Originally Posted By ecdc "So those who wish to impose gay marriage, ban all animal testing, force American industry to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, remove all references to religion from the public arena, and provide contraception to school children are theo-cons? Who knew???" *Impose* gay marriage? Seriously? So by providing the same rights that you and your wife have to others, you're being imposed upon? How does this affect your rights in any way, shape, or form? And how is giving children access to condoms taking away your rights or forcing you to do anything? I suppose this highlights the difference between liberals and conservatives: Conservatives define "rights" and "freedom" as not having to think about or deal with people doing things they don't like. Otherwise, they're "imposed" upon. Removing references to religion from the public arena: If you're referring to removing the 10 Commandments, again, an example of conservatives forcing their religion on others who don't share the same beliefs. By removing these things from government places (after all, no one is removing anything from the "public" - it's when it's government sponsored that's the problem) conservatives haven't had their right to worship or belief restricted in any way, though they may feel "imposed" upon. As for animal testing and the Kyoto protocol, these are the only two examples you offered that actually restrict what others are doing. Of course, plenty of people have suggested this is a case of conflicting rights, and one may need to take precedence over the other. In the case of Kyoto, if the vast majority of scientists are right and global warming is reaching a crisis point, then the rights of Bostoners and New Yorkers to not be under 8 feet of water might outweigh the rights of corporations to conduct business as usual without making changes. These are issues where debate makes sense and can take place as discussion hopefully sheds light on what is best for the greater good, while not harming the rights of the minority. But to say gay marriage is "imposed", as if people are being rounded up at gunpoint and forced to get involved in gay marriage is a bit silly, no?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>These are issues where debate makes sense and can take place as discussion hopefully sheds light on what is best for the greater good, while not harming the rights of the minority.<< The point made is that ANY issue can be positioned as "one group imposing their will on all." When the group happens to be religious, the new cry is "theo-cons!" No matter what the point of view, there will be someone out there to deplore it. (I chose a random group of issues, with no intention of actually making a case for or against any, by the way.)
Originally Posted By woody >>There is a movement of people who are opposed to vaccinations of any kind, on the grounds that there is some "risk" involved in being vaccinated.<< >Yes. And while I disagree with them, I was thinking that if Focus on the Family was using that line of reasoning, they would at least be consistent.< They are consistent. You just don't agree with them. They often believe parents deserve to raise their children as they see fit. The government should not interfere if it is not necessary. I think your example is extreme. If Focus On The Family really thinks vaccinations are too risky, then I would be in disagreement with them. Then again, not everyone reacts similarly to vaccinations. Some handle it well, others do not. If parents are ultimately responsibility for their children, they should have the right to decide if this treatment is adequate. >(Or if they were saying "We don't think it's up to the government to immunize any child without parental approval.")< This second post completely contradicts your previous post. Focus On The Family is precisely arguing for non-mandatory treatment. Any treatment that is non-mandatory requires parental approval, except for ABORTION as the only exception!!!
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "If parents are ultimately responsibility for their children, they should have the right to decide if this treatment is adequate." Parents do have the right to decline any and all immunizations. If a school district requires them for entrance then the parent can sign a waiver and if there is an outbreak of the illness for which the child isn't immunized then they can be made to stay out of school until the outbreak subsides. Parents already have the right to refuse any immunizations.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This second post completely contradicts your previous post.<< Of course it doesn't. I am asking what their official stance is regarding school vaccinations. >>They are consistent. You just don't agree with them. They often believe parents deserve to raise their children as they see fit. The government should not interfere if it is not necessary.<< They are consistant in that they don't want teens to be sexually active. They admit in the article that their initial concern was based on the idea that this would somehow make it seem okay. It isn't clear if Focus on the Family will advise their following to get this vaccine or not, so that's why clarification on their concerns is necessary. That's what I am looking for -- do they have an agenda, as they seem to want to get involved in public health policy. It's their right to try, but I believe that they should lay their cards on the table so we all know what their objections truly are. >>If parents are ultimately responsibility for their children, they should have the right to decide if this treatment is adequate.<< Do you feel that's the case for all immunizations, that they should all be voluntary or up to parental discretion? (They are, by the way -- unless the parents intend to send their child to a public school.)
Originally Posted By ecdc "(I chose a random group of issues, with no intention of actually making a case for or against any, by the way.)" And I understood that, however, you've pulled a nice bait and switch. My claim was that those labeled "theocons" want to "have their beliefs forced on everyone else by passing laws for and against different practices". They restrict the rights of others by literally forcing them through the law to do what theocons feel is correct, usually without anything to back them up beyond religious beliefs, which by definition, are a matter of faith and not fact. They create an environment where, if those who disagree with the theocons practice something differently, they are subjected to criminal prosecution. For example, if an amendment is passed banning gay marriage, any attempt to perform a ceremony would not be recognized, and if there are repeated attempts to marry gays by ministers or legal officials, they would most likely be held criminally liable. You morphed my claim into "imposing one's will" which is a very different thing. If gay marriage is allowed, then the will of those who support it does indeed win out. But straight people are not suddenly criminalized for being in straight, heterosexual relationships. Quite a different thing, and you argued against a claim I never made.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Even if the parent wants to send their child to a public school immunizations are still optional. The public school district provides a waiver for children who are not vaccinated for either religious, allergy, or other reasons. The child cannot be denied access to a public school education based on not being vaccinated. The only caveat to that is if there is an outbreak of an illness for which the child isn't immunized then they can be made to stay out of school until the outbreak subsides.
