Jump to content

Menu

Is education a right?


La Texican
 Share

Recommended Posts

No.

 

It is the responsibility of parents to see that their children are educated so that they (the children) can support themselves and their families when they get to be adults. It becomes the obligation of the children when they become adults to do whatever it takes for them to take care of themselves and be contributing members of their society.

 

Compulsory education has to do with the government taking on more authority than it should.

 

::puts on the Xena Warrior Princess flameproof armor::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Privilege, Responsibility?  yes.  Right?  Nope.  

 

Education as a right is a very modern idea.  Wasn't the idea that people have rights at all  based in the Enlightenment?  Humans have generally taken care of their own offspring and taught them the things they need in order to survive to maturity so they can make more little humans.

 

 

eta, that is my philosophical answer.  If you were asking for a modern, legal answer, then in the US every child has the right to be educated. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe it is a fundamental human right to a basic education. I consider a basic education to be essentially through high school curricula/ age. I think being prepared to read, write, do basic math, and also be prepared to enter some sort of higher education is what I consider a basic education. I also think the exact parameters of a basic education can vary with the abilities of the child, I.e., a bright talented intellect should be prepared for entry into a university. A child with lower abilities should be prepared to enter some vocation that can support them to the best of their ability, so perhaps prepared to enter a trade school or apprenticeship or even learn a trade itself as a teen.

 

Although the legalities of this basic human right vary from state to state and country to country, I beleive that a great nation like ours should protect children from their parents if they lost the parent lottery and were born to idiots who are not inclined or able to utilize the resources available and ensure their child is adequately educated.

 

I believe children have certain basic rights just like their parents. I don't believe parents have the right to abuse or neglect their children, and providing an adequate education is just as important as providing safe housing, nourishment, kindness, safety from abuse, supervision, and medical care. If parents are such idiots or evil that they won't provide those basics, then the state should intervene. IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Privilege, Responsibility?  yes.  Right?  Nope.  

 

Education as a right is a very modern idea.  Wasn't the idea that people have rights at all  based in the Enlightenment?  Humans have generally taken care of their own offspring and taught them the things they need in order to survive to maturity so they can make more little humans.

 

I agree that education is also a privilege and a responsibility. But just because viewing education as a right is a relatively modern idea doesn't make it wrong. We have all kinds of rights now that we didn't have in the olden days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Privilege, Responsibility?  yes.  Right?  Nope.  

 

Education as a right is a very modern idea.  Wasn't the idea that people have rights at all  based in the Enlightenment?  Humans have generally taken care of their own offspring and taught them the things they need in order to survive to maturity so they can make more little humans.

 

Exactly.  And up until now, people didn't need to know how to read, write, or do basic math to survive.  But today it's a necessity to function as an adult.  I don't think that learning Calculus or going to college is a right per se, but basic literacy skills are, in my mind.  If you can't read, you can't get a job.  You can't support yourself.  You can't understand a lease or mortgage paperwork.  You can't do the paperwork to get a marriage license.  Whether a basic education is or isn't a right may be up for debate from a legal standpoint, but I think it should be considered a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen, I was asking about legally. After the Sparkly Unicorn said it's in their States Constituition I googled to see how many states. Apparently the federal government has fought tooth and nail against calling it a right, and even cut some funding to the states that incorporated the right to an education into tge State Constitution.

 

I was mixed up because if it's compulsary I thought it would also be a right.

 

edit: I was wrong. I reread the article and they only ruled against equal funding, not that they cut funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, albeto, free and appropriate education is only to allow handicap kids acess to the public education system, it's not a law for all kids. I thought that FAPE was because handicap kids were being denied the rights that all the other kids have, but in the last five minutes I found out that American kids do not have anything called a right to an education (except provided by some States).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

It is the responsibility of parents to see that their children are educated so that they (the children) can support themselves and their families when they get to be adults. It becomes the obligation of the children when they become adults to do whatever it takes for them to take care of themselves and be contributing members of their society.

 

Compulsory education has to do with the government taking on more authority than it should.

 

::puts on the Xena Warrior Princess flameproof armor::

I'll scream the warrior scream with you. :)

 

Rights are innately given and must be forcibly (usually) removed.

 

Rights are not provided. No one has to give a right to another. The person has that right by nature of being human.

 

A right is not given, it is protected. And a right is always a right.

