Figleaf

Possibly. Ultimately, the authority of a school is arbitrary -- the State decrees it to do so and so. Well, I'm not totally willing to accept that state authority is 'arbitrary'. Which (arbitrary) line are you refering to that parents might want changed? Yes, it would be possible for the government to extend school authority. The will of the majority is expressed through laws and regulations, none of which at this time extend school authority into the private lives of students and families.

My personal understanding of the concept of 'Christian left' would be 'liberation theology' types. I'm not sure you're right on some of that. The concept of the Rapture appears in the book of Revelation, I think. Here's Pat Robertson's take: http://www.cbnindia.org/200Questions/article.php?topic=12

That statement is blatantly inconsistent. It has no coherent meaning. It is nonsensical. Inasmuch as opposition to SSM has no rational basis, what do you think is behind it? And what facts or evidence do you have that show they are not? So far as I can read on this forum, no-one is suggesting that all (or even most) Christians are dominionists.

No shit, Sherlock. Frankly I couldn't come up with any more positive categories.

Why is Stignasty so dead set against giving Ron Paul a fair shake?

Yes, these types are "individuals" the way all those teens who fight with their parents about the right to dress themselves to express their individuality - in a way identical to all of their friends. And just what is the difference between a individual experiencing "hysteria" and one experiencing "moral panic"? I respectfully submit that there is no appreciable diffence there. And indeed, the far more interesting topic is to discuss how these particular 'moral panics' are fostered, facillitated and propagated - to what purpose and for whose benefit? I think your final paragraph suggests the answer to your second paragraph ... the fostered, facilitated and propagated qualities are what makes moral panic different from individual hysteria. It is tempting to ascribe the fostering of moral panics to one or another side of the political spectrum, but in considering examples, I was able to think of several that seemed driven by or played into both right and left hobbyhorses.

-- and thus, a school insisting that a student arrives on time is coercing -- according to your logic -- a cost upon the student. I'm not entirely sure I follow your point. School official have authority over some things directly involving the school. My point on this thread is that student's activities away from school are not within the scope of that authority I'm not following. You may have to spell it out for me. I remain too mystified to even approach an answer. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what are you saying? I have the feeling you think I've made an argument I don't recall making. ?? School's authority wouldn't extend any further over such students than it does over other students, unless some appropriate rule or law says so.

What you don't like about them is what they believe about the Bible. Please be specific about what 'disinformation' you refer to. That sounds pretty stupid.

So, you think it's a sign of mental illness to literally believe the Bible? I agree. You are a disrespectful insulting ass. And that is a definite sign of mental illness. What?

Only because the pollster was selective in his choices,which makes for a bad poll. If ALL the PM's were on the list it might have played different. Too bad you didn't get the results you were hoping for.....maybe the next slanted poll you post will work like you wanted. Ah, go troll yourself.

The ACLU is upholding the constitution as best it can. Meanwhile various factions of the Republican party are attacking it continually. 1. The basis on which they want those changes is that their faith prescribes it. That is to say, they want their faith to be the measure of policy. That is theocracy. 2. Some commit violence. So, you think it's a sign of mental illness to literally believe the Bible? I agree. So you don't believe that Pat Robertson believes in the Bible? Or you don't believe the Bible discusses the Rapture? Or what?

Pretty much like the posters on here who go on about 'dominionism' etc. Dominionism has only just popped up as a topic in the last few days. It's a very disconcerting philosophy/theology, in terms of it's implications for society and government if it should gain much sway. I'd be curious to know why some of the more rightwing posters here are so keen to shout down anyone who brings up the subject of dominionism. What is that, pray tell?

Is God poison? Well, if you believe the Old Testament or if you give an honest listening to the Westboro Baptist Church ( http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060...veryone-lie.pdf (see especially pp.5-32)) there can be very little doubt that Jehovah is one of the worst, hateful, wicked, bullying, self-righteous, destructive monsters the world has ever seen.

Not really. Substantial socio-politico-economic concepts like communism and capitalism are generally too complex to admit of direct opposites. Who's going to enforce that. God?

... it does seem to be a creation of the left. For heaven's sake will you please explain what you mean by this phrase of yours -- "'the' left"? What the heck is that? Anyway, I don't know who coined the word 'dominionist', but the thing is clearly the creation of religious idealogues of a particular bent.

Who are you quoting?

I can't reply ... neither option captures the truth.

The events we are discussing occured in public schools, and the authority (or not) we are discussing is publicly granted/constructed. Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here?It is not directly related to the school before they get to school. Their arrival AT SCHOOL is what is late in your example. ??? Well, I don't see how.

You don't like the results so now its a waste of time LOL Yes. I don't like the results because all we got was a collection of hackneyed prejudices about recent PMs rather than any sort of reflective consideration of policy choices and outcomes. Accordingly, it was a waste of time.

To what service are we entitled? I'm refering to public education for minors ages approximately 5-18. Which is directly related to the school, rather than being totally outside and away from it. Do you remember what the issue is here? I'm refering to a well known principle, not a particular section of a statute. Google the concept and you'll have no difficulty finding a plethora of material. The only 'big deal' about it is that there is no authority anywhere that authorizes a school to do any such thing, and so doing it is an abuse of power. Would you care to consider the hypothetical analogy I wrote earlier?

Well that is certainly an unsupportable opinion. One of your more remarkable characteristics, Dancer, is your willingness to say just about any sort of nonsense, no matter how ludicrous, unconnected, incorrect, or misbegotten.

Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count.How is there coercion? It's low-grade coercion ... a bureaucrat in control of a needed service to which you are entitled nevertheless demands acceptance of an ancillary 'agreement' before they will provide the service. The cost of non-compliance is denial of your entitlement, with attendant inconvenience. Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them?I do because the concept of fairness is not black and white. If you can present a concise Law Of Fairness for a school, I would like to hear it. I don't need to answer this. My point requires neither that it be concise or black and white. It is a reasonably well developed concept in administrative and constitutional law (q.v.).

I would agree that they are individually hysterical, but they aren't all that individual in their themes. In fact, the way they run in packs seems to provide support to the moral panic interpretation. Same-sex marriage is a case in point.

Well, I hope Micheal Bluth is happy now that someone on the tory bench has shown a slight capacity for reflection and reconsideration. Sure it was at the behest of the business community, but hey, at least it represents an actual interaction between the choices of the government and the surrounding reality. That's got to count as a step forward.

Well, except we've established they had no such 'authority', so they weren't exercising it, they were making it up through abuse of their power in school. Sorry, neither you or whomever have established. Actually, your sources really established it, in that they specified 'in school' as the relevant dividing line. Having thoroughly undermined your own premise, I would have thought you'd give up. Your ... determination ... to confront simple reality is ... remarkable . Coerced, and exceeding the schools authority. Nonsense contracts that violate the law don't count. Do you really dispute that schools have a duty of fairness toward the students within them? ? I refer you to my earlier response to that argument. (Search under 'too stupid to merit a reply'.)