What would you do

[DeniseJH]

I'm so sorry but I'm not quite understanding you. So slavery was "right" because the law said it was right, but at the same time it was horrible wrong?

No, of course I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying that yes, as that was the law the slaves had no personal rights. It was the law. And better people changed that law. Laws do get changed. Will the equal rights laws be changed someday because they will be deemed as egregious as slavery? (This is not something you're suggesting, I know.) Never say never, but seriously? Nah.

 

[wgeo]

No, of course I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying that yes, as that was the law the slaves had no personal rights. It was the law. And better people changed that law. Laws do get changed. Will the equal rights laws be changed someday because they will be deemed as egregious as slavery? (This is not something you're suggesting, I know.) Never say never, but seriously? Nah.

But that's my exact point. I'm asking how we decide if something is right, and you said laws - but then you said that the law was not right.

 

[skyblue17]

OP hasn't been back and the worms have all but escaped the can but...

I would end the interactions that I know of with the daughter. And I would let all parents I am close with know about the flags.

People have a right to their beliefs, but they are not free from the consequences of their beliefs. If, upon learning of the flags, the family finds themselves with little interaction in the community, that is the choice they make. Yet, it's better to know where they stand than not know at all, I suppose.

 

[luvsJack]

Yes, it was a compliment - whether you intended it to be or not.

People have the right to believe whatever they want - would I discriminate against that faith? I guess you'd have to be more specific. How could I discriminate against someone's faith?

Someone’s faith, belief, religion. Religions are discriminated against all the time.

 

[DeniseJH]

But that's my exact point. I'm asking how we decide if something is right, and you said laws - but then you said that the law was not right.

It wasn't - and it was changed. If the people decide something is not right they must change the law(s). That is how this country works. We evolve, and hopefully become better people.


If enough people are against equal rights the laws will be changed. Is that something anyone really sees happening, or wants to see happen? Not in our current society, no.

 

[DeniseJH]

Someone’s faith, belief, religion. Religions are discriminated against all the time.

Of course, but how do you believe I may personally do this? I don't own a business, for instance.

 

[luvsJack]

Of course, but how do you believe I may personally do this? I don't own a business.

Probably the same way the pp is discriminating against gay people. Is that not what you keep accusing him of?

 

[wgeo]

It wasn't - and it was changed. If the people decide something is not right they must change the law(s). That is how this country works. We evolve, and hopefully become better people.


If enough people are against equal rights the laws will be changed. Is that something anyone really sees happening, or wants to see happen? Not in our current society, no.

Well then I don't understand why you are arguing with me? My question is very specifically - how do we decide if an issue is right or wrong? You said laws, but then you said that the laws weren't right so they were changed - so that doesn't address the specific question. Who or what decides if an issue is right or wrong. Laws did not decide if slavery was right or wrong, so what did? Was it morals, ethics, religion, politics, economics? It wasn't law -because the law said one thing and then was changed to say another.

My question is - which aribter do we use as the final decision maker? Should it be law, morals, relgion, majority rules etc? And if we do - how do we decide which one is correct?

It's somewhat semantics - but deeper it's an issue of - how do we get along in a society where we have fundamental disagreements with other people - how do we come up with a framework that we can all live by?

 

[DeniseJH]

Probably the same way the pp is discriminating against gay people. Is that not what you keep accusing him of?

Again, you'll have to be more specific. How am I discriminating against the pp?

 

[LSUmiss]

Different “he“. I can’t imagine anything making those symbols ok.

Oops sorry!

 

[DeniseJH]

Well then I don't understand why you are arguing with me? My question is very specifically - how do we decide if an issue is right or wrong? You said laws, but then you said that the laws weren't right so they were changed - so that doesn't address the specific question. Who or what decides if an issue is right or wrong. Laws did not decide if slavery was right or wrong, so what did? Was it morals, ethics, religion, politics, economics? It wasn't law -because the law said one thing and then was changed to say another.

My question is - which aribter do we use as the final decision maker? Should it be law, morals, relgion, majority rules etc? And if we do - how do we decide which one is correct?

It's somewhat semantics - but deeper it's an issue of - how do we get along in a society where we have fundamental disagreements with other people - how do we come up with a framework that we can all live by?

I don't mean to be "arguing". I thought you and I were having a civil discussion. My apologies if I've come off otherwise here with you.

Most things are already determined by laws. If the people decide that a law is wrong, they must work to change it. So I guess the answer is "the people" through laws. And the majority rules here (most of the time, anyway). Your vote is your voice.

How do we get along? Who knows - at a time when many don't seem to know fact from fiction it seems impossible.