 

So if one were to suggest education were a right, then I would ask why it is not a right for all citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education is the process of HOW people become self sustaining adults. In an information based 1st world economy, for most people, that education is centered around varying levels of academic and practical skills. Maybe for some that is not a traditional college minded course of study but it is an education, be the end result blue collar or academia or a white collar profession.

 

Educating your children (be that at home or school) is a parental responsibility and a child's right. I am happy to live in a post enlightenment world to say the very least. If children don't have a right to an education I fail to see how that they are expected to be self sustaining adults. I find the assertion that it is not a right a perfect mix of...well I best just stop right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, albeto, free and appropriate education is only to allow handicap kids acess to the public education system, it's not a law for all kids. I thought that FAPE was because handicap kids were being denied the rights that all the other kids have, but in the last five minutes I found out that American kids do not have anything called a right to an education (except provided by some States).

 

Each state is obligated to provide education to the children who reside therein (school availability to be dependent upon population and some other consideration), regardless of race, color, national origin, citizenship, or the immigration status of their parents and guardians. FAPE extended that to kids with special needs. The state is obligated to provide an education (appropriate, not "separate but equal," not "except for LGBTQ kids, not "except for Muslim kids"), ergo, the children have the right to an education. That's how I understand it, anyway, fwiw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights are innately given and must be forcibly (usually) removed.

 

Rights are not provided. No one has to give a right to another. The person has that right by nature of being human.

 

A right is not given, it is protected. And a right is always a right.

 

From where are you finding this definition of rights? Are you talking about legal rights, or philosophically? 

 

 

It's not given, but it's innately given? How does this work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe it is a fundamental human right to a basic education. I consider a basic education to be essentially through high school curricula/ age. I think being prepared to read, write, do basic math, and also be prepared to enter some sort of higher education is what I consider a basic education. I also think the exact parameters of a basic education can vary with the abilities of the child, I.e., a bright talented intellect should be prepared for entry into a university. A child with lower abilities should be prepared to enter some vocation that can support them to the best of their ability, so perhaps prepared to enter a trade school or apprenticeship or even learn a trade itself as a teen.

 

:iagree:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rights" are a really fuzzy concept.

 

One way of viewing rights would be sociologically: societies assign rights, based on values and beliefs, then carry the responsibility to protect those rights.

 

Another way is through philosophy: the belief/workdview that humans "are something specific" and the "something" that we are includes the fundamental attribute of "rights-having"... Or theology: that the reason humans have rights is because God has ordained it so.

 

Another way is through ethics: a right is anything that would be immoral/unethical to not (provide/protect/act in accordance with), often on the general basis that 1. All people deserve fair/equal treatment, at least with respect to 2. Certain, specific, basics of right-treatment -- which it is 'wrong' to violate.

 

Of course, all the ways of looking at rights blur together at the edges. Anyhow, it's common for "is it a right?" Discussions to go off the rails because people are using the term "right" with all different shadings.

 

Of myself, I would say that both theologically and from "Christian" ethics I think children have a right to adiquate care during childhood, which includes aduquate preparation for whatever kind if adulthood can be reasonably expected in their future... Meaning, education, in some sense.

 

Sociologically, and from the ethics of our majority culture (humanism), I see that 'educational instruction' is something out society has agreed together is nessisary and normal, and that it is unethical for children to be denied educational instruction even by their parents. This makes it a "right" in those senses, too, I think. Educational neglect is illegal, meaning that its a very very strongly held idea that children have a right to education.

 

Legally, in my area, I believe we have adopted the UN rights of the child, which I believe includes a right to receive education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Antonio Independent School Districtv. Rodriguez 1972-1973 is the one that keeps getting quoted and used in other cases. "The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated the appellees did not sufficiently prove that education is a fundamental right, that textually existed within the U.S. Constitution, and could thereby (through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution), be applied to the several States. The Court also found the financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny."

And the case was not about whether a child had the right to an education, but whether inequality between school districts funding was discriminatory. The judge decided that it's not because there's no law guarenteeing the right of a child to get an education, it was not discimination and no ones right was violated. I guess that's why it's compulsary, but not an American right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confirmation: Yes, Canada has ratified the UN rights of the child, and, yes, the right to education is garunteed (principle 7).

