Pushing Back Against the Transgender Bathroom Directive

[Still_Small_Voice]

‘We Will Not Be Blackmailed’: Conservatives Slam Obama Administation After Transgender Bathroom Directive to Public Schools
May. 13, 2016

Conservatives across the country are slamming the Obama administration telling public schools to either let transgender students use the restroom of their preference or risk losing federal funding.

Speaking at the Texas Republican Convention on Friday, Lone Star State Lt. Governor Dan Patrick was one of the latest politicians to weigh in on the controversy.

“This will be the the end of public education if this prevails. People will pull their kids out. Homeschooling will explode. Private schooling will increase. School choice will pass,” Patrick told reporters in Dallas.

Read more at:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/13/we-will-not-be-blackmailed-conservatives-slam-obama-admin-after-transgender-bathroom-directive-to-public-schools/

 

[anatess2]

This is a perfect example of Federal Blackmail.

FIGHT TO GET SCHOOLS BACK TO LOCAL CONTROL!

Standardization can be achieved through State competition and not Federal mandate.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am getting quite weary of the Federal over reach on many issues.  The lords of Washington D.C. want to tell the peasants how to live their lives in the land of America.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Conservatives across the country are slamming the Obama administration telling public schools to either let transgender students use the restroom of their preference or risk losing federal funding.

Where was this Federal action 24 years ago when I would have abused it to join the girls' soccer team?

(Not a soccer fan, but they had the best legs in the school.)

[tesuji]

The classic liberal versus conservative battle.

Liberals believe:

That as a group (a.k.a. using government) we can and should accomplish good things.

In America, this idea came from the early New England Puritans. They believed more in community than most modern Americans now do. Now we are all about individual freedom. The Puritans believed that community rules and enforcement made society better, and helped individuals become better too.

Interesting angle for Mormons. The Puritan rules were very religious-based. Extra credit question: Do we modern Mormons believe religious rules should be used this way?

Conservatives believe:

(well, we all know, but feel free to explain in case there are rogue liberals lurking here...  )

 

I'm not trying to make any point here, except that liberal and conservatives see the world differently.

Edited May 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, tesuji said:

 

In America, this idea came from the early New England Puritans. They believed more in community than most modern Americans now do. Now we are all about individual freedom. The Puritans believed that laws made society better, and helped individuals become better too.

 

Not really. Puritans believed that to a point, but they also had strong anti-government feelings. Remember that their direct ancestors fought against the crown in the English Civil War, so they were very apprehensive of state control. Modern liberalism is a new breed altogether. After all, the Puritans were the ones who said "He who shall not work shall not eat". 

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by MormonGator

[tesuji]

10 minutes ago, tesuji said:

The classic liberal versus conservative battle.

Liberals believe:

That as a group (a.k.a. using government) we can and should accomplish good things.

In America, this idea came from the early New England Puritans. They believed more in community than most modern Americans now do. Now we are all about individual freedom. The Puritans believed that community rules and enforcement made society better, and helped individuals become better too.

Interesting angle for Mormons. The Puritan rules were very religious-based. Extra credit question: Do we modern Mormons believe religious rules should be used this way?

Conservatives believe:

(well, we all know, but feel free to explain in case there are rogue liberals lurking here...  )

 

I'm not trying to make any point here, except that liberal and conservatives see the world differently.

(Plus, maybe poking a little fun at how most 21st century Mormons seem to be politically conservative. It's not at all clear to me that this must be the default. It wasn't until Reagan)

[tesuji]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Not really. Puritans believed that to a point, but they also had strong anti-government feelings. Remember that their direct ancestors fought against the crown in the English Civil War, so they were very apprehensive of state control. 

You may know more than I on this. But I think it's pretty clear that once they got to America, they set up a pretty rigid local government. Strict rules, harsh penalties, and no tolerance toward other religions (Quakers, Catholics)

They were pretty rule-bound. For the reasons I gave - they thought it was the way to make everyone better.