 

[MrsPete]

Oh I’m sure someone will say the confederate flag is part of American history

The confederate flat IS a part of American history; I know a good number of people who are into historical reenactments, and they own such things -- but they aren't racists; just people who are into history.

However, in this case, I agree that when paired with the other two items, it probably is something more than a historical item. Like several other posters, I had to google the other items.

...Since you are aware, I would deter her from seeing the child outside of school.

Even after 4 kids, and the youngest a senior in high school, I am still surprised at the family backgrounds of some of those in school. Crazy what's out there sometimes.

Agree. Don't deter a friendship at school -- after all, when you try to crack down on something as innocent as two kids playing together, you can create a "forbidden fruit". BUT don't promote a friendship outside of school hours; that's easy enough for a small child -- make yourself unavailable for play dates, birthday parties, etc.

Also, a quote I like: Don't bleed 'til you get shot.
That is, don't get too upset about something that hasn't happened yet. You don't know that the girls will go to the same school or that they'll end up in the same class or that they'll even remember one another from one afternoon in the park. Don't get too worked up about a problem that is -- at this point -- potential.

One other thing I'd do: If the girls do end up being in the same school, don't talk about this to other mothers. Only bad could come from spreading this type of thing in real life.

Yes, because the law said so that was how it was. Was it wrong? Horribly so.

Both laws and social mores have changed.

 

[luvsJack]

Again, you'll have to be more specific. How am I discriminating against the pp?

You keep saying he is wrong because discrimination is wrong. So, I give you the same question. How is he discriminating against anyone.

Way back when this discussion started, I told you that he wasn’t discriminating against anyone. He has an opinion and a belief about marriage.

 

[DeniseJH]

You keep saying he is wrong because discrimination is wrong. So, I give you the same question. How is he discriminating against anyone.

Way back when this discussion started, I told you that he wasn’t discriminating against anyone. He has an opinion and a belief about marriage.

I said he was wrong for being ok with the discrimination, I never said he was the one doing any discriminating.

 

[Colleen27]

Oh, no way. My child would not be going back to that house, and I wouldn't encourage/allow the friendship to develop beyond just seeing one another at the playground. There is no way I'd want my kid exposed to that ideology, even in the sense of a child innocently repeating something the parents have said. And besides, I've never known a man who espoused those views who didn't also have an affinity for poorly-secured firearms, so it wouldn't just be their ideas I'd be worried about when it comes to my kid being in that house.

We had an issue when my kids were small with a friend of DS's who comes from a family that is very vocal about their rather extreme beliefs and I ultimately had to ban this friend from our home because the first time he came over, he was saying things to my then-4yo DD that made her cry and gave her nightmares. I know it wasn't his fault. He was a 7yo kid repeating his parents' rantings. But as a parent, my primary responsibility is to protect my own kids. (Fortunately this story has a happy ending; the boy and his brother both rejected their parents' views as they got older, and they're decent, reasonable young adults now).

 

[LSUmiss]

The fact that you feel you do not need to respect the beliefs of others says a whole lot.

I’m confused about the “faith” part. I thought being against gay marriage b/c of religion had to do with it being a “sin” in some religions to be gay.

 

[luvsJack]

I’m confused about the “faith” part. I thought being against gay marriage b/c of religion had to do with it being a “sin” in some religions to be gay.

As I said before, I am not sure but I believe the pp’s belief in marriage has to do with his faith. I could be wrong completely. I don’t know that for sure but just what I have gathered from his past posts.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It seems to me there's been a lot of prejudice and discrimination towards this innocent little girl. She is not from one of the protected classes though, apparently, so I guess it's ok. Had she been the child of someone else I think the whole tone of this thread might've been different.

 

[LSUmiss]

It seems to me there's been a lot of prejudice and discrimination towards this innocent little girl. She is not from one of the protected classes though, apparently, so I guess it's ok. Had she been the child of someone else I think the whole tone of this thread might've been different.

If ppl like her parents didn’t exist there would be no need for anyone to be in a “protected class”. Ppl have said they don’t care what someone else believes as long as they don’t act on it, but they are acting on it by raising their child in this environment. My number one priority is to protect my child. HER parents put her in this position not society.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

If ppl like her parents didn’t exist there would be no need for anyone to be in a “protected class”. Ppl have said they don’t care what someone else believes as long as they don’t act on it, but they are acting on it by raising their child in this environment. My number one priority is to protect my child. HER parents put her in this position not society.

She is still an innocent child who is being discriminated against and prejudged. Some here have said that is always wrong.