 

The website said the US has signed but not ratified the declaration, so I don't know if that makes the declaration apply in the US (legally or ethically) or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.  And up until now, people didn't need to know how to read, write, or do basic math to survive.  But today it's a necessity to function as an adult.  I don't think that learning Calculus or going to college is a right per se, but basic literacy skills are, in my mind.  If you can't read, you can't get a job.  You can't support yourself.  You can't understand a lease or mortgage paperwork.  You can't do the paperwork to get a marriage license.  Whether a basic education is or isn't a right may be up for debate from a legal standpoint, but I think it should be considered a right.

 

That it is a necessity does not mean that it is a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, I know the Constitution never guaranteed we'd get all of our needs met. The only goal was to make a country that would last with as much freedom as possible. I'm just saying medicine is different now, crime & protection is different now, work is different now. Just because the Constitution doesn't mention healthcare and education doesn't mean the writers wouldn't have put it in there if they had what we have now. Oh well, the government's not looking for random internet opinions. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Otherwise food, shelter, clothing, insulin and much more necessary things would be rights.

 

Alas, none of those are rights.

 

I think I noticed most of those listed as rights when I browsed through the UN rights of the child document. Which means they are rights, at least for children, in (I estimate from the map) about 90% of the counties of earth.

 

Depending what "signed but not ratified" means, they might be also rights of American children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think children have a right to be educated to the common level of the culture that surrounds them. For some children that means reading and writing, for others it may mean hunting or building housing. The child needs to be able to function as an adult in their culture and that means different skills in different situations.

 

I don't conflate the right to be educated with government reach; a child has the right to be educated by the schools, or the parents, or the tribe, etc. independent of the means, and in whatever skills will help them to make productive contributions. 

 

If a child is born into a nomadic tribe that hunts, fishes, and rides horses to survive, then I think that child has a right to be taught how to hunt, fish, and ride a horse. If a child lives in a place where they need to read and write well to contribute, they have a right to become proficient in those skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I noticed most of those listed as rights when I browsed through the UN rights of the child document. Which means they are rights, at least for children, in (I estimate from the map) about 90% of the counties of earth.

 

Depending what "signed but not ratified" means, they might be also rights of American children.

Well then I'd think that sounds like most things from the UN. Hot air and BS.

 

I do not have to buy my rights. I do not lose my rights unless someone takes them from me.

 

How can it be a right if you have to buy it? If you can't have it unless someone charitably gives it to you if you can't buy it? If you no longer have that right because you turn 18?

 

I have a right to freedom. I'm born free and that freedom is not dependent upon another person for me to have it. It is universally applied unless someone commits a criminal offense that cause incarceration.

 

Same goes for freedom of speech, self defense...

 

Now I'm perfectly willing to call education a common good to be encouraged.

 

But no, it's not a right.

 

When looking to define rights, I would hesitate to presume that bc the govt or a govt committee says so that makes it so.

 

If the government said freedom was not a right, would it change that it is? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I'd think that sounds like most things from the UN. Hot air and BS.

 

I do not have to buy my rights. I do not lose my rights unless someone takes them from me.

 

How can it be a right if you have to buy it? If you can't have it unless someone charitably gives it to you if you can't buy it? If you no longer have that right because you turn 18?

 

I have a right to freedom. I'm born free and that freedom is not dependent upon another person for me to have it. It is universally applied unless someone commits a criminal offense that cause incarceration.

 

Same goes for freedom of speech, self defense...

 

Now I'm perfectly willing to call education a common good to be encouraged.

 

But no, it's not a right.

 

When looking to define rights, I would hesitate to presume that bc the govt or a govt committee says so that makes it so.

 

If the government said freedom was not a right, would it change that it is? No.

 

 

But the rights you listed- freedom, free speech, etc.- came from the government when they created the Constitution.  Those things certainly weren't rights before that (or not even after, depending on the color of one's skin).  So that would imply that rights do come from the state.  There are no innate rights based on the virtue of one's humanity.  Something is a right when the people of a society come together (via goverment, in many cases) and decide that every member of that society gets that right.  And many of the world's nations have decided that basic education is a right of all children.

 

At least, that's my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I'd think that sounds like most things from the UN. Hot air and BS.

