talkpolitics | They Could Always Go Work in Factories

Entry tags:

education

They Could Always Go Work in Factories

Teri Adams, Head of Independence Hall Tea Party and School Voucher Activist:

Our ultimate goal is to shut down public schools and have private schools only, eventually returning responsibility for payment to parents and private charities. It’s going to happen piecemeal and not overnight. It took us years to get into this mess and it’s going to take years to get out of it.

In other words, Adams would like education to be, along with medical care, available only to those who can pony up the cash for it.

The article I’ve linked to includes a few quotes from people speculating about what drives the American right’s hostility towards public education. The ban on teacher-led prayer is invoked, along with the mercenary desire to funnel the money now paid into public schools into private hands.

I suspect it’s much more simple than that. Without universal education, the far right wouldn’t have to contend with so many pesky arguments about the facts of history, math, science, etc.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

jc: Considering that in order to do so on the part of one citizen against another, that would mean holding the victim against their will to threatening them with violence

Someone's right to free speech and/or religion is not violated if their boss threatens to fire them for expressing certain political beliefs or attending certain churches (or not attending any churches at all?) Someone's right to free speech and/or religion is not violated if a landlord threatens to evict them for expressing certain political beliefs or attending certain churches (or not attending any churches at all?)

We don't have that right as you're expressing it. "Right to free speech" is shorthand for the right to express ourselves without government restrictions. It does not mean that you are free from all consequences or that every person has to let you speak.

If you consent to work for someone under the condition that politics aren't to be discussed at work, then no, that's not a violation. Question about the religion part though, would such a prospective employee be likely to ever agree to such terms in advance? You can't spring these kinds of shenanigans suddenly after signing employment papers, and before signing, it places a strong negative reaction to consenting to them at all.

JC: If you consent to work for someone under the condition that politics aren't to be discussed at work, then no, that's not a violation.

I'm not talking about a provision against politics being discussed at work. I'm talking about an employer firing someone for political or religious views they express outside of work. Is that or is that not a violation of free speech?

JC: Question about the religion part though, would such a prospective employee be likely to ever agree to such terms in advance?

If they are desperate enough for a job, and concerned enough about feeding, clothing, and caring for themselves or for their family, yes, people will consent to just about anything, including putting some of their kids to work in factories and/or facing horrifically dangerous conditions in factories and mines.

So... Is someone's right to free practice of their religion violated if they face firing for it?

I'm talking about an employer firing someone for political or religious views they express outside of work. Is that or is that not a violation of free speech?

No.

Is someone's right to free practice of their religion violated if they face firing for it?

No.

"Someone's right to free speech and/or religion is not violated if their boss threatens to fire them for expressing certain political beliefs or attending certain churches (or not attending any churches at all?) Someone's right to free speech and/or religion is not violated if a landlord threatens to evict them for expressing certain political beliefs or attending certain churches (or not attending any churches at all?)"

Um, no.

The right to free speech does not protect you from all possible consiquences, it means you have the right to say anything you want and not be prosecuted by the government for it, it does not mean that your friends, neighbors, peers, and employers are not going to apply any sort of social sanction.

As far as the boss who threatens to fire you for it, sorry but there is also the freedom of association, or do you have a problem with a synagogue firing a clerk for joining the KKK?

r: The right to free speech does not protect you from all possible consiquences, it means you have the right to say anything you want and not be prosecuted by the government for it, it does not mean that your friends, neighbors, peers, and employers are not going to apply any sort of social sanction.

If employers start firing people for political or religious speech outside of the workplace, the First Amendment will quickly become meaningless -- especially in the kind of non-union, no-safety-net world plutocracy longed for by libertarians. A society in which people conceal their politics and religion out of a well-founded fear of employer reprisals for speaking out is no more free than a society in which people conceal their politics and religion out of a well-founded fear of government reprisals for speaking out.

r: Do you have a problem with a synagogue firing a clerk for joining the KKK?

In the highly unlikely event that a synagogue worker would do such a thing, no, because the KKK as an organization has a long and well-established history of violence. Most political and religious organizations do not.

You really don't see the nonsense of saying "nobody should be fired by a private employer for their speech... unless it's really really bad. And it's really really bad if it's something I disapprove of."

You're not in any way forming a morally coherent position.

mb: You really don't see the nonsense of saying "nobody should be fired by a private employer for their speech... unless it's really really bad. And it's really really bad if it's something I disapprove of."

Yes, I disapprove of terrorism -- a crime of which the KKK has a long, well-documented history.

Don't you?

Do you really not recognize the difference between an organization that has a long history of murderous terrorism and one that does not?

So Bill Ayers and anyone who supports him should be fired.

Given that Bill Ayers did his time for his crime, and has since renounced violence and is no longer a member of the now-defunct Weathermen, no, I don't think he and anyone who supports him should be fired.

Bill Ayers did no time for his crime cue to an FBI error which invalidated the case.

And I do like how I short-circuited this with your help. When it comes down to it, you don't think left-wingers killing people is a bad thing.

mb:Bill Ayers did no time for his crime cue to an FBI error which invalidated the case.

