My word. How could I even live with myself if this was true? I’ve spent my life trying to follow the teachings of Christ. Even when I didn’t believe. I’ve never been on a ‘hate train’. Where have I even given any indication that I hate you or any other human beings? I may dislike what they represent. But that’s a whole other thing.
This is a reasonable path to take. Democracy at work.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:29 pmHere's how I think a person interested in promoting civil society would approach the library book issue you described. The vast majority of people would agree that not all books that have ever been and will ever be written are appropriate for a public elementary school's library. Also, it is not possible to stock every elementary school library with every book ever written, someone must decide which books will be contained in the library. We call them librarians.
Each librarian is a person, and although they educate themselves about children's literature, they are individuals who will make different decisions about which books to include in a library. Some books may be in nearly every library, while others may not.
A librarian being a human being, it is entirely foreseeable that they may include a book in an elementary school library that is inappropriate. In a civil society, someone who thinks a book in the library is not appropriate would raise the issue with the librarian, explaining why they thought the book is in appropriate and asking why the librarian selected the book to be in the library. That gives both individuals the chance to hear what the other person has to say and perhaps resolve the issue through mutual agreement. If not, there is a person who is in charge of the school, who we call a principal, who can get input from interested parties and decide the issue. And from there, one could go to the school board, the state's education department, or even the legislature. In a civil society, at each stage of discussion, there would an opportunity for discussion, including listening to and taking into consideration the viewpoints of others.
One could label this the "running to government" approach. It seeks to deprive each student of the school of the ability to check out the book from the library.
But the pornography then still makes its home in the library where innocent children have access to it without their parent’s permission. You did look at the content of these books, right?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:29 pmAnother approach would be for a parent to take interest in the books that their child checks out and reads from the library and discuss it with them. They could even require their child to let the parent read a library book before the child reads it. If the parent becomes aware of a title that they do not want their child to read, they can tell the child.
Or they could send their child to another school or even home school.
One could label this the "self-reliant" approach. The parent takes responsibility for what their child reads and works with the child to make sure the child only reads "appropriate" books. The solution to the problem does not involve depriving anyone else's liberty or freedom.
This is what has been occurring.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:29 pmAnd there a host of other solutions that people interested in promoting civil society could arrive at that would allow the library to provide a wide range of reading materials while still allowing parents to exercise the degree of control over their children's reading that they choose.
In a civil society, we would call this "solving a problem." Disagreements between or among people will arise in a civil society. A civil society should anticipate that those disagreement will arise and provides mechanisms to resolve them.
So pornography’s existence on the shelves of schools where young people attend is the solution to having a civil society?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:29 pmHowever, that requires an understanding by the citizens of a civil society that they will not always get their way in any disagreement and agree that having a civil society is more important than winning any specific disagreement. above all, a person who supports civil society does not respond to not getting their way by trying to destroy the very things that allow a civil society to exist.
That’s called democracy.
I agree. Just as I’m sure you would agree that the attacks on Women’s Centers that help and provide ways for pregnant women to carry their babies to full term would be comparable. Physical attacks and/or damage to a person or place of legal business are never warranted in a civil society.
GreenPeace and BLM comes to mind along with many other examples in which human beings become highly agitated and either attack verbally and/or physically those that disagree with them. It’s never the right thing to do.
I’m disagreement with a philosophical school of thought that I believe would lead towards an uncivil society. One controlled by those that my or my not have the best interests of the masses at heart. This is not ‘waging war’ it’s simply fighting for the supremacy of ideas. People have done that throughout history. Unfortunately with the rise of media and those that would like to control and/or point the populace towards more liberal views we are seeing an unfair battlefield, if that’s what you feel comfortable calling it.
MG 2.0 wrote:As I mentioned to malkie, Canadians, even if their society has become more secularized, in practice, as a result of governmental control and its historically entrenched views/inclinations towards less liberty and freedom in comparison to what our founding fathers envisioned (those that carried the day anyway), still carry the principles and ideas taught in the religious teachings of their forefathers in their hearts/consciousness.
Secular humanists that are non and/or anti theists being in charge of nations do not have a good track record in regards to liberty and freedom.
Regards,
MG