Women's Sports

[Unfettered]

I'd ask for details.
I'd also do independent research.

What details would need to be offered to compel you against your initial judgment that it wouldn't be safe? What would independent research need to yield to compel you against your initial judgment that it wouldn't be safe?

Actually, this is starting to feel like me trying to twist your arm to see things my way. I really don't have an interest in that.

The basis for my assertion that "education is wholly a religions question" is that the question distills down to considerations of one's own conscience and judgment—things that reside in the realm of religion, as opposed to the realm of state. This, to me, is self-evident. It is my right as a human being to judge what education is appropriate for me to pursue—and, by virtue of the sovereignty of parenthood, my children also. Government has no authority to make those judgments for me or my children.

That's the assertion. Perhaps it could benefit from refinement, but that's the core idea.

I'd be happy to examine any substantive disagreement you might present, but let's not run ourselves through lengthy hypothetical exercises.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually, this is starting to feel like me trying to twist your arm to see things my way. I really don't have an interest in that.

The basis for my assertion that "education is wholly a religions question" is that the question distills down to considerations of one's own conscience and judgment—things that reside in the realm of religion, as opposed to the realm of state. This, to me, is self-evident. It is my right as a human being to judge what education is appropriate for me to pursue—and, by virtue of the sovereignty of parenthood, my children also. Government has no authority to make those judgments for me or my children.

That's the assertion. Perhaps it could benefit from refinement, but that's the core idea.

I'd be happy to examine any substantive disagreement you might present, but let's not run ourselves through lengthy hypothetical exercises.

Happy not to go down the hypothetical rabbit hole...lol

I'm unsure if you'd see this as a substantive agreement or not, but I'd reject the dichotomy of things being either state or religion. Things can be one...the other...both (although that can be a problem if there is overlap).. or neither.

To me, education stands apart from either state or religion conceptually. However the delivery of education at certain levels (eg. Primary education) is generally delivered via state- or religious-controlled bodies.

What I think would be a more substantive disagreement is that I don't see a parent as having sovereign rites over their children. I would strongly disagree that parents should be able to judge what education is pursuable in any fundamental and complete sense.
I would say that I think there should be an element of choice available, but I think instances of choice which are restricted based on class, race or religion are largely counterproductive in terms of societal benefit.

 

[Unfettered]

Happy not to go down the hypothetical rabbit hole...lol

Whew. Thank you. I was already feeling exhausted and we were only 3 volleys in.

I'm unsure if you'd see this as a substantive agreement or not, but I'd reject the dichotomy of things being either state or religion. Things can be one...the other...both (although that can be a problem if there is overlap).. or neither.

I think it may be a substantive point, but seems to be missing the argument portion. It seems to not know itself. So I'm not sure what it says.

To me, education stands apart from either state or religion conceptually.

This seems to be the argument? Again, though, I can't wrap my mind around it. In the US, "religion" in the law is not confined to institutionalized worship, but includes "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief" (Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adds clarity: "The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." It also clarifies that religion pertains to as few as one person: "Some practices are religious for one person, but not religious for another person…"

Foundationally, however, the defining of education is clearly subsumed in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So barring the existence of any other law, this foundation suffices.

So the act of giving definition to "education" is clearly a personal judgment captured by the net of religion, placing it outside the bounds of government regulation. Government can no more define what we should learn than it can what we should worship. At least, not in the US. That said, law and social practice are not always congruent, as is the case with education. The law says one thing and government does the opposite. In this case, I am compelled to advocate for the law, not for what government does.

However the delivery of education at certain levels (eg. Primary education) is generally delivered via state- or religious-controlled bodies.

Generally, yes. But note that I'm not addressing the question of practice or tradition; I'm addressing the question of what is lawful.

What I think would be a more substantive disagreement is that I don't see a parent as having sovereign rites over their children. I would strongly disagree that parents should be able to judge what education is pursuable in any fundamental and complete sense.

OK. Let's run with that for a moment. If you believe that parents are not sovereign over their children's education, then you must believe that someone else is. Who? And through what mechanism did this entity obtain sovregeignty?

If you disagree that parents should be able to judge what education is pursuable, then you must agree that somoene else should be able to so judge. Who? And through what mechanism did this entity obtain authority to make this judgment?

I would say that I think there should be an element of choice available, but I think instances of choice which are restricted based on class, race or religion are largely counterproductive in terms of societal benefit.

If parents aren't sovereign, why would they be given a choice? Wouldn't that simply invite conflict?

I'm not sure what you're saying with the thought about identitiy-based restrictions on choice. I have no frame of reference there.