Edited May 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, tesuji said:

You may know more than I on this. But I think it's pretty clear that once they got to America, they set up a pretty rigid local government. Strict rules, harsh penalties, and no tolerance toward other religions (Quakers, Catholics)

They were pretty rule-bound. For the reasons, I gave - to make everyone better.

http://listverse.com/2013/10/26/10-things-you-didn39t-know-about-the-puritans/

Rules don't make people better, for the record. Like Michael Novak said-the less virtuous a society, the more laws. 

[NightSG]

6 minutes ago, tesuji said:

You may know more than I on this. But I think it's pretty clear that once they got to America, they set up a pretty rigid local government. Strict rules, harsh penalties, and no tolerance toward other religions (Quakers, Catholics)

They were pretty rule-bound. For the reasons I gave - they thought it was the way to make everyone better.

However, they also tended to have a hands-off attitude toward those beyond their community.  Sort of "do what you want as long as you do it over there."  Modern liberals want to enforce their rules on the entire country.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

However, they also tended to have a hands-off attitude toward those beyond their community.  Sort of "do what you want as long as you do it over there."  Modern liberals want to enforce their rules on the entire country.

Tesuji is partially correct. It was hands off other Protestants. Catholic, Quakers, etc were treated horribly. 

[tesuji]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Tesuji is partially correct. It was hands off other Protestants. Catholic, Quakers, etc were treated horribly. 

Yeah, I'm not saying 1620 New England exactly equals modern Liberals. Just that I think it's where the liberal "good of community trumps individual freedoms" idea came from.

I'm thinking many 2016 citizens of San Francisco wouldn't last one day in 1620 Massachusetts, for example. Would be thrown in the stocks, those that hadn't fled fast enough into the woods  

Edited May 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Yeah, I'm not saying 1620 New England exactly equals modern Liberals. Just that I think it's where the liberal "good of community trumps individual freedoms" idea came from.

I'm thinking many 2016 citizens of San Francisco wouldn't last one day in 1620 Massachusetts, for example. Would be thrown in the stocks, those that hadn't escaped fast enough into the woods  

No, I understand totally what you were getting at my friend. 

 

One thing to remember though: a society at it's core is a group of individuals, so individual rights matter. 

[tesuji]

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, I understand totally what you were getting at my friend. 

One thing to remember though: a society at it's core is a group of individuals, so individual rights matter. 

Certainly. I am very individualistic myself. 

I think it's best to find a balance between community good and individual freedom.

Quote

 1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

 3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

D&C 134

I think conservative and liberal Mormons tend to pick out different parts of this to emphasize. But I see both sides in there.

Edited May 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Just_A_Guy]

I think NightSG's point has merit.  Puritans (and pioneer Mormons) were perhaps collectivist within the confines of their own established communities, but when looking at broader society--they were, for lack of a better word, very ardent "federalists".  The individual traditionally had only a very limited (if any) right to upend the social order of the community in which he lived.  He was instead guaranteed (in theory) his life, his property, and a degree of liberty that included the liberty to seek out or even create a community that better matched his own preferences.

This worked fairly well--as long as there was a glut of free land to the west, ripe for the colonization by any person or individual who didn't wish to conform to what folks back East were doing.  But once the land ran out, differences in standards of various communities had to be resolved in one of three ways:  1)  Obtaining new lands by conquest/genocide, 2) encouraging disparate groups to retreat into varying degrees of cultural and/or geographical balkanization, or 3) compulsory integration and adoption of uniform standards.

Progressives, with (arguably) numerous exceptions for their pet political constituencies, have chosen option 3) (which, without a trace of irony, they call "diversity"); whereas I think most conservatives feel a little more inclined towards option 2).

Edited May 13, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[tesuji]

Liberals like to cry "government overreach" too. That's what they call gay marriage bans, pot bans, abortion bans, etc. It seems like everyone likes the government to enforce the things they want enforced.

(For the record, I'm completely against legal gay marriage, against legal abortion (certainly for 'routine' birth control), and against legal pot.)

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, zomarah said:

That is the truth.

Same with tolerance and diversity as Just_A_Guy pointed out. People want tolerance of them until they are in control and then they shut down anything they can't tolerate. People want laws that enforce diversity to be uniform everywhere. It's just complete nonsense.
 

