Freedom

[Scrotum]

I was sitting and reading some news and such, and i usually, for my personal pleasure, enjoy reading american news as its almost as default right out ludicrous. People suing a microwave company for not putting a label saying ´your cat can die if you nuke it´, or demanding a label in a superman costume to say ´wearing this costume does not make you able to fly´.

All does small things are simple because of the vast ignorance in that particular country. But this made me think about another thing which is quite odd. Americans always claim their freedom to be so valued and yada yada yada, and obviously claiming to have ´most´ freedom in the world and all that (thats another topic), but the question is, what should you be allowed to do?

According to laws in most civilized countries you do not have a right to kill someone. United States is the only ´Western´ nation allowing killing people in the ´name of the law´, but putting that aside. Can we all agree on that you should not be allowed to walk around killing & hurting people?


If the answer to that question is a Yes from your side. Would you allow religion to be indoctrinated into innocent children?
If your answer to that question is also a Yes, have you not then, commited something usually referred to as a contradiction?


Let´s take Islam as example. In Muslim countries such as does in the middle east, the children are indoctrinate to believe in their God, and do what he say. They also make sure they will die for their country, and similar such things. This at the end, give us suicide bombers blowing up the Twin Towers in New York City.


At the same time in United States, innocent children are daily indoctrinated to not only Love the Christian God, but also to Love their country. Which ends up as soldiers attacking and executing innocent men woman and children in the middle east, or asia.


So what do we have at our hand?
If religion would be illegal for the obvious reason it creates ignorant and manipulated children (as default by the Christian religion and Islam), Is this not dangerous? United States as example is an Orwellian dream, a mass of people not knowing anything about the world around them, nor their own country, but the Love for their country (conveniently indoctrinated), and ´God´, give them no reason to question any of their countries activities, nor go and execute people with a different religion.



What do you think?
What should people really be allowed to do? Isn´t the safety of a society more important then forcing your religion upon your children and others? Should parents really be allowed to destroy their offsprings life like that?


Is not the governments job to protect the citizens, even if it´s from themselves? (Like in the U.S where homeschooling give the parents tools to destroy a childs life. Compared to most European countries which have laws demading the children to get a proper education.).

[theleftone]

All does small things are simple because of the vast ignorance in that particular country.

Overstatement.

But this made me think about another thing which is quite odd. Americans always claim their freedom to be so valued and yada yada yada, and obviously claiming to have ´most´ freedom in the world and all that (thats another topic), but the question is, what should you be allowed to do?

Sweeping generalization.

United States is the only ´Western´ nation allowing killing people in the ´name of the law´, but putting that aside.

Eh?

Let´s take Islam as example. In Muslim countries such as does in the middle east, the children are indoctrinate to believe in their God, and do what he say. They also make sure they will die for their country, and similar such things. This at the end, give us suicide bombers blowing up the Twin Towers in New York City.

Sweeping generalization, fallacy of hasty generalization, and inflammatory.

At the same time in United States, innocent children are daily indoctrinated to not only Love the Christian God, but also to Love their country.

Eh? Sweeping generalization?

Which ends up as soldiers attacking and executing innocent men woman and children in the middle east, or asia.

Non-sequitar.

If religion would be illegal for the obvious reason it creates ignorant and manipulated children (as default by the Christian religion and Islam), Is this not dangerous?

It's should be considered dangerous and obvious, but only if we take sweeping generalizations, mix in some logical fallacies, a dash of overstatement, and jump from point a to c without showing that b necessarily follows b and c necessarily follows b.

What should people really be allowed to do?

To live their lives freely as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Isn´t the safety of a society more important then forcing your religion upon your children and others? Should parents really be allowed to destroy their offsprings life like that?

To answer yes to this question, one would have to prove safety is necessarily impacted by indoctrination into religion. Religion being broadly defined here, as the question and post suggests.

Is not the governments job to protect the citizens, even if it´s from themselves?

The government can stay out of my business unless I am infringe upon the rights and freedoms of another human being.

Like in the U.S where homeschooling give the parents tools to destroy a childs life.

Please cite evidence that shows homeschooling "destroys" a child's life, else I consider this to be inflammatory.

