Where do someone's rights stop and yours start?

1. 77

   VVanNessposted 10 years ago

   At what point does anyone think it's okay to demand that someone else changes what they are doing because it offends them?
   So I cannot silently pray over my food at a restaurant because it offends others? I cannot own dogs (quiet, sweet, calm, and indoors) because my neighbor doesn't like them, so she feels the need to constantly call Animal Control on us for nothing? My husband cannot own a motorcycle to take to get to school and work because it disturbs others?
   
   So next we are going to be told how we can dress, what I can eat, and what I can say?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No one is stopping you from praying silently over your food if you want. I don't see dogs or motorcycles being banned. If you are incorrectly accused, there are ways to fight it.
      
      It's the same as trying to deny others the right to get married because they disapprove.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I wholeheartedly agree. Obviously no one is physically "stopping" me, but they sure like to come to my door to chew me out, speak to me disrespectfully in public, and make me miserable while in their company.
         
         I just don't see why people think others don't have rights because it somehow conflicts with theirs (i.e. bothers them or offends them).

         replyreport
   2. 60

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Fill the saddlebags with bibles and train the dog to ride the motorcycle back and forth, up and down your street all day.  It won't solve anything, but it would go viral on youTube...especially with your neighbor running along, behind it, yelling.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There are OTHERS who are GOING to be offended  NO MATTER WHAT.  Well, SO BE IT!  Tell them to STEP OFF and TEND TO THEIR OWN BUSINESS.  Some folks' lives are so ASKEWED and HALF-EMPTY that they are displacing their misery unto others.  VVan, these  --------------- are just plain --------- miserable and they are taking this misery out on you.  DON'T let them steal your uniqueness, NEVER!
      

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         That's not how you use Sheltering Suburban Mom. This is:
         
         

         replyreport
   4. 61

      Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      People don't quite understand their rights, most think they know them some dream their rights and others don't care about rights at all.
      Rights are what a small group of people (usually politicians) have deemed you should have as a way of determining what therein rights are. When rights interfere with politicians and their cohorts they simply just change them.
      So your rights are actually what others tell you they are.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Lol That's an interesting point of view.

         replyreport
2. 85

   Alphadogg16posted 10 years ago

   I'm definitely with Uninvited Writer on this one, basically if I were in your position I would tell your neighbors to kiss my a**, there are no kind of bans or city ordinances on motorcycles or dogs. If you want to pray over your food, who can tell you not too??

   replyreport
   1. 77

      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your thoughts!

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      THANK YOU, TALK TO THE HAND, TALK TO THE HHHAAANNNDDD!
      

      replyreport
3. 73

   Laura in Denverposted 10 years ago

   I think Uninvited Visitor  is right, that there is no call to restrict you from these petty items. However, on a larger scale, we have lost certain civil right because of the need for national security. Thus, find your cell phone messages tapped, having to go thru massive security at airports, etc.
   
   Yes, these are basic freedoms lost not.

   replyreport
4. 77

   VVanNessposted 10 years ago

   What about teachers and students no longer being legally able to pray (Christianity) in schools, or teachers being able to discuss Christianity as an option, but all other religions being allowed and respected? (in the name if not offending others of different religions)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It was predicted and expected.  Not to be defeatist, but unfortunately it will only get worse from here. 
      2nd Timothy 4:3 - 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I think this was a reference to the mega churches rather than leglistlation over the teaching if Christianity in school.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because public schools are funded by the taxpayers, I think it's fair to ask teachers not to pray or proselytize.
      
      But, that must go for ALL faiths. Christian, Islam and Hindi alike.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         SpanStarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Question:
         
         "ALL faiths. Christian, Islam and Hindi alike" do they not pay taxes also?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Sure SpanStar, they all pay taxes. They pay taxes NOT to have another's religion pushed on them - and the only way to keep that from happening is to remove religion -- all religion -- completely.
            
            Children may still worship as they see fit at home, in church, in parochial schools, and through religious youth activities. But, not in public school.

            replyreport
      2. 77

         VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         If one religion is banned, so should they all. Or better yet, religion should not be banned at all. All religions and cultures should be allowed to be discussed, simply not preached. School is a place for learning, not preaching. But kids are going to ask questions. Not answering their questions is just going to cause more curiosity. They know why I wear the shoes I do, why not also why I chose my faith, and that can include a full class discussion about why everyone chose their faith, not singling out just one as the right one. Equality is all I ask for.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Pretty hard to discuss in it schools without preaching but still in a manner acceptable to the adherents.
            
            For example, the story of the ark is obviously false, but no Christian wants their child told that.  Or the story of creation or flying to heaven in a chariot of fire.  Without preaching, how could the ever be presented as truth?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I actually did this quite often. Never in schools (at least not in Elementary) do you focus on studying any one particular religion or culture for any time. We talk about what religion is, what culture is, and it's easy to say "Some people believe ... What is it that you believe?" That way everyone and every religion/culture is acknowledged and accepted as equal. They will even ask what I believe and I can tell them without preaching. I simply teach that everyone is different. I can even teach that even though two people are of the same culture/religion, they can feel/celebrate/believe differently.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Surely it's possible to teach religious studies where the competing theories are compared and contrasted in a purely objective matter of fact manner. But I guess this is impossible for so many teachers without including their emotional, faith oriented, and preferential biases, hence religious practice is banned.
                  