Originally Posted By woody >>They are consistant in that they don't want teens to be sexually active. They admit in the article that their initial concern was based on the idea that this would somehow make it seem okay.<< If you read the articles, it is clear that Focus on the Family is getting reaction from parents. No one should ignore the parents. >>It isn't clear if Focus on the Family will advise their following to get this vaccine or not, so that's why clarification on their concerns is necessary.<< That isn't the job of Focus on the Family to recommend treatment. They are not doctors. In fact, no one should recommend medical treatment unless they know lots about it, but I do think they have a role in public policy. >> That's what I am looking for -- do they have an agenda, as they seem to want to get involved in public health policy. It's their right to try, but I believe that they should lay their cards on the table so we all know what their objections truly are.<< Everyone has an agenda. Look at how AIDS treatment is politicized.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...you've pulled a nice bait and switch.<< There was no bait and switch involved. My point was quite transparent. >>You morphed my claim into "imposing one's will" which is a very different thing.<< The claim I was responding to was: >>..."theocons" want to "have their beliefs forced on everyone else by passing laws for and against different practices".<< Forcing beliefs on someone is, in my opinion, another way of imposing one's will. The issue at hand does not involve theo-cons, or conservatives, or religionists imposing anything on anyone. (Theo-Cons Oppose Cancer Cure? Really?) The issue is that certain conservatives are opposed to making this particular cancer cure mandatory. Their motive in doing so is beside the point. If something is mandatory, it may be imposed against the will. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. Everyone is pretty m uch in agreement that it should be mandatory to pass a driver's test to drive an automobile. Mandatory can be a bad thing. It would be wrong, for example, to make membership in the Baptist Church mandatory for judges. There are some issues where it is not as easy to make that distinction. Should it be mandatory for tax funded schools to teach safe gay sex in health classes? Obviously, if you feel that it is important for young people to understand the entire gamut of sexual experience, in a proper, educational environment, you would feel it was reasonable. And considering health risks associated with any kind of sexual activity, making it mandatory would seem even more reasonable. But, as anyone here well knows, there are many who would advance strongly worded arguments against mandatory instruction in safe gay sex in the public schools. Taking this back, again, to the topic at hand, the issue is not about the cancer cure. It's about the mandatory issue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh jonvn definition of a "neo-con" in post 41 is not correct. Generally, neo-cons are conservatives who favor an aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to conservatives who tend more to isolationism.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's about the mandatory issue.<< Should all vaccinations for a child entering a public school setting be elective? Or should some be manditory?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Generally, neo-cons are conservatives who favor an aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to conservatives who tend more to isolationism.<< Neocons seem to not worry so much about gov't. spending issues and growing debt compared to traditional conservatives. Neocons also seem to be more comfortable with a larger federal government than traditional conservatives as well. These observations are correct if the current administration fits within the label of 'neocon.'
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Neocons seem to not worry so much about gov't. spending issues and growing debt compared to traditional conservatives. Neocons also seem to be more comfortable with a larger federal government than traditional conservatives as well.> Not the neo-cons whose columns I read on a regular basis.
Originally Posted By gadzuux How about the neo-cons in office right now? Aren't they by default the "leadership"?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Maybe you should forward some links to those columns to the White House. They're giving neo-cons a bum rap.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Aren't they by default the "leadership"?<< That statement can be taken sooo many ways. ; )
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How about the neo-cons in office right now?> I'm not sure what you're asking me. <Aren't they by default the "leadership"?> The leadership of whom?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Maybe you should forward some links to those columns to the White House. They're giving neo-cons a bum rap.> I'm sure the White House is aware of the thoughts of the conservatives, neocon or not, who disagree with the administration on fiscal policy. Further, I'm sure that not every member of the Bush administration can be counted as a neocon.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Back to the topic at hand, no one took on this question yet: Should all vaccinations for a child entering a public school setting be elective? Or should some be manditory?
Originally Posted By ecdc "The issue is that certain conservatives are opposed to making this particular cancer cure mandatory. Their motive in doing so is beside the point." I would disagree entirely. Motive has everything to do with it. They are opposed to making it mandatory for religious reasons that they cannot sustain or support, and has been shown repeatedly in the past, are patently false. If a religious group opposed mandatory vaccinations for women, would the same argument hold? Or for African Americans? They are arguing against making something mandatory because they are concerned about others' behavior, not their own rights. They want to dictate and attempt to control the behavior of others - in this case, sex among teenagers - because they find it distasteful and in opposition to their religious beliefs. It's a pretty terrible way to decide public policy.
