freedom of religion Religious Viewpoint, Legal Viewpoint, and Public Viewpoint

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Moreover, when the Colorado court ordered the baker and his employees to attend mandatory group therapy is that not compelling one how to think? A really long answer, sorry, I do not possess many of the posters talent for succinctness. Oh and just an FYI, I would have baked the cake, but I am an obvious bigoted and disgusting capitalist.

I was not aware of the court ordering group therapy to the baker and his employees.  Obviously I would be opposed to that.  But wasn't that lower court overruled?  Or was it the commission that ordered that?  They were ruled to have shown anti-religious bias in their treatment of the baker.

Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker and I am pleased with that decision.

But this still isn't an example of a state statute that forces one to think a certain way.  Do you have an example of that?

 

36 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Two-points; (1) the issue is not how you personally define religious expression or how you practice your religious beliefs but how the Baker viewed his religious practices and beliefs. I do not believe in sacrificing chickens, or doing Voodoo or Santeria, but the Supreme Court does not take my personal beliefs, but will consider the chicken sacrificers beliefs in determining whether his/her religious beliefs were violated. Nehore, sorry for outing your chicken sacrificing practices... JK.

I know that my personal definition of religious expression doesn't matter in the law - just giving you my opinion on it.  And what constitutes religious expression is a big part of this.  My understanding of the church-supported "Utah Compromise" is that it maintains the Church's right to discriminate in hiring regardless of whether the position is teaching seminary or cleaning an office building.  Now, I'm not arguing against that right to discriminate, just pointing out that this religious expression argument could be taken to extremes.  (IMO, it already has been with the claim baking a cake for a gay couple is a violation of religious expression.  My religion compels me to bake the cake.)

36 minutes ago, Anijen said:

(2) the SSM couple was reverse forum shopping, instead of looking for a friendly court to file their lawsuit (they already had that), they looked for a friendly baker who would decline their cake. I find their motives a tiny-bit suspect under those conditions, IOW their motives were for litigation, but the Bakers were because of his religious beliefs. Remember, he was not discriminating against the SSM couple, he offered them other bakery items he would sell them, just not the wedding cake (because his religious beliefs did not condone SSM)

Yep, I wasn't impressed by either side in that case.  Both seemed disingenuous... SSM couple shouldn't have been shopping for a lawsuit.  Baker should have made the cake.  But that's just my take on it - as I said, I think SCOTUS got us to the correct outcome.

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

- - - imagine that boomers continue to die off and the “Left” takes power and is willing to use these tactics against their opponents. - - -

Another thing to consider:  the LEFT tends to abort a lot more but conservatives tend to have bigger families.  The question:  what proportion of the rising generation will adhere to righteous principles?  

[strappinglad]

I searched youtube for " student 2 genders " and picked this one out of several possible . The youtuber gives a fairly clear show of institutional truth/policy verses individual belief.

If you prefer, pick a different video from a different place. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WciBvTzRhdM

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Yes. Choices of life or death is not a decision I want to make. Just to be clear, these cases are so very rare these days and in many of those cases, the mother and child lived healthy lives despite what their doctors told them.

Would you be comfortable telling a teenage girl that by law you have to let her probably die on the off chance her child might, against all odds, live? I would not.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Another thing to consider:  the LEFT tends to abort a lot more but conservatives tend to have bigger families.  The question:  what proportion of the rising generation will adhere to righteous principles?  

Abortion rates have been falling for years and is now lower then it was when Roe v. Wade was first decided. The childbirth trend of conservative large families and liberal small families has been blurring in the last few years. In addition minorities tend to vote Democrat and often have large families. It is also not anything near a certainty that children will follow in their parent's political footsteps.

Having children is declining in almost all demographic groups in the United States. I see this as a symptom of despair for the future.

As to what proportion of the rising generation will adhere to righteous principles: Almost none and that righteousness is unlikely to be strongly correlated with political views in any case.

Edited June 26, 2019 by The Nehor

[longview]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

- - - that righteousness is unlikely to be strongly correlated with political views in any case.

Exhibit A is the stunning diversity of political persuasions among the LDS on this board!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Would you be comfortable telling a teenage girl that by law you have to let her probably die on the off chance her child might, against all odds, live? I would not.