[Scrotum]

To live their lives freely as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

So you say you have a right to destroy your childrens life if you feel like it? Children have no rights? (I know U.S do not reqognize that children have rights, BUT the REST OF THE FREE WORLD do, so lets pretend you think they have rights, shall we?).


And even worse, this IS about infringing upon others rights. Indoctrinating your child to kill infidels is pretty much a planing of homicide, forgot the legal term sorry. So should they not be stopped before executing it? Saving thousands of lives?

Maybe you dont think so, its your right to kill people eh?

[theleftone]

So you say you have a right to destroy your childrens life if you feel like it? Children have no rights?

So you have any evidence that indoctrinating children necessarily "destroys" their lives? Or are you simply asking a loaded question?

I know U.S do not reqognize that children have rights, BUT the REST OF THE FREE WORLD do, so lets pretend you think they have rights, shall we?

Without evidence, this is inflammatory.

And even worse, this IS about infringing upon others rights. Indoctrinating your child to kill infidels is pretty much a planing of homicide, forgot the legal term sorry. So should they not be stopped before executing it? Saving thousands of lives?

Without evidence, this is inflammatory.

Maybe you dont think so, its your right to kill people eh?

I don't recall claiming to have a right to kill or harm anyone. Perhaps this particular Swede should stop being an anti-American bigot, eh?

[Scrotum]

Without evidence, this is inflammatory.

Erh, im sorry to ask, but are you stupid?
Do you know about something called Childrens act? Only two countries refused to ratify it (U.S and Somalia).

Or to put it simple for you american, United States and Somalia (if i rememer correctly) where the two efusing to accept that Children have rights, which gives american adults the right to abuse children (and i presume this was why the refuse to sign it, as its legal in the U.S to beat children).

God you need to leave your country for 5min.

Main
Or Exact
http://193.194.138.190/tbs/doc.nsf/(Sym ... endocument

[theleftone]

Or to put it simple for you american, United States and Somalia (if i rememer correctly) where the two efusing to accept that Children have rights, which gives american adults the right to abuse children (and i presume this was why the refuse to sign it, as its legal in the U.S to beat children).

Refused? No. Simply because things are working out in your selected timeframe doesn't men the U.S. has refused to ratify. They have signed it. Given time, it will likely be ratified.

Further, I am appalled that you would judge an entire group of people on the basis of one action of the government of the nation they live in. You have to realize, not everyone agrees with the government. Second, you are judging the government on the basis of one treaty. Yes, one treaty. You neglect to review the already established laws of the country, so lets do that.

From the U.S. Code:
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 11a. Child Support.
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 21, Section 403. Protection of the privacy of child victims and child witnesses
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 53, Section 1169. Reporting of child abuse
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110. Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children.
Title 18, Part 2, Chapter 213, Section 3283. Offenses against children.
Child Labor Laws.

This does not include basic human rights, laws requiring education, and various other laws in place on national, state, and local levels protecting children from abuse, exploitation, and so forth.

God you need to leave your country for 5min.

You know nothing about my past, nor about my future plans. I have spent time abroad, and will be spending more time abroad. If you'd set aside your agenda, and bother to ask a person questions rather than making assumptions about them you'd know this.

Inflammatory? Yes, it is.

[sue]

The rationale for the US not ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child can be found here. The best listed reason to not ratify it, as far as I'm concerned, is that at the time we had a number of states that could legally execute juvenile offenders. Now if you consider the US as a collection of states, and if you consider the difficulties the EU repeatedly has to face in getting its collection of countries to agree on anything, you could perhaps understand why that would cause difficulties. But the Convention on the Rights of the Child occurred in 2002, and in March 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that the juvenile death penalty is unconstitutional (source). Supreme court takes precedence over state laws.

I can't say if Bush will ratify it or not. Part of his political base consists of people who would be opposed to this item.

But also, since the US has the largest military, would we have to enforce these laws? Wouldn't we then be required to pretty much invade all of Africa?

Regarding homeschooling, it accounts for about 1.7 percent of school-aged children in the US (source). I'm far more concerned that the other 98% aren't getting a decent education in public schools than I am about the possibility that 2% of our children may be indoctrinated by fanatics who are perfectly capable of finding other non-scholastic ways to indoctrinate their children.