 

OK: I'm not sure what you mean by this. UN conventions regarding human rights, and the specific rights of people in a variety of situations, are a fairly strong expression of worldwide values and norms. The UN convention on the rights of children is something that nations have the option to sign and ratify. If they do so, then they are granting the agreed-upon rights to their citizens. This is the exact same way all international treaties and conventions have always worked. Many of them are idealistic, but they give solid grounds and clear terms which can be used to describe rights violations -- which is an important starting point when you are focused on dealings among independent peer nations.

 

I do not have to buy my rights. I do not lose my rights unless someone takes them from me.

 

No on has to buy rights. I don't understand this comment. I might be missing your point entirely. If so, I apologize. Please take the time to clarify if I show that I am mistaken.

 

How can it be a right if you have to buy it? If you can't have it unless someone charitably gives it to you if you can't buy it? If you no longer have that right because you turn 18?

 

Education is a right because "if no one charitably gives it to you" the person who was responsible to fulfill that right is considered a violator-of-rights, not merely less charitable than they probably should be. Nations that accept the rights of the child convention have taken on the responsibility to fulfill those rights in the lives of their child citizens -- either by social dynamics and natural arrangements, or by intervention. If they fail to do so, by their own signature they "agree" that they have violated such-and-such a right in this-or-that case.

 

I have a right to freedom. I'm born free and that freedom is not dependent upon another person for me to have it.

 

I disagree. Any powerful person could take you captive quite easily. The reason they do not is because kidnapping is a crime in your country and violators can expect to be tracked down, arrested, tried and incarcerated for their actions. Kidnapping violates your rights. Failure to pursue your kidnapper violates your rights. Your right to freedom depends on many people to "charitably" uphold it. It also costs money (if that's what you mean by 'buying' a right). There are currently people in the world who lack personal freedom. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't have a right to it -- it means that their rights are being violated.

 

It is universally applied unless someone commits a criminal offense that cause incarceration.

 

I think you must mean "in America, among mainstream society, it is applied nearly universally" -- because it is ludicrous to assert that worldwide personal freedom is universally applied except in cases of just incarceration.

 

Same goes for freedom of speech, self defense...

 

All sorts of abuses limit freedom of speech, and LAWS limit self defense... I'm really sure I must be missing something here. I can't grasp what you are trying to assert.

Now I'm perfectly willing to call education a common good to be encouraged.

 

But no, it's not a right.

 

When looking to define rights, I would hesitate to presume that bc the govt or a govt committee says so that makes it so.

 

Declarations, conventions and laws serve the function of acknowledging and codifying the kinds of rights that any society deems to be either "evident" or the ones they wish to endow and commit to uphold. These are sociological choices both on a national and international scale (as well as smaller scales).

 

If you say "a right is the thing it was before anyone ever recognized it -- people just have a feel for it, because it is part of their human nature to recognize their own rights" that's OK as a starting point, but it is societies, when they *agree* about rights and set about to see that such rights are not violated -- that's when rights gain traction as something that is applied to all within that society (though often within criteria groups).

 

If the government said freedom was not a right, would it change that it is? No.

 

No, but it would allow them to legally, systematically and successfully violate that right. Eventually, with enough brainwashing, people would stop believing it was a right. History has shown that it is quite easy to convince a society that *some* people do not possess the right of freedom.

 

Similarly, if education is indeed a right, the failure of a government to recognize it or provide for it does not make the case that it isn't one. It just means that the government is violating it whether they know it or not -- the way countless governments have violated people's rights while claiming 'it isn't a right'. The change made by a declaration or convention is that a government can no longer claim 'it isn't a right' and must squarely face if/when a particular case violates a certain right (if the right was so-declared).

 

It's a slippery concept. I don't think our societies have fully explored rights as a theory, resulting in such indistinct ways of talking about them,

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the rights you listed- freedom, free speech, etc.- came from the government when they created the Constitution. Those things certainly weren't rights before that (or not even after, depending on the color of one's skin). So that would imply that rights do come from the state. There are no innate rights based on the virtue of one's humanity. Something is a right when the people of a society come together (via goverment, in many cases) and decide that every member of that society gets that right. And many of the world's nations have decided that basic education is a right of all children.

 

At least, that's my take on it.

No they did not come from the govt.

the writers of the constitution were stating they are self evident truths. They were recognizing that tyranny of previous laws were tyranny bc they denied citizens those rights.

 

Of course, that is likewise my take on it.