 

[exchemist]

That's correct. It is often noted that people work for several months of the year, effectively, only for government (to cover one's tax burden), before actually being able to work toward the enjoyment of their rights of life, liberty, etc. That being said, if the taxation is lawful, while it may be a burden, it is not an appropriation because we authorized it (the use of our rights remains self-directed).

To the extent, however, that any portion of our rights is unlawfully exacted from us to bear the burden of government—to that extent our rights have effectively been appropriated for government to use for its own purposes, rather than for the self-directed purposes we would otherwise define.

Our rights are the only natural currency we have to spend.

Well, if the provision of sports leagues exceeds the authority of government, then whatever portion of one's life and means is excised from him to provide them is an appropriation of his rights. Clearly, I am asserting that the provision of sports leagues with the currency of our rights (any portion of them) exceeds the authority of government. Think of it this way: If instead of taxing the money obtained through your productivity to create sports leagues, government taxed the time obtained through your productivity—eg, you were compelled under threat of "justice" to labor an hour a week for the public sports league. Would you object to that taxation? Would you consider that your right to enjoy that time secured through your labors (to pay the debt owed to nature for your subsistence), was justly infringed?

Law aside, on a purely pragmatic level, do we ever slow down to think about what is going on…about what we're allowing government to do? I mean, the government of a nation of 1/3 of a billion people bothering with sports leagues? Seriously? As if humans have a right to sports leagues! What if government busied itself only with the things we created it to busy itself with—justice (securing rights domestically) and defense (securing rights internationally)? What do we suppose that would look like? Would we have less social discord? Less crime? Less international tension? Less debt? I'll let others answer. As it is, we are 33 trillion dollars in debt. For what? Is that what securing our natural rights actually costs? Do we all feel more secure in our rights because we're sitting in that hole? If government exists to secure the rights of the people, are they secure for 33 trillion dollars? Can we stop going into debt now because our rights are finally secure? If not, then maybe government is too focused on things we did not create it to do?

Just what is going on here??

This is a quite ridiculous argument, suggesting, as it does, that any taxation is an appropriation of the rights of the citizen. I don't think you even believe it yourself.

Enough of this tomfoolery.

 

[Unfettered]

This is a quite ridiculous argument, suggesting, as it does, that any taxation is an appropriation of the rights of the citizen. I don't think you even believe it yourself.

I didn't say what you attributed to me. I said that unlawful taxation constitutes an appropriation of the rights of the citizens. And it does. I don't just believe this, I know this.

But I ask you, in your mind is it even possible that government could tax the citizens unlawfully, or in some way exact something from the citizens that it had no authority to exact? Has this ever happened in the history of your country, or any country?

Enough of this tomfoolery.

Up to you to withdraw.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Whew. Thank you. I was already feeling exhausted and we were only 3 volleys in.

Heh...all good. It wasn't helping either of us.

I think it may be a substantive point, but seems to be missing the argument portion. It seems to not know itself. So I'm not sure what it says.

Well, it was more connected to the rest of my post, although it was perhaps unclear.
Let's just leave it as this point;
Things are more nuanced and variable than an 'if not this, then that' position would allow for. In general terms I rarely find rigid dichotomies hold up to scrutiny.

This seems to be the argument? Again, though, I can't wrap my mind around it. In the US, "religion" in the law is not confined to institutionalized worship, but includes "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief" (Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adds clarity: "The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs." It also clarifies that religion pertains to as few as one person: "Some practices are religious for one person, but not religious for another person…"

Sure, because existing protections for religious belief were expanded to include folks like me. Discriminating against an atheist holds legal protection despite my lack of religion.

Foundationally, however, the defining of education is clearly subsumed in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So barring the existence of any other law, this foundation suffices.

Okay. I'm perhaps missing why this is important, but that seems reasonable.

So the act of giving definition to "education" is clearly a personal judgment captured by the net of religion, placing it outside the bounds of government regulation.

I don't get how you make this leap. This is what I mean when I talk about rigid dichotomies not holding to scrutiny. Education doesn't either belong to 'religion' or 'state'.

Government can no more define what we should learn than it can what we should worship. At least, not in the US.

It has limited power in the USA, assuming you mean Federal government. But State governments and their delegated authorities certainly have power, albeit at varied levels depending on the state constitution.

That said, law and social practice are not always congruent, as is the case with education. The law says one thing and government does the opposite. In this case, I am compelled to advocate for the law, not for what government does.


Generally, yes. But note that I'm not addressing the question of practice or tradition; I'm addressing the question of what is lawful.

Understood.

OK. Let's run with that for a moment. If you believe that parents are not sovereign over their children's education, then you must believe that someone else is. Who? And through what mechanism did this entity obtain sovregeignty?