Or a woman who was raped (unlikely in this society, but what of a society that was in social upheaval, at war where a pregnant woman was less able to care for herself or would be castout of her community if she was known to be with child).

Pregnant ten year old raped by stepfather...at that age physical health risks is substantial.  Though abortion might be even more traumatic if the child was further along and understood shewas carrying a baby.  The stepfather should be castrated.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/raped-pregnant-and-denied-a-life-saving-abortion-all-at-10-years-old/

In a society where women have access to birth control measures, health care, and the right to say no, I find using abortion as birth control immoral.

In the case where the mother had no choice such as rape (including by a husband or she does not have the legal right to say no so she doesn't), I have a harder time removing abortion as one of the options myself.  

Also in the case where other children are involved.  Forcing them to lose their mother when they need her and the trauma will likely be life altering, I don't see that as a wise choice.  The mother and other innocent children have a right to a good life just as much as the fetus does, more are affected by the mother's death than the child's.  Thankfully these days that is a rare necessary choice.

Youngest documented mother was 6 years old, raped.  Had to have the child by cesarean.

https://www.livescience.com/33170-youngest-age-give-birth-pregnancy.html

Edited June 26, 2019 by Calm

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Anijen said:

It does not matter what others think what I should submit to. I refuse to have others think they know what is best for me. I refuse to think we, the already born and living, can think for the unborn and decide what the unborn baby would submit to being killed for.

The better question; Do we think that what we do or do not do is for the unborns best interest? Are we so callused that we now are able to think for the unborn baby. 

This was not a question designed to imply what you should do. You brought up a very interesting point, that human life is human life, and intrinsically out of bounds for immoral "killing" no matter the extrinsic value the law or the public may place on it under certain conditions (e.g. developmental stage and age).

Yes, the underlying assumption in my question is that children are under the maintenance of their parents who make decisions in their behalf at those developmental stages and ages of minority (D&C 83:4), and a 50-year old is not.

Jesus was 33. He submited to being killed to save the lives of all God's children after prayerfully consulting with His Father, as the only way to spare our lives (physically and spiritually). So my question is more about what you would do as an adult, which could be transposed to decisions you might make for your children and unborn children (as the Father offered up His Son, and as Abraham was tested to).

I think all we do includes the interests of the unborn, consistent with our understanding of the plan of salvation. We do work for the living and the dead, and prepare the way for the unborn to join the living and the dead in that saving work. I wouldn't say we are thinking for the unborn baby, but we are often placed in situations where such difficult decisions need to be made. hence my question about what you would submit to where remaining alive would directly cause the death of another, or prevent saving the life of another.

[Anijen]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Jesus was 33. He submited to being killed to save the lives of all God's children after prayerfully consulting with His Father, as the only way to spare our lives (physically and spiritually). So my question is more about what you would do as an adult, which could be transposed to decisions you might make for your children and unborn children (as the Father offered up His Son, and as Abraham was tested to).

He did not just decide after His prayer, it was decided a long long time ago. Pregnant mothers are not God and their abortion has no salvational power. It is a ridiculous comparison.

 

Quote

I think all we do includes the interests of the unborn, consistent with our understanding of the plan of salvation. We do work for the living and the dead, and prepare the way for the unborn to join the living and the dead in that saving work. I wouldn't say we are thinking for the unborn baby, but we are often placed in situations where such difficult decisions need to be made. hence my question about what you would submit to where remaining alive would directly cause the death of another, or prevent saving the life of another.

You are comparing the killing of an unborn child to a saving ordinance. I do not see a link between the difficult choice of abortion to the not difficult choice of doing temple work. 

[Anijen]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Abortion rates have been falling for years and is now lower then it was when Roe v. Wade was first decided.

CFR

This is probably easy to look up, but since you made the statement I'll let you do the work. Just an FYI, before Roe, abortion was legal in 4 states. The day after Roe it became legal in all 50 states. It is hard for me to believe there are less abortions now than before Roe.

As per the rest of your post, you are starting to be political, please keep it in line with the topic.

 

Quote

As to what proportion of the rising generation will adhere to righteous principles: Almost none and that righteousness is unlikely to be strongly correlated with political views in any case.