 

Case in point, they did not free slaves. Yet every person has a right to be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen, I was asking about legally. After the Sparkly Unicorn said it's in their States Constituition I googled to see how many states. Apparently the federal government has fought tooth and nail against calling it a right, and even cut some funding to the states that incorporated the right to an education into tge State Constitution.

 

I was mixed up because if it's compulsary I thought it would also be a right.

 

edit: I was wrong. I reread the article and they only ruled against equal funding, not that they cut funding.

 

Unless the section has been removed, I think it was Oklahoma which even went so far as to stipulate in the state constitution that parents possess the right to homeschool.  (Someone please correct me if needed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the logic that rights are never given by others, I suppose babies have no innate right to breastmilk or formula. Or someone to clean and care for them.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right?

 

If I starve my child or leave them in squalor or lock them up so they never learn to speak, I have committed a crime. No person would reasonably dispute that. For me, while harder to prove, depriving a child of education is also a serious crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the section has been removed, I think it was Oklahoma which even went so far as to stipulate in the state constitution that parents possess the right to homeschool. (Someone please correct me if needed.)

That would be correct. Because it is the innate right of a parent to parent their child. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll scream the warrior scream with you. :)

 

Rights are innately given and must be forcibly (usually) removed.

 

Rights are not provided. No one has to give a right to another. The person has that right by nature of being human.

 

A right is not given, it is protected. And a right is always a right.

 

So if one were to suggest education were a right, then I would ask why it is not a right for all citizens.

 

I am not familiar with this definition of rights.

 

Do you then think that Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Assembly are things that are "innately given"? 

 

The right to a jury trial? How can that be innately given? It is a societal construct.

 

Or, do you not consider that a right, either, despite it being enumerated as such in our Bill of *Rights*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the logic that rights are never given by others, I suppose babies have no innate right to breastmilk or formula. Or someone to clean and care for them.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right?

 

If I starve my child or leave them in squalor or lock them up so they never learn to speak, I have committed a crime. No person would reasonably dispute that. For me, while harder to prove, depriving a child of education is also a serious crime.

No. It's not ridiculous at all. People of all ages go hungry every day. We know this to be fact. And while we complain about how awful it is, those hungry people cannot come into our homes and demand we feed them. And there's no law requiring us to feed them either. (Tho iirc Arizona and Nevada have laws that say you cannot refuse water to anyone.)

 

A legal or moral obligation is not the same as a right.

 

I am morally obligated to be monogamous with my husband. That does not mean it is his right to have a monogamous wife.

 

I am legally and morally obligated to provide life necessities to my children bc I'm their mother.

 

Now if you want to argue food is a right, then I'll be glad to agree as soon as access to food is free for everyone. (Which it was when humans started out. If you could catch it, pick it, or grow it - you could eat it.)

 

Same goes for access to education. If it is a right, it's a right whether they are 6, 16, 26, or 86.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with this definition of rights.

 

Do you then think that Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Assembly are things that are "innately given"?

Yes. Press is simply another version of speech to my mind.

 

Assembly is associated with speech and press. It serves no purpose to tell someone they can only speak freely in a box where no one can hear them.

 

The right to a jury trial? How can that be innately given? It is a societal construct.

 

Or, do you not consider that a right, either, despite it being enumerated as such in our Bill of *Rights*?

Ah! Good one! You have the right to address your accuser and speak to your defense.

 

I would agree this is not an innate right. But a legal obligation required to promote justice.

 

Again I ask:

 

If it is a right, then the law won't change that it is a right.

 

If the law wasn't there, would you no longer think it a right? Possibly. Many countries don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote in the facebook debate that by following the letter of the law in the Constitution (which they sidestep by legislating obligations) they're missing a lot of context clues. I'm not against gun ownership, but they guaranteed the right to bear arms (I know - they didn't GIVE you a free gun), but they mentioned guns in the Constitution and not education because it was a different time. People needed guns to procet their property and to ensure the nation survived. People are more likely to lose their property for financial reasons now, than because a bear attacked them, and the nation is more likely to fail for some reason other than we don't have enough guns nowdays (since Globally everything is Money based). Saying "education is not in the Constitution" is ignoring what Martha said, that back then you could hunt for food on any public land. Nowday the people that can't make it in society use their guns to hunt for money from people's pockets. Nobody knows how to hunt and forage any more, and there's not enough free public lands, even if that lifestyle was attractive to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 26 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

 

  • (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  • (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  • (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Now of course, being exceptional,  we have a persnickety relationship with the UN, so I could see the difficulty in achieving any sort of consensus on this among 50 states flying in very loose formation.