Again, you're setting up a rigid dichotomy. I don't think anyone has sovereign rights over a child's education.

If you disagree that parents should be able to judge what education is pursuable, then you must agree that somoene else should be able to so judge. Who? And through what mechanism did this entity obtain authority to make this judgment?

A combination of parents and educational bodies, with the bodies defining the framework and the parents selecting from within those set bounds.

Simplest (admittedly Australian) example is that my kids need to go to school (or go through some other valid form of education) up until an agreed age.

If parents aren't sovereign, why would they be given a choice? Wouldn't that simply invite conflict?

Of course it does, in the broadest sense of 'conflict'.

I'm not sure what you're saying with the thought about identitiy-based restrictions on choice. I have no frame of reference there.

Honestly, I was just engaging with your comments on the split between state and religion.
I've put some thoughts in this thread much, much earlier around the OP.

To summarise those (horribly) I think people are too invested in discussion of parents rights vs child's rights versus state rights.
Those things are important, but they should be matched with discussion of responsibilities.

I'm responsible for my three kids, and don't want others excluding me from information without specific cause.

 

[Unfettered]

Things are more nuanced and variable than an 'if not this, then that' position would allow for. In general terms I rarely find rigid dichotomies hold up to scrutiny.

I agree that each thing claimed to be dichotomous should be examined carefully.

Sure, because existing protections for religious belief were expanded to include folks like me. Discriminating against an atheist holds legal protection despite my lack of religion.

The point, as I understand it, is that you do have a religion. Anyone who claims to be guided by a moral understanding has a religion. Sometimes one's religion is not shared with anyone else; it pertains to the one person alone. So it's a matter of clarification, not expansion. Big difference. Meaningful difference.

Okay. I'm perhaps missing why this is important, but that seems reasonable.

It's important because if human beings have an inherent right to define education for themselves, that right cannot be infringed without cause and due process, just like the right to one's life cannot be.

I don't get how you make this leap. This is what I mean when I talk about rigid dichotomies not holding to scrutiny. Education doesn't either belong to 'religion' or 'state'.

I understand. I don't see the leap either. I don't see a leap at all. That's our challenge here, I guess. I understand that human beings have a right to define and direct education for themselves, just as I understand that human beings have a right to life, liberty, etc. A human is born with these endowments—they are standard equipment and unalienable. So no leap.

It has limited power in the USA, assuming you mean Federal government. But State governments and their delegated authorities certainly have power, albeit at varied levels depending on the state constitution.

State governments have no power to infringe unalienable rights. They are limited in that regard, just as is the federal government.

Again, you're setting up a rigid dichotomy.

"Someone else" can be whatever you define it to be. But you are correct; I do assert a dichotomy there—parents (and child) on one side and "any other combination of persons" on the other.

I don't think anyone has sovereign rights over a child's education.

I see. Yes, we disagree here. But maybe not. If by "sovereign" you are understanding me to say that parents may simply do anything they want with, or to, a child, that is not what I am saying. It is self-evident that this cannot be. A child is an individual and has all the rights of an individual—rights that are unalienable, including on the part of parents. It is also self-evident that, though an individual with all the rights of an individual, nature does not endow the child at birth with the capacity for autonomous care. It is also self-evident that the natural stewards of a child's rights are his parents. Therein is parents' sovereignty with regards to their child. Neither is it limitless sovereignty, nor at the same time can it be usurped without cause. Parents are the sole and rightful stewards of the child's sovereignty.

That is what is meant by "sovereignty" over a child's education.

A combination of parents and educational bodies, with the bodies defining the framework and the parents selecting from within those set bounds.

I understand, but do not agree that parents are under obligation of any kind to consider educational options alien to their judgment. Again, that is not absolute, but the default. That's my understanding. It's OK if we don't agree here.

To summarise those (horribly) I think people are too invested in discussion of parents rights vs child's rights versus state rights.
Those things are important, but they should be matched with discussion of responsibilities.

I understand. I've only ever been proceeding from the standpoint of defaults. At no time have I understood myself to be advocating for "neglect with impunity."

That said, government must always be reminded of the defaults, because it drifts away from the defaults. So for my part, I champion every sensible discussion of rights, as they pertain to children. I don't think we can waste too much energy discussing the matter (rationally).

In the case of my own family, the state and its educational institution harmed my children. So we fired the state—permanently. And there isn't anything the state can do about the fact that it has been fired. Not a thing. Why? Because we, the parents, are the sovereign (the natural stewards) of our children, not the state.

I'm responsible for my three kids, and don't want others excluding me from information without specific cause.

Understood. The logical follow-up question--and the salient question—is "May what you want be lawfully ignored by some other power?"