 

Exactly. The most intolerant people are the ones who say how tolerant they are. In my family the loudest person (surprise!) isn't me-it's the guy who thinks he's open minded and tolerant and hates everything that isn't exactly like him  

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

“This will be the the end of public education if this prevails. People will pull their kids out. Homeschooling will explode. Private schooling will increase. School choice will pass,” Patrick told reporters in Dallas.

I'll take it no matter what the reason.

Government has no legitimate reason to own, operate, fund, or control schools in any way.

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Standardization can be achieved through State competition and not Federal mandate.

Why would anyone want to have "standardization"? People are, by definition, non-standard: it's the way God made us — each unique.

Standardization is what one does to car parts, not human beings.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

the Puritans were the ones who said "He who shall not work shall not eat". 

The Bible said it earlier.

The Doctrine and Covenants says it,too.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

The Bible said it earlier.

The Doctrine and Covenants says it,too.

Lehi

I know. 

Context. I was using that phrase to show that the Puritans didn't live in communes, which was the case at first. Then they realized how communes work, and in the words of Bob Dylan, too many people didn't want to work on Maggies Farm anymore. 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

You may know more than I on this. But I think it's pretty clear that once they got to America, they set up a pretty rigid local government. Strict rules, harsh penalties, and no tolerance toward other religions (Quakers, Catholics)

They were pretty rule-bound. For the reasons I gave - they thought it was the way to make everyone better.

But they had a theocracy, so the government and the church were the same.

We don't have such a government, and it has been show repeatedly that freedom benefits all of us better than control but priest or magistrate.

Lehi

Edited May 13, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

I think it's best to find a balance between community good and individual freedom.

The balance is individual freedom above every other consideration. The community will benefit best when individuals have the most freedom to use their own legitimately acquired property, their lives, their bodies, their families. The only reason government has to exist is to protect personal freedom.

No person's freedom can trump another person's. When there seems to be a conflict, it's because one or the other or both are wrong about what his freedom actually is.

Lehi

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is a perfect example of Federal Blackmail.

FIGHT TO GET SCHOOLS BACK TO LOCAL CONTROL!

Standardization can be achieved through State competition and not Federal mandate.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this is Texas we're talking about...

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

The classic liberal versus conservative battle.

Liberals believe:

That as a group (a.k.a. using government) we can and should accomplish good things.

In America, this idea came from the early New England Puritans. They believed more in community than most modern Americans now do. Now we are all about individual freedom. The Puritans believed that community rules and enforcement made society better, and helped individuals become better too.

Interesting angle for Mormons. The Puritan rules were very religious-based. Extra credit question: Do we modern Mormons believe religious rules should be used this way?

I just read an article by Bruce C. Hafen (I can provide a link later)...he talked about how the decline of marriage/family started in the 1960's when the laws on divorce began to change. Before that a divorce was very hard to get because it was understood that marriage and family were a fundamental unit of society and therefore disintegrating your marriage hurt the community as a whole. 

In this situation the needs of the community would appear to be the higher law. Choosing to place the needs of individuals first began the slippery slope of where we find ourselves now.

This is a curious idea to me, one that frankly I'm still trying to understand myself. It is different than I have always understood it.

Edited May 13, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I just read an article by Bruce C. Hafen (I can provide a link later)...he talked about how the decline of marriage/family started in the 1960's when the laws on divorce began to change. Before that a divorce was very hard to get because it was understood that marriage and family were a fundamental unit of society and therefore disintegrating your marriage hurt the community as a whole. 

In this situation the needs of the community would appear to be the higher law. Choosing to place the needs of individuals first began the slippery slope of where we find ourselves now.

"Would appear to be" is not the same as "is".

What we have is the disregarding of the contract of marriage. No one has the right to change a contract with another other party without that second party's approval.

Divorce is immoral, so, irrespective of the law, and the courts, there should not be 90% of the divorces there are. But this is the price we've paid for separating sex from marriage and children from sex. It's why feminism is a cancer on humanity. And feminism is a direct result of, and cannot exit without the welfare state.

Lehi