A girl in the sixth grade took a knee during the pledge of allegiance. She says she was inspired by none other than Colin Kapernick. When the teacher confronted her about it, apparently they have rules about this, she became upset and left the room. She didn't go to the guidance counselor or principal. Another teacher noticed how upset she was and tried to calm her down. She wasn't able to do that and her mother was called. The end result was the ACLU is now involved and a law suit is being filed. The contention being this child had her first amendment rights violated. The Supreme court has ruled that you do not lose your rights when you go to school or your place of work. This young lady was merely exercising her right to free speech! The child is right, the school administration is wrong. That is the message this child is receiving.
Now I can agree with the supreme court when it said you do not surrender your rights when in school or at your place of employment. I would add you also don't surrender the consequences of exercising those rights! In this particular case I believe that is what is being taught to that child. She is being lead to believe that just because you have a right you can exercise that right with impunity. She is being indoctrinated into civil disobiendence! That's right, she is being indoctrinated to just protest, file legal challenges and demand reparations when she doesn't get her way. Instead of being taught to act responsibly, by that I mean following the rules, she is being told she can just do as she likes and everyone else must accept that choice. It's her right! As I said she has a right, a right to accept the consequences of her actions. She is not being taught that however. It is that I object too. Responsibilty must be taught as an integral part of rights. There is an error in thought here regarding rights. I submit the supreme court itself is getting confused as to what is a right!
A right is something that is inherent, it is inalienable. As the document noted, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights, they are not granted by anyone or any document. Rights are not legislated. We make laws to organize society and delineate what are moral and ethical behaviors within that society. Laws do not give you a right to do anything! Laws define an action as right or wrong. Without law all you have is anarchy. That being understood you can see how this child has a right to free speech but that speech does come with a responsibilty. The responsibilty being to exercise that right within the framework of the law. Our laws do provide a means of filing a complaint, acting to change that law, and a means of redress for a grievance. That child did none of those things, no, she choose to emulate a sports figure and take a knee. In doing so she acted in defiance of the law. Civil Disobedience! And it is being encouraged in the sixth grade!
What is being misunderstood in all of this is the difference between a right and a law. Rights are inherent, they are not granted by anyone. Laws concern moral and ethical behaviors and are subject to change. Rights never change! Exercising those rights without repercussions within a society is the function of government. What rights do that government allow to be exercised freely? Here in the good old USA we enjoy much freedom in the exercising of our rights. That doesn't mean we can exercise that right whenever and wherever we please! The classic example being I can't holler fire in a crowded movie theater. The Supreme court affirmed that many years ago. The thinking being it creates an unsafe situation where people may get hurt. In other words, common sense dictates we shouldn't do that. And what, you say, has that to do with this little girl taking a knee in a classroom during the pledge of allegiance? By taking that knee she is also creating a disturbance by acting contrary to convention and good order and discipline. To put it simply, wrong time and place to lodge a protest! Her right to challenge that law ( rule, regulation or whatever you wish to call it ) was never denied. Truth is, she never asked to be exempted or filed any documents delineating her objections, but rather just " exercised " her right without any consideration to the rights of others. As a result she was confronted and it upset her. She should have anticipated that and been prepared. Oh, but she is just a child. Yes, a child that saw a sports figure do the same thing and be glorified in the press for it. Her take away obviously being, civil disobiendence makes you famous. And that thought process is now being reinforced!
We should be teaching our children that they have rights and responsibilities. I'd suggest teaching them to be responsible first! Those rights will always be there ! No one can take your rights away. The government however can tell you what is right and wrong. What is acceptable and what is not! That is the function of law. Laws affirm the ability to exercise a right! That doesn't mean you can do that anywhere, at any time and for any reason you feel is appropriate! You must act responsibly within the framework of the law. Rights are inherent, the ability to exercise them is not! Understand the difference? Just as all men are created equal means we are all given the same opportunity, equal opportunity does not mean equal results!
Now I can agree with the supreme court when it said you do not surrender your rights when in school or at your place of employment. I would add you also don't surrender the consequences of exercising those rights! In this particular case I believe that is what is being taught to that child. She is being lead to believe that just because you have a right you can exercise that right with impunity. She is being indoctrinated into civil disobiendence! That's right, she is being indoctrinated to just protest, file legal challenges and demand reparations when she doesn't get her way. Instead of being taught to act responsibly, by that I mean following the rules, she is being told she can just do as she likes and everyone else must accept that choice. It's her right! As I said she has a right, a right to accept the consequences of her actions. She is not being taught that however. It is that I object too. Responsibilty must be taught as an integral part of rights. There is an error in thought here regarding rights. I submit the supreme court itself is getting confused as to what is a right!
A right is something that is inherent, it is inalienable. As the document noted, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights, they are not granted by anyone or any document. Rights are not legislated. We make laws to organize society and delineate what are moral and ethical behaviors within that society. Laws do not give you a right to do anything! Laws define an action as right or wrong. Without law all you have is anarchy. That being understood you can see how this child has a right to free speech but that speech does come with a responsibilty. The responsibilty being to exercise that right within the framework of the law. Our laws do provide a means of filing a complaint, acting to change that law, and a means of redress for a grievance. That child did none of those things, no, she choose to emulate a sports figure and take a knee. In doing so she acted in defiance of the law. Civil Disobedience! And it is being encouraged in the sixth grade!
What is being misunderstood in all of this is the difference between a right and a law. Rights are inherent, they are not granted by anyone. Laws concern moral and ethical behaviors and are subject to change. Rights never change! Exercising those rights without repercussions within a society is the function of government. What rights do that government allow to be exercised freely? Here in the good old USA we enjoy much freedom in the exercising of our rights. That doesn't mean we can exercise that right whenever and wherever we please! The classic example being I can't holler fire in a crowded movie theater. The Supreme court affirmed that many years ago. The thinking being it creates an unsafe situation where people may get hurt. In other words, common sense dictates we shouldn't do that. And what, you say, has that to do with this little girl taking a knee in a classroom during the pledge of allegiance? By taking that knee she is also creating a disturbance by acting contrary to convention and good order and discipline. To put it simply, wrong time and place to lodge a protest! Her right to challenge that law ( rule, regulation or whatever you wish to call it ) was never denied. Truth is, she never asked to be exempted or filed any documents delineating her objections, but rather just " exercised " her right without any consideration to the rights of others. As a result she was confronted and it upset her. She should have anticipated that and been prepared. Oh, but she is just a child. Yes, a child that saw a sports figure do the same thing and be glorified in the press for it. Her take away obviously being, civil disobiendence makes you famous. And that thought process is now being reinforced!
We should be teaching our children that they have rights and responsibilities. I'd suggest teaching them to be responsible first! Those rights will always be there ! No one can take your rights away. The government however can tell you what is right and wrong. What is acceptable and what is not! That is the function of law. Laws affirm the ability to exercise a right! That doesn't mean you can do that anywhere, at any time and for any reason you feel is appropriate! You must act responsibly within the framework of the law. Rights are inherent, the ability to exercise them is not! Understand the difference? Just as all men are created equal means we are all given the same opportunity, equal opportunity does not mean equal results!
No comments:
Post a Comment