 

I agree with this statement

[The Nehor]

Just now, Anijen said:

CFR

This is probably easy to look up, but since you made the statement I'll let you do the work. Just an FYI, before Roe, abortion was legal in 4 states. The day after Roe it became legal in all 50 states. It is hard for me to believe there are less abortions now than before Roe.

As per the rest of your post, you are starting to be political, please keep it in line with the topic.

 

I agree with this statement

It is easy to look up. We have this cool tool now called Google. I did not say before Roe; I said since Roe. The number of abortions per pregnancy is down from 1973 when it was legalized.

As to keeping it in line I would recommend muzzling Longview. He cannot help but slip in digs and he is too easy a target with his fallacious stories and statistics for me to resist.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Anijen said:

CFR

This is probably easy to look up, but since you made the statement I'll let you do the work. Just an FYI, before Roe, abortion was legal in 4 states. The day after Roe it became legal in all 50 states. It is hard for me to believe there are less abortions now than before Roe.

As per the rest of your post, you are starting to be political, please keep it in line with the topic.

 

I agree with this statement

I did not make the claim but was curious... there is a graph at the beginning of this article that showed abortions increased for the 7 years following Roe v. Wade but have been in a declining trend ever since 1980.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

Edited June 26, 2019 by rockpond

[longview]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The number of abortions per pregnancy is down from 1973 when it was legalized.

Wait!  Wow, now I'm confused.  Per pregnancy is talking about a single woman having a pregnancy (although a woman can have zero, one or more pregnancies throughout her life but only one pregnancy at a time).  Are you saying she can have more than one abortion during her pregnancy?   How does that work?  

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As to keeping it in line I would recommend muzzling Longview. He cannot help but slip in digs and he is too easy a target with his fallacious stories and statistics for me to resist.

Now you are just being silly.  Being a bigger blowhard does not make you more right.  

[Anijen]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Would you be comfortable telling a teenage girl that by law you have to let her probably die on the off chance her child might, against all odds, live? I would not.

Hi Calm, I would not be comfortable telling ANY age. The scenario you speak of is real. With every single pregnancy (every single one), the life of the mother is always in jeopardy. 

There is not a single mother that I know who would not trade their child's illness for the mother's health. I know of so many after tragic accidents have said; "I wish God took me and saved my child." Did you know, every doctor can say to the mom that their life is at risk during pregnancy or during birth? All I'm saying is that medicine has advanced so much in this area that it is very rare and there have been cases where mothers have been told by their doctors that they could die and their child will definitely die (not just "probably"), but those mothers carried and have had completely healthy children and both mom and child lived.

Religious viewpoint: IMO, the unborn child is not an object or should be treated as such (not saying you treat or feel that way). The unborn child is a life. A life without a voice, with no say in the decision, she or he cannot vote, nonetheless a son or daughter of God.   

Legal viewpoint: It is against the law for me to intentionally drive my car with or without passengers in a reckless dangerous manner. But it is my car, no one can tell me how to drive my car. I cannot intentionally endanger myself or my passengers just because I own the car.

Public viewpoint: Because I own the car, I can intentionally drive in a manner which would kill me or my passengers. 

 

MY bad. I thought I was answering Calm's post. Now that I see it is that "bigger blowhard" Nehor... JK My answer does not change depending on who posted.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Anijen

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Wait!  Wow, now I'm confused.  Per pregnancy is talking about a single woman having a pregnancy (although a woman can have zero, one or more pregnancies throughout her life but only one pregnancy at a time).  Are you saying she can have more than one abortion during her pregnancy?   How does that work?  

Total number of abortions in the country divided by the total number of pregnancies that occurred in the country (or something to that effect).  Not what you described. 

[Anijen]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As to keeping it in line I would recommend muzzling Longview. He cannot help but slip in digs and he is too easy a target with his fallacious stories and statistics for me to resist.

I love both of you guys (oops, did I just assume your genders? Sorry). Exercise some control you got this. I'll try to reign in Longview when he goes off topic as well.

[Anijen]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

Now you are just being silly.  Being a bigger blowhard does not make you more right.  