Ah yes, you're right. That FBI "error" being their blatantly illegal activities in COINTELPRO.

mb: And I do like how I short-circuited this with your help. When it comes down to it, you don't think left-wingers killing people is a bad thing.

Dream on. Of course I think left-wingers killing people through terrorist acts is a bad thing. I just don't think Bill Ayers, who has since denounced violence and terrorism, is the equivalent of an unrepentant Klansman.

Do you disapprove of the Klan, by the way?

Yes, they're just as bad as Bill Ayers. Ayer's goal being killing about 10% of America.

Bill Ayer's has denounced violence and terrorism as not being productive... not that it's wrong.

And yet, he's denounced it.

Do you denounce all violence?

"If employers start firing people for political or religious speech outside of the workplace, the First Amendment will quickly become meaningless -- especially in the kind of non-union, no-safety-net world plutocracy longed for by libertarians. A society in which people conceal their politics and religion out of a well-founded fear of employer reprisals for speaking out is no more free than a society in which people conceal their politics and religion out of a well-founded fear of government reprisals for speaking out. "

Um, What makes you think that libertarians advocate a world with no Unions?

Further WE ALREADY LIVE IN SUCH A WORLD.

Ever heard the term "in the Broom Closet"? Perhaps you should go talk to some Neo Pagans if not.

You seem to operate in this fantasy land where the rich are all powerful and it is only through the wonderful actions of government that saves us from those demonic forces. However you know what happens to companies who fire people for speech that the majority agrees with? They go out of business as no one will buy from them and no one will work for them any longer. People are not powerless and business owners are not all powerful so maybe you should come visit the real world sometime, it is actually a rather nice place.

"In the highly unlikely event that a synagogue worker would do such a thing, no, because the KKK as an organization has a long and well-established history of violence. Most political and religious organizations do not."

Um, I have known Neopagans who worked as church secretaries so don't say it is unlikely to happen.

However it is telling how you only want to protect speech you agree with. Sure the KKK has a long history of terrorism, so does Hamas can a synagogue fire someone for being a member of or supporting them? What about the IRA or it's political arm Sinn Fein?

But lets take the terrorism out of the picture, should a daycare be able to fire someone for being a member of NAMBLA?

Should PETA be able to fire someone for buying a Fur Coat?

Should the AFL-CIO be able to fire someone for hosting a Chamber of Commerce fundraiser?

Should Planned Parenthood be able to fire someone for being a Christian Fundamentalist?

Should a womens crisis center be able to fire someone for being a member of Promise Keepers?

I can go on all day you know, there are a million ways that someone who holds political views diametrically opposed to yours could end up working for an agency you support, do you agree that those agencies should not have the right to fire said person even though they are have a direct conflict of interest in working there.

r: What makes you think that libertarians advocate a world with no Unions?

Conversations with numerous libertarians over the years.

R: Further WE ALREADY LIVE IN SUCH A WORLD. Ever heard the term "in the Broom Closet"? Perhaps you should go talk to some Neo Pagans if not.

As an ex-Wiccan I’m quite familiar with the term, thanks, and as an atheist I know all about the fear of being unfairly fired for my (lack of) religion.

R: You seem to operate in this fantasy land where the rich are all powerful and it is only through the wonderful actions of government that saves us from those demonic forces.

The only “fantasy” here consists of you ascribing these terms and attitudes to me.

R: However you know what happens to companies who fire people for speech that the majority agrees with? They go out of business as no one will buy from them and no one will work for them any longer.

I’d be interested in hearing which companies have had this happen to them. Care to cite a few?

R: I have known Neopagans who worked as church secretaries so don't say it is unlikely to happen.

Were those Neopagans part of an organization with a long and well-documented history of terrorism towards Christians?

R: Sure the KKK has a long history of terrorism, so does Hamas can a synagogue fire someone for being a member of or supporting them?

Yes.

R: What about the IRA or it's political arm Sinn Fein?

Does the IRA and Sinn Fein have a history of attacking synagogues?

r: But let’s take the terrorism out of the picture, should a daycare be able to fire someone for being a member of NAMBLA?

Sure, given that NAMBLA is an organization that advocates a crime that would have a direct impact on that daycare center.

r: Should PETA be able to fire someone for buying a Fur Coat?

No. Buying a fur coat is not a crime.

R: Should the AFL-CIO be able to fire someone for hosting a Chamber of Commerce fundraiser?

No.

R: Should Planned Parenthood be able to fire someone for being a Christian Fundamentalist?

No.

r: Should a womens crisis center be able to fire someone for being a member of Promise Keepers?

No.

R: I can go on all day you know…

Oh, I’m sure you could.

R: do you agree that those agencies should not have the right to fire said person even though they are have a direct conflict of interest in working there.

Sure, so long as that “direct conflict of interest” has not involved criminal attacks on the community that employer represents (like a Synagogue)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

They Could Always Go Work in Factories

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft

Re: Public education is political indoctrination paid for by theft