let me make the decision about what religiously approved foods I want my child to be exposed to!"

We would, and actually "DO" understand it is a religious conviction. Therefore provide to them kosher food. That is what I and my kids have done when attending Jewish religious services. It is "unclean" to them. It defiles them. So in bringing food for a gathering after services I never brought unclean food.

Are you and the other 90% of parents the ones sticking your noses into their business? Or is it actually the other way around in that scenario?
(hint: it's the latter)


It may be worth reading up on the concept of "positive vs. negative" rights. (and they don't mean positive/negative in terms of good/bad)

Negative rights are non-rivalrous, and merely oblige inaction.
(like speech, me speaking doesn't take away your ability to speak)

Positive rights are rights that are rivalrous, and require everyone else to give something up or to adjust their own behavior in order for you to have it.
(like when people talk about the right to taxpayer funded healthcare, that would be considered a positive right because it requires everyone else to pay something in order for them to have it)


Religious rights in the US are intended to be within the framework of the former (everyone can have their own religion, and nobody has to give up anything or pay anything in order for the other person to have it). What you're proposing is something resembling the latter framework, in which every other kid in the district has to give up their ability to learn about something they may want to learn about, so that your child doesn't hear something that may cause them to question your religious viewpoint.


As I've heard it coined before, the constitution protects your right to speech & teach, but does not guarantee your reach.

Which means you're free to espouse the beliefs that you want, and you're free to give a 110% effort to try to make sure your kids end up in the same religion as you. What you're not allowed to do, is dictate what everyone else can and can't say (or hear) in order to make your proselytizing task easier.

I am asking for you to not infringe while my child is in school. It is not necessary. And you say tough nut to you. Yet I pay for it. Im am not doing anything to you, or anyone else.

 

[ralliann]

I can only conclude that a private school option is the best for you as a parent.

My kids are already raised. They have decided as adults what to believe and how to live. I did what I was supposed to do.

You even acknowledge that the outcome is just as good if not better without all the topics you object to.

The more important thing is.....so have you. So, the other stuff is not necessary for a well rounded education.
A relative of mine sent their child to Christian school. She has a degree and now runs three offices, in various places in the area. Has been on the radio, because of reputation in her field. The things you are focused on are not necessary for anything to this end, you admit it, yet insist on it for education. This is the more important elephant in the room. what you all insist on does not benefit to EDUCATE THEM, so why insist on it as though it is needed.

 

[comana]

My kids are already raised. They have decided as adults what to believe and how to live. I did what I was supposed to do.

The more important thing is.....so have you. So, the other stuff is not necessary for a well rounded education.
A relative of mine sent their child to Christian school. She has a degree and now runs three offices, in various places in the area. Has been on the radio, because of reputation in her field. The things you are focused on are not necessary for anything to this end, you admit it, yet insist on it for education. This is the more important elephant in the room. It does not benefit to EDUCATE THEM

I do regard social issues as a necessary aspect of education. It makes for a more well rounded and emotionally mature adult. It is relevant to careers and the workplace. We need more of these people not less.

 

[ralliann]

I do regard social issues as a necessary aspect of education. It makes for a more well rounded and emotionally mature adult.

No, it doesn't. More well rounded for what? Maturity in what way? Mind you what I HAVE been talking about here the modern version of social issues.

It is relevant to careers and the workplace. We need more of these people not less.

How is it relevant? My daughter and her cousin, are well rounded emotionally Mature adults, responsible good parents. Both are in careers which help people, and do them services. one many Children as a psychologist.
You appear to me to be making biased assumptions, using ambiguous terms.
And an unhealthy idea of domain of an educator. Certainly there are children that come from troubled homes etc. So therefore it can become an aspect of certain educators, but that would be specialized, but necessary. But not in General.

 

[ralliann]

L


@ralliann doesn’t want anything taught that goes against their deity.

And this is maturity and well rounded?

That actually is a wider net than you are thinking. You can’t teach that genocide is bad because their deity has ordered a couple of those. You can’t teach that it is wrong to own human beings as property because their deity has given rules on how to do that. It is a ridiculous request they are making.

Ah, so you think religion is what causes slavery among all societies huh? What cause abuse of people throughout history. Even among atheists heh?

@ralliann, you have a right to teach your child whatever you want inside your home, but you don’t get to force the rest of the world to bend to your demands. If you don’t like it you can lock your kids in your house and not let them interact with the outside world.

So well rounded of you. Or just someone who is angry because they can't have it their way. You can have it your way. There are parents out there that will be ok with it. As I said my children did both, and one only did public. But that is unimportant for your theatrics here. I am merely saying allow parents a choice to raise their kids, and just provide an education with my tax dollars. It really is not that big of a request.

 

[Belk]

Your reality.
Here is the reality, Kids going to private scfools are just as prepared for college as any other student. So all these so called necessities to prepare children for success in the workplace is a farce. It had nothing to do with that private school being religious or not. The skills and knoweldge they need for life success in the workforce for a career is present despite those things.. So stop with the Modern variety on social issues being a necessity.

This has nothing to do with your not having a right to control other peoples experiences?

 

[comana]

No, it doesn't. More well rounded for what? Maturity in what way? Mind you what I HAVE been talking about here the modern version of social issues.

How is it relevant? My daughter and her cousin, are well rounded emotionally Mature adults, responsible good parents. Both are in careers which help people, and do them services. one many Children as a psychologist.
You appear to me to be making biased assumptions, using ambiguous terms.
And an unhealthy idea of domain of an educator. Certainly there are children that come from troubled homes etc. So therefore it can become an aspect of certain educators, but that would be specialized, but necessary. But not in General.

Whatever you mean by the “ modern version of social issues “, well rounded, emotionally mature adults can deal with uncomfortable social issues/situations without getting offended or feeling victimized.

For most children the K-12 years are the most influential for social development. Learning about people different from themselves and better, getting to know them leads to less discrimination as adults.

 

[ralliann]

Whatever you mean by the “ modern version of social issues “, well rounded, emotionally mature adults can deal with uncomfortable social issues/situations without getting offended or feeling victimized.

Yes, that is why it is seems so far Parents are going to have to appeal to law and the founding documents to deal with this situation.

For most children the K-12 years are the most influential for social development. Learning about people different from themselves and better, getting to know them leads to less discrimination as adults.

Again since Educators are uncomfortable with social development to a level of emotional offense at parental influence. Parents are going to have deal with this legally. We pay for our kids to be educated in academics, and preparation for college. Now, in light of your position (discriminatory), Careful studies will probably have to include maturity, and well roundedness, to of our Children, non victims of our influence.