What, r u shere? That was my source of credibility.

Also, let's keep it cordial guys, please?

[longview]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Total number of abortions in the country divided by the total number of pregnancies that occurred in the country (or something to that effect).  Not what you described. 

I got that.  Just saying that the wording should be made more carefully.  Peace out.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

He did not just decide after His prayer, it was decided a long long time ago. Pregnant mothers are not God and their abortion has no salvational power. It is a ridiculous comparison.

 

You are comparing the killing of an unborn child to a saving ordinance. I do not see a link between the difficult choice of abortion to the not difficult choice of doing temple work. 

Jesus had to decide again to sacrifice Himself in this life, as we all do. Pregnant mothers are not God, but are co-creators with Him and hence the comparison. They also make decisions in behalf of the unaccountable, also as God does. And certainly birth has salvational power.

I was stating a principle that turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers includes the living, the dead, and the unborn. The saints make prayerful decisions regarding any of these, and doing for someone that which they cannot do for themselves has salavtional power. That is why I asked what you would do if asked to sacrifice your life, or allow it to be sacrificed, for another to live and why I suggested that similarly might apply to decisions made in behalf of your children, living and unborn, which parents unavoidably do.

Edited June 26, 2019 by CV75

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

Wait!  Wow, now I'm confused.  Per pregnancy is talking about a single woman having a pregnancy (although a woman can have zero, one or more pregnancies throughout her life but only one pregnancy at a time).  Are you saying she can have more than one abortion during her pregnancy?   How does that work?  

Here, this should help: https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/ratio.html

37 minutes ago, longview said:

Now you are just being silly.  Being a bigger blowhard does not make you more right.  

No, being more right does that.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Hi Calm, I would not be comfortable telling ANY age. The scenario you speak of is real. With every single pregnancy (every single one), the life of the mother is always in jeopardy. 

There is not a single mother that I know who would not trade their child's illness for the mother's health. I know of so many after tragic accidents have said; "I wish God took me and saved my child." Did you know, every doctor can say to the mom that their life is at risk during pregnancy or during birth? All I'm saying is that medicine has advanced so much in this area that it is very rare and there have been cases where mothers have been told by their doctors that they could die and their child will definitely die (not just "probably"), but those mothers carried and have had completely healthy children and both mom and child lived.

Religious viewpoint: IMO, the unborn child is not an object or should be treated as such (not saying you treat or feel that way). The unborn child is a life. A life without a voice, with no say in the decision, she or he cannot vote, nonetheless a son or daughter of God.   

Legal viewpoint: It is against the law for me to intentionally drive my car with or without passengers in a reckless dangerous manner. But it is my car, no one can tell me how to drive my car. I cannot intentionally endanger myself or my passengers just because I own the car.

Public viewpoint: Because I own the car, I can intentionally drive in a manner which would kill me or my passengers.

MY bad. I thought I was answering Calm's post. Now that I see it is that "bigger blowhard" Nehor... JK My answer does not change depending on who posted.

(Bold part) This is one reason why I think the Church calls for prayer and counsel in making this moral decision and does not consider it a medical or health issue (referencing Handbook 1).

I also see Church policy as consistent with what you state above as your religious viewpoint on the subject of abortion.

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Hi Calm, I would not be comfortable telling ANY age. The scenario you speak of is real. With every single pregnancy (every single one), the life of the mother is always in jeopardy. 

There is not a single mother that I know who would not trade their child's illness for the mother's health. I know of so many after tragic accidents have said; "I wish God took me and saved my child." Did you know, every doctor can say to the mom that their life is at risk during pregnancy or during birth? All I'm saying is that medicine has advanced so much in this area that it is very rare and there have been cases where mothers have been told by their doctors that they could die and their child will definitely die (not just "probably"), but those mothers carried and have had completely healthy children and both mom and child lived.

Religious viewpoint: IMO, the unborn child is not an object or should be treated as such (not saying you treat or feel that way). The unborn child is a life. A life without a voice, with no say in the decision, she or he cannot vote, nonetheless a son or daughter of God.   

Legal viewpoint: It is against the law for me to intentionally drive my car with or without passengers in a reckless dangerous manner. But it is my car, no one can tell me how to drive my car. I cannot intentionally endanger myself or my passengers just because I own the car.