                  I've heard much made by Christians that America's morality went down the pan after prayer was banned in schools in the 50's (60's?), but here in the UK there is a legal requirement for schools to teach religion and it must be predominantly Christian. Schools must include weekly assemblies with a religious element and prayer is encouraged. However, what many Christians might call 'moral decline' has also occurred here as well. Thus the idea that America's ills is the result of banning prayer is totally unfounded.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I guess I can understand that. I just wish it was even across the board for everyone, and no one particular group was singled out.

                     replyreport
         2. 67

            A Thousand Wordsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Well put.

            replyreport
5. 77

   VVanNessposted 10 years ago

   Hear hear! I keep trying to remind myself that this world is only temporary.

   replyreport
6. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 10 years ago

   I pretty sure you can still discuss religion in public schools, just not promote any one.
   
   You are trying to turn this into a Christian persecution thread.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am doing no such thing, simply responding to the comments/questions posted. My forum was simply questioning why some people think their rights are more important than others in and of every topic.

      replyreport
7. 77

   jenniferrpoveyposted 10 years ago

   Yes. Religion should be discussed in schools. Teachers and students should not be harassed for praying. Proselytization and preaching, however, should not be permitted. And all religions should be treated with respect.
   
   As for the OP's issue: Neighbor harassment might seem minimal to others, but one of the reasons my parents moved out of my childhood home was because they were constantly being harassed by their neighbors. The house was a Victorian with no garage or back alley. My mother is disabled. This was in England, and the county was good enough to paint a disabled space outside the house so that others would know not to park there.
   
   This resulted in harassment that started with nagging and graduated up to threats of violence because the neighbors' visitors wanted to park outside somebody else's house and force that person to park up the street. The police weren't able to actually do anything because the harassers were very careful to ensure they only launched into my parents when there were no other witnesses.
   
   Not saying the OP's situation is necessarily as bad, but it can get that way.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly. Why do some people think their rights are more "right" than others? My neighbor is surrounded by dogs in every single home surrounding hers. In fact, after a quick count, every 3 out of 5 homes in this neighborhood have at least one dog. I'm not sure if she harassed other neighbors before we got our dogs, but we've made it a point to make sure they were well trained and quiet so they wouldn't cause anyone problems. But we see Animal Control several times a week because they are obligated to respond. I can't even file harassment charges. She comes over frequently to yell at me that they are barking when they are clearly asleep at my feet. (I work from home.)

      replyreport
8. 94

   wildernessposted 10 years ago

   I have to ask, how do your neighbors know that you have (quiet, sweet, calm, and indoor) dogs?  Or do they go outside periodically and spend their time barking at the neighbors?
   
   The bike and silent prayer in a restaurant; tell them to call the cops if they don't like it, and let the law take its course.
   
   Oh, and I might add that we are already told how to dress.  Just let the local busybodies see you topless on the beach and time how long until the cops arrive.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Like I said, she has dogs in every home around her. It's the dogs in the house behind her that truly bark all day long. I even told her that I would help her discover who it was if she would stop accusing me. However, as long as it's not early in the morning or late at night, like any other noise, there's nothing she can do about it. She lives in a neighborhood with dogs and most dogs bark at some time or another.

      replyreport
9. 82

   Shawn McIntyreposted 10 years ago

   I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved with the political discussions here, but the tone that this discussion has taken has gotten under my skin; particularly some of the erroneous assertions I've seen.
   
   No serious opponent to school prayer (ignoring the fringe elements on both sides) has ever said you can’t discuss religion in schools, no one is even saying that you can’t teach religion in schools:
   
   You couldn't teach the Crusades without discussing religion, they were religious wars. You couldn't teach U.S. History without teaching about the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Manifest Destiny. And, you could never accurately explain the horrors of the Holocaust without discussing the underlying religious persecution.
   
   Religion is perfectly fine to be taught in schools, as long as it’s taught in the proper cultural and historical context, and not promoted as fact. Teaching kids who Jesus was, and who and what He claimed to be is perfectly fine because it’s the foundation of the historical context of Christianity; teaching kids that Jesus was who and what he claimed to be is not okay because it crosses over out of history and into theology.
    
   Some of the world’s greatest minds: scholars, poets, theologians, and philosophers dedicated their entire lives to coming up with answers, men like: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Erasmus, Voltaire, and Rousseau; so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t think my child’s 4th grade math teacher is qualified to teach my kids about the nature of God and the origins of the Universe.
   
   As to the whole “we pay taxes we should get a say”, turns out you do have a say, and so do I, it’s called a vote. You get a candidate that supports your views and I’ll do the same, and then we let the election decide who’s right. If paying taxes suddenly entitled you to unilateral policy decisions, then rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers would be required by law and anyone caught listening to Justin Bieber would face felony charges (oh if wishing made it so).
   
   Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter, for what they’re worth.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nice. I love your take on this!

      replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I second that!

      replyreport
10. 61

    SpanStarposted 10 years ago

    It seems to me for country that is supposed to be secular an awful lot of work seems to have and still is going on to remove from America's culture the values of the Christian faith.
    
    America's national anthem-Towards the bottom of the lyrics reference to God is made.
    
    http://www.lyricsondemand.com/miscellan … yrics.html
    
    Although prayer in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 50 years ago, it is an issue that continues to be debated, and American opinion is split over how far schools should take it. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 65 percent of people said, “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and the government.” While around 48 percent of those surveyed told Pew that, “conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to impose religious values on the country.”
    
    http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/07/03/ … gh-school/

    replyreport
    1. 77

       VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I think this will always be an argument. And somehow I agree with both sides of that. There are people on both sides that go too far and push too hard who ruin everything for all of us.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       SpanStar, the biggest reason (in my opinion) that Christians/Muslims/whatever should oppose religious observation in public school is because once a school allows it - the school gets to choose whose prayer to allow. Parents are no longer in control of what their child hears is "the truth."
       
       Christian parents would not relish a Jewish teacher telling their children that Jesus was not the Messiah. Even within Christianity, there are points of view that do not mesh. Baptist parents do not want their child to hear from a Jehovah's Witness teacher that getting a much-needed transfusion is akin to "eating blood."
       
       Public school is just not the place for religiosity.
       
       It's a good place to teach the History of Religion. But only as history.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Here in the UK we have many faith and secular schools, people send their children to the schools that suit their own ideologies. i personally see no problem with this.

          replyreport
       2. 61

          SpanStarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Howard,
          
          Your point is well taken and clearly expressed. It is not that I am disagreeing with your views it's just that when someone or someone's were here to lay the groundwork for the foundation of building this country I tend to believe some degree of preference should be allowed them but to treat them the same as those who arrived here seems a bit unfair to me. The fact that their contributions emanated across the country in writings, deeds and songs expresses their love for a country they help build.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             A Thousand Wordsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             LOL. The people who "originally came here" massacred the people who were already here. Should we all then be practicing the religious practices of the Native Americans?

             replyreport
             1. 61

                SpanStarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Will be a certainly benefiting from their efforts. I don't see anyone leaving because of the contributions they made.
                
                If you are implying now we are better people I would recommend revisiting United States military combat wars and see the unjust devastation we've cost.

                replyreport
11. 75

    Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

    Your rights end where another's begins. If something an individual does harms another's feelings, they have every right to be offended.  But how one feels has no relevance on another's rights!
    
    "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
    Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Feelings and rights are very much associated in several ways. For example there is a right to feeling secure, if someone threatens you and makes you feel unsafe then they are violating your rights.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

           
          Threatening someone is not a right, it is a crime.
          
          Just because someone is insecure because I intimidate them gives them no cause to complain.  They have a right to feel fearful though.  Nothing can be legally done to stop it however.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             Incorrect again if you make someone fear for their safety there is any number of ways that can be a crime.
             
             Besides isn't threatening someone an expression of free speech and thus a right?
             
             Rights are curved for feelings all the time, no other system works.

             replyreport
             1. 75

                Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Please quote me the law.
                
                
                
                
                Criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. "Threat of harm generally involves a perception of injury...physical or mental damage...act or instance of injury, or a material and detriment or loss to a person. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation
                
                There must be an action on the part of the plaintiff, either verbal or physical.  If someone "feels" threatened simply because they are wary of another, does not make it  a crime.  Walk through my neighborhood after dark and I can almost guarantee that there will be a fear for their safety.  If nobody in the neighborhood acknowledges their existence, their feelings mean nothing.
                
                
                Violent crime rate in 2011
                My city:
                665.5
                U.S. Average:
                213.6
                
                
                Violent crime rate in 2010
                My City:
                667.0
                U.S. Average:
                223.2
                
                
                Violent crime rate in 2009
                My city:
                645.7
                U.S. Average:
                238.0
                
                
                Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S.
                My city is in the top 50
                http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighb … dangerous/
                
                So it is an everyday occurrence that some of our residents feel threatened.  There has never been an arrest for "feelings however.

                replyreport
                1. 77

                   VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                   I think that anything you do to purposely take away another's rights is wrong. If I were purposely, for instance, disturbing my neighbor to upset her, that would be different.
                   
                   But trying to take away my way of life just because it bothers you, but doesn't in fact truly affect you in any way, is wrong as well. If me painting my house in the rain is bothering you, suck it up and don't watch.

                   replyreport
                   1. 77

                      VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      When others try to change my life because they don't agree, I have a huge problem.

                      replyreport
                      1. 82

                         Shawn McIntyreposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                         Not to be "that guy", but you do realize you just replied to yourself...

                         replyreport
                         1. 77

                            VVanNessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                            I ran out of room and had more to say.

                            replyreport