Why don't we just turn them over to the state

[Gunslinger]

Guns.....no I'm talking about our kids.  Why don't we just avoid the inevitable liberal socialist mentality that the state should just raise our kids for us.  Of course this article does talk about the 9th circuit court but after prop 73 failed it just seems to me that liberal socialists really don't care about what a parent want's for their kids, what they (liberal socialists) want is better.....for the children.

Ninth Circuit Body Slams Parent's Rights
from the November 08, 2005 eNews issue
America's favorite appeals court has done it again! The 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, notorious for ruling against "under God" in the Pledge, upset families across America last week with another controversial decision, this time undermining parents' rights. In the case of Fields v. Palmdale School District, the 9th Circuit ruled that parents have no constitutional right to prevent a school district from introducing sexual ideas to their children.

Parents of 1st, 3rd, and 5th graders at Mesquite Elementary School in Palmdale, California, were asked to sign a parental consent letter, giving the school permission to administer a psychological test to their children. The stated goal of the study was "to establish a community baseline measure of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)" and to "identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse." The results of the study would be used to help create a better learning environment for troubled children.

A number of parents who agreed to let their children participate were later dismayed to learn that the survey involved eight sex-related questions inappropriate for the average 6-10 year old. These included "Thinking about touching other people’s private parts" and "Can’t stop thinking about sex."

Several parents eventually took the issue to court. They argued that the school district had robbed them of their fundamental right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs."

The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that no such fundamental right existed - either in the Constitution or in statute law, or even in the nation's history and tradition. In his opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt argued that allowing parents that right would place an undue burden on schools to cater to the moral beliefs of each student. Parents had the right, Reinhardt said, to decide where to send their children to school, but not to dictate what a public school exposed to their children.

"...once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished."

The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to control the disclosure of sensitive information, but Reinhardt pointed out that the plaintiffs had not brought the case on those grounds.

Reinhardt's opinion could be considered legally compelling - the Constitution says nothing about parents' rights, after all. The parents might also have done better to argue their case from the 1st or 4th Amendments. Yet, Reinhardt's liberal ideology still oozes through the rhetoric; the Constitution says nothing about public schools' rights either. This is the same Judge Reinhardt, remember, who ruled in 1996 that the "right to privacy" guaranteed a right to physician assisted suicide. He's argued that farmers cannot fight the Endangered Species Act when it destroys their livelihood because an "economic interest" is involved. He comes up with all sorts of ways to get "rights" from the succinct lines of the Constitution text. Yet, in Fields v. Palmdale, he decided public schools are free to expose young children to sensual concepts, and parents did not have the right to stop them.

Thank you 9th Circuit for another blow at the knees of the family in favor of the state.

a village indeed  

EDIT:  apon further reading I do see a side to the point of the court that the parents brought there suit on the claim that the school district had violated a constitutional right of the parents "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing to them matters of and relating to sex."

I'm not sure what pisses me off more, the ruling or the fact that the school district allowed sex type question's to 6 year olds.  My daughter is 6 and she doesn't have a clue what the word sex means because she's IMHO too young to understand.  The survey was misleading and asnine.  Yet another argument for vouchers and private schooling.  March 15th can't come soon enough.

[Sandman]

I'd like to see the eight questions.

[Gunslinger]

Here's the letter:

“Parental Consent
Dear Parent or Caregiver:
The Palmdale School District is asking your support in participating in
a district-wide study of our first, third and fifth grade children. The study
will be a part of a collaborative effort with The California School of Professional
Psychology — CSPP/ Alliant International University, Children’s
Bureau of Southern California and the Palmdale School District.
The goal of this assessment is to establish a community baseline measure
of children’s exposure to early trauma (for example, violence). We
will identify internal behaviors such as anxiety and depression and external
behaviors such as aggression and verbal abuse. As a result, we will be
designing a district wide intervention program to help children reduce
these barriers to learning, which students can participate in. Please read
this consent letter and if you agree, please sign and send it back to your
school’s principal no later than December 20, 2001.

Here's the subject of the questions based on the court ruling:
8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

http://tinyurl.com/bwtcl

[ASTAC]

This place is going in the toilet....Glad I don't live out there..but only a matter of time before this infection spreads everywhere.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by ASTAC
This place is going in the toilet....Glad I don't live out there..but only a matter of time before this infection spreads everywhere.

yup and that's a scary thought.

[Hangtime]

Fight 'em. Raise yer kids as you see fit. If the state gets in yer cream of wheat, sue 'em. Take it to the Supremes.

You have NO other recourse, short of moving or finding a tower and a high powered rifle.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Hangtime
A.  short of moving or
b. finding a tower and a high powered rifle.

Option A occures on or about Mar 15th 2006

Option B isn't a very good thing to sudgest to a Marine.  

We have a history with towers and High powered rifles if you catch my drift.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by ASTAC
This place is going in the toilet....Glad I don't live out there..but only a matter of time before this infection spreads everywhere.

Brought to you by Midnights and Sandmans "Generation"

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Brought to you by Midnights and Sandmans "Generation"

cmon rip be fair,  Sandman is a moderate liberal and MT's liberalism is mostly his wife talking (according to the book of Laz)

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Option A occures on or about Mar 15th 2006

Option B isn't a very good thing to sudgest to a Marine.  

We have a history with towers and High powered rifles if you catch my drift.

LOL.. you already know my stock reply to Jarheads facing adversity.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
cmon rip be fair,  Sandman is a moderate liberal and MT's liberalism is mostly his wife talking (according to the book of Laz)

Good point, I don't think either of them were actually teenagers during the 60's...but they certainly carry that nostalgia of the 60's, which IMO will be remembered eventually in history as "the dark ages" when sexual expression and drugs gave us the problems of the 70's, 80's and 90's....

[Shane]

sorta like the sexual expression and drugs of the 20's gave us the "Greatest Generation"

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Shane
sorta like the sexual expression and drugs of the 20's gave us the "Greatest Generation"

I've allways heard it was the great depression of the late 20's/30's that gave us the "greatest generation"  didn't we have prohibition in the 20's?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Brought to you by Midnights and Sandmans "Generation"

I suspect that we are all of the same generation. I've met MT and I've seen your pictures, old man.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
I suspect that we are all of the same generation. I've met MT and I've seen your pictures, old man.

Not sure but I think I was allways called the "pepsi" Generation or Gen X.  Either way my video game playing as a kid never made me a couch potato.  
Violence on TV never made my want to kill my parents or burn my house down.  MTV didn't make me do drugs.  
Camel Joe didn't make me want to smoke.  
Fast food didn't give me diabetes or make me fat.  
Sports never gave me a complex about losing or riding the bench.
Holding a job at 15 didn't corrupt me.

I learned what liberal socialist want to eliminate in this country all together and that is personal responsibility.  That is the no. 1 reason I could never be a democrat.  Liberal socialists want this massive govt wich everyone depends on and anything that's too much fun or possibly unsafe they want it banned or sued out of existence.  Now it seems they want to take away god given parental rights.  Screw them.