Public viewpoint: Because I own the car, I can intentionally drive in a manner which would kill me or my passengers. 

 

MY bad. I thought I was answering Calm's post. Now that I see it is that "bigger blowhard" Nehor... JK My answer does not change depending on who posted.

I have met many mothers who would let their children suffer or risk their death or even put them in mortal danger for their own convenience or advantage. While they are bad parents they are parents. Let me know if you want to hear horror stories.

One anecdote about a doctor being wrong and everything turning out okay is not something you make policy on because those cases are rare. If you have access to revelation and are told to push through you can and should but most people do not have that access.

[Maidservant]

As an anarchist, I place no trust in legislative or legal solutions for social needs.  I always ask myself, "What would a relatively small community who loves each other, supports each other, works and plays together, rejoices and suffers with one another do in this situation?"  And then, from that answer, I can get a better idea what a legal idea might be for our society now where we are not that, but hopefully going that direction.  One important thing is that in that 'beloved community', no one size fits all, as 'legality' of necessity must do (for the worse, in my opinion).

For abortion, for me it should be completely legal and accessible at the highest medical standards.  However, I imagine in the 'beloved community' that children are always welcome and mothers (and fathers) are always supported.  Thus, even in the discourse of the nation we now I have, I would approach unborn issues by the matter of persuasion and teaching, not legal solutions.  I am personally not convinced by 'viability' arguments, preferring to hold life sacred from conception and to honor the crazy paradox that two people (with life rights) are in the same body for a time.  But, again, I would want to encourage this by persuasion not by penalty.

For 'marriage' at all, whether same sex or otherwise, I think we need a complete re-languaging and re-framing from the ground up.  The word 'marriage' doesn't work for me, personally.  For example, when people say 'marriage', they normally mean 'wedding' and they apply to the state for the right to have a 'wedding'.  As an anarchist, it's none of a state or government's business whether or not a person says a few words, makes promises to each other, and has a too-expensive party.  What have they got to do with it, really? Why are we asking permission from the government for something like that? How is it their business if someone wants to have a wedding with their dog?

But a wedding isn't a marriage and a marriage isn't a wedding.  A marriage is a union.  I actually am starting to erase 'marriage' from my terminology and worldview (I select, define, and use words very carefully and deliberately since I think they contain worldview) and replacing it with 'union'.  A union cannot be effected by a few words, and weddings have their roots in contracts for sale.  A union begins as a seed and is nurtured through great amounts of time.  I also don't think that godliness is inherently violated as to the number or gender, or even length of time, in a union.  It is rather the quality of charity in a chosen union.

In the 'beloved community' then, all the neighbors rejoice with and support when people find each other, love each other, commit to each other, raise children with each other (which the whole village will be involved in anyway), establish and maintain a common household (if desired--partners DON'T have to share a house if they don't want or need to).  No neighbors would think it was their business to enforce an idea upon another neighbor about how best they should go about it; although certainly everyone can counsel one another in love, but again, the main focus of that counsel would not be regarding number, gender, or even length of time of the union; but rather how best to serve and to solve human problems.

Of course, in our legal society, we have legal of everything like who can go into a hospital room, who can be an insurance beneficiary, who can get tax breaks.  So we 'have' to know who is 'wedded' (NOT in union really in their hearts) in order to run the ridiculous legal parsing we do, which my indictment would be more about the ridiculous bits and bobs of legality we've come to.  In a beloved community, every body is at the hospital, there are no taxes, and everyone takes care of the survivors of a death.  So anything other than that is just a game we are playing and making rules about who can and can't play--and so obviously if that's what we are doing, I'm going to be a 'let's include more people in the game' kinda gal.

(((I'm not sure I have thought enough about state discriminatory practices, not sure what you mean specifically, so I won't say about that.))))

As to speech.  The constitutional right to speech is not the right to say whatever you want, whenever and whatever you want.  It is the right to criticize the government without getting your head cut off.  It's a very limited definition.  Thus if someone's speech is being curtailed, while there may be problems with that, it cannot (in my opinion) be cast as a constitutional problem. 