 

So it would seem the answer is a logic problem.  The world believes education is a right, we are part of the world, therefore, should we believe that education is a right, and thus should we write something down about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they did not come from the govt.

the writers of the constitution were stating they are self evident truths. They were recognizing that tyranny of previous laws were tyranny bc they denied citizens those rights.

 

Of course, that is likewise my take on it.

 

Case in point, they did not free slaves. Yet every person has a right to be free.

 

So they were stating what was self evident just denying those rights to numerous other people?  Perhaps you don't have as much of a grasp on their actual beliefs as you seem to think you. do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting a sense of 'two kinds of rights"

 

1. Basic, inherent, universal rights that all humans have innately, whether anyone recognizes them or not.

2. Rights granted by groups (generally governments) that might or might not be inherent, but the society agrees together to treat as if they were... more like privileges that become morally binding rights because a society intentionally elevates them to that status.

 

And the hybrid: that all of the type-2-rights are merely "recognitions" of type-1-rights... Implying (a) that societies that "recognize" (declare) all the inherent rights are good, and societies that fail to do so are bad, and ( b ) that societies that "recognize" (declare) a right that is debatable as-to whether it might not be inherent after all could be making a mistake.

 

Myself, I think that both kinds of rights exist, but that it is largely impossible to tell them apart with clarity from within a society (as an appropriately socialized person). We seem to be able to detect a 'leaning' towards type 1 or 2 -- but the variety of perspectives and the scope of history shows that these things are moving targets.

 

I think that education for children is at least a type-2 right (as declared in my country) and probably/possibly also a type-1 right that I wish was universally recognized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they were stating what was self evident just denying those rights to numerous other people?  Perhaps you don't have as much of a grasp on their actual beliefs as you seem to think you. do.

 

Yes. That is exactly what they did. They declared freedom to be a self evident right of being a person. They deftly side stepped that conflict with the south by stating that slaves were only partially persons and only enough to be partially counted for the purpose of census in figuring a southern state's number of representatives.

 

To be fair, many of the free state delegates were adamantly against that, but they needed unity with the south more than they needed to stand on the principle at the time. That's why they also insisted that in several years time, the south would eventually phase out slavery. Only it never did. Thus one of the catalyst for the civil war.

 

They swept aside the issue of women's freedoms by cavalierly stating that the head of her household would have her best interests I mind and therefore would be trusted to make those decisions. Bless their hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They swept aside the issue of women's freedoms by cavalierly stating that the head of her household would have her best interests I mind and therefore would be trusted to make those decisions. Bless their hearts.

And there are some religious movements within this country that would love it if America went back to this ancient mentality, bless. their.heart.indeed! :banghead:  :banghead: :banghead:  

 

On issues like those Martha stated from the post that I took this quote, it brings home to me the NEED for education to be a right, but only if that is truly a real education. Revisionist history, US dominated history, white European male defined "history" is a scary thing. What we need is REAL history, and the citizenry needs to understand that history. Yeah, history is up for interpretation...everyone gets that it is very hard to come at it with no bias at all. But, there are plenty of hard and fast facts that are pretty irrefutable, and those need to be taught.

 

In this respect, whether or not it is an inalienable right...a right of personhood...a proper education, if the state could possibly manage it, needs to be a right of all children simply because a representative form of government can not be maintained with an ignorant citizenry. We are reeping the "benefit" of that ignorance and have been for a good 30-40 years now.

 

So, while I cannot say that I think education is a right in the personhood, inalienable sense, I do believe we've reached a crisis point in which it should be a right of American children. But, as long as we have the insane version of history that is touted in today's classrooms, I'm not certain it's going to do a lot of good.

 

I'm having a cynical day, so keep that in mind when you read this post! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting a sense of 'two kinds of rights"

 

1. Basic, inherent, universal rights that all humans have innately, whether anyone recognizes them or not.

2. Rights granted by groups (generally governments) that might or might not be inherent, but the society agrees together to treat as if they were... more like privileges that become morally binding rights because a society intentionally elevates them to that status..

Yes, exactly, I agree. I'm on the fence, actually, but I think by making it a right we elevate society. Although, Martha's comment about rights to food gives me pause...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...