I am also not a person to broaden 'speech' to mean more than speech (such as art), but that is redundant if one understands free speech to be free civil discourse regarding matters of law and government without reprisal from a tyrant--again, NOT meaning that you are free to say whatever you want to another member of the society.  Thus legally if people are required to do, say, provide, or create in order to participate in the equity of the society, this is not a free speech problem. 

But this can still be a problem, because obviously people have honest opinions about things and it touches deeply on how they believe and wish to be free to live their life--you can't make me bake a cake (do we want to be doing that? forcing people to bake?) (even if they are being hypocritical because they bake cakes for other 'sinners'?) versus you can't deny me a cake if you wouldn't deny others a cake (do we want to allow people to maintain archaic and damaging social structures when participating in market which is public even if you call it private enterprise, it's just not, market is public; such as who one serves at a LUNCH COUNTER; because someone ought to be able to call up and order a fricken cake without having an entire social structure moment)?  So I actually don't know.  It's a hard thing.

In the beloved community, people share all their goods freely with one another, so it's not an issue there, thinking more on their own behavior (as a generous cake sharer, and changing people's minds (if one thought one needed to) by sharing cake rather than withholding it) rather than worrying about how much a person deserved a cake (kind of like an atonement was made without worrying about who deserved it).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

There is not a single mother that I know who would not trade their child's illness for the mother's health.

I wish I could say the same.  I knew one mother who loves the attention she gets, including from having a handicapped child.  She made choices constantly that put her comfort and needs over her own children's.  There are also abusive mothers, addicted mothers, mothers who hate being mothers, mothers who resent their children, mothers who love the idea of children but ignore them in reality.

I was thinking about this the other day, if I could take on my daughter's health issues, would I?  It would render me unable to help any other person, which would have a huge ripple effect among my loved ones.  My sister would likely need to quit her job and move here (which she hates at times as the location of an abusive relationship)  to care for our mother unless we were willing to leave Mom in the care of a nursing home.  That would likely set her up for significant suffering the rest of her life (easily 30 years) as it would cut off the long friendships she established and she is at an age she would struggle to create similar relationships and other habits that add value to her life.  My husband would be living a depressing life of work/care for a withdrawn, invalid me and little else.

Given the impact on others besides my child, I would have to think long and hard before switching.  As much as I love my daughter, there are others whose life has as much value as hers that I have no right demanding they sacrifice their lives because I want my daughter to have a better life.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

On 6/26/2019 at 1:33 AM, Anijen said:

You word your statements carefully, setting up a strawman, then implying my support of it. Shameful, stop the ad-hominem attack (please) and address the issue of religious, public, or legal viewpoints. 

No, you are definitely NOT understanding. My view on discrimination is it is ugly, sinful a putrid stench. As a business owner, (of four franchises), I have never turned down a customer and I know (I have some customers who are gay). What I am trying to point out is; we should have the liberty to think for ourselves and not have the government telling us how to think. If someone else has bigoted thoughts (not me) we should give every opportunity to educate him, but not do his thinking for him. Yes, discrimination is bad, but so is legislating it, which is simply compelling us how to think. Furthermore, if we do NOT think in the manner the government wants us to, they then throw us in prison.

 I do not and never have supported any of George Wallace's segregationist, Jim Crow, views.

It was meant to be an honest question.  Do you support the ability of a business to discriminate for any personally held belief?  You may not personally support discrimination, but you seem to be ok with others supporting discrimination based on personal beliefs without government stopping them.  And that is the same stance George Wallace took.  I am confused by your response.  Do you think more education would have changed those that think like George Wallace and truly believe they have a right to discriminate in their businesses?  Without accommodation laws, and the civil right laws that have been in place for over 50 years, how would governors like George Wallace be prevented from doing what he did.  I get that you don't want to talk about George Wallace,  but how can you possibly ignore what the changing of the rules could do.  Given the political climate we are in today, I can certainly see someone running as governor on the same type of platform as George Wallace today in some states and winning.  How in your world do you prevent that from happening.  Or do you just let it happen?  I seriously want to know what your plan is if we eliminate the accommodation and civil rights laws of this country.  Education?  You really think that would work?