Oh Patrick, you don’t know how happy you make me today. I’m extremely glad to see that a conservative such as yourself sees this bill for what it is: an attempt by the government to use private industry to spy on its citizenry. And they always use the same excuse, don’t they? “But if we don’t do this, who will protect the children?” Um, how about their parents? You know, those folks who have the legal right to choose what their kids can and can not view online? Those full-grown adults who the government says are perfectly capable of *having* children… but maybe not as capable of *raising* children? Utter Orwellian nonsense. You are right in thinking that this bill will die in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee, but still — I agree everyone here who sees this bill for what it is should contact their representatives AND Senators (Mr. Whitehouse happens to sit on the committee in question), and let them know that you are indeed for a smaller government that respects personal privacy. If there’s ONE area in which we (progressives and moderate conservatives) can work together, this is it. You may be interested to know that David Segal’s own “Demand Progress” organization is hot on the trail of this bill as well: act.demandprogress.org/letter/snooping_bill/ — should you choose to add your name to their petition against passage. Seriously Patrick… thanks very much for making this post. This is combination of big government and big business coming together will act restrict the rights of individual citizens in the worst way possible. We can’t let it happen. Some Democrats and some Republicans are against this bill, just as some Democrats and some Republicans are for this bill. Perhaps that should tell us something about party labels, and give… Read more »

Also,jparis,the mingling of government with private business is Fascism.

@ Helen: I wasn’t at all surprised to see a post by Patrick on this subject in terms of what I’ve witnessed his general political views to be, but I was surprised in that Anchor Rising (by design) generally sticks to Rhode Island-specific topics… Justin has said this to me before, and I have no problem with it. So no, I don’t think this topic is out-of-character at all — I’m just happy to see it being addressed here (whereas the most recent post on RIF I read was a press release from the Taveras administration). As to parental rights? Can parents opt-out their kids from Math too? What about science, if they don’t believe in evolution? We’ve seen how that went down in Kansas. Can Spanish-speaking parents opt their kids out of English class if they are legal immigrants? I think there’s a pretty huge difference between taking over parental responsibilities in the home (censorship of media, “protecting” kids for the parents with the notion that somehow parents can’t do this themselves), and providing a sound learning environment based upon a curriculum developed by a great many professionals who have dedicated their lives to such work. The mention of God in public schools also happens to infringe upon my kids’ right to practice freedom of religion. I don’t believe in your concept of an anthropomorphic god, and by forcing it upon my kids in public school, you’re denying me my right to have them practice religion (or a lack there of) as I see fit. I have no problem with you teaching your children about said God in whatever way you see fit — I just don’t want it forced upon my kids. Parents can believe, or think whatever they want… and they have the right to teach their… Read more »

Yes,jparis,I suppose as a patriot,not a member of the the Tea Party,but a sympathizer,I’m very delicious and nutritious. Enjoy! Your post is very long. I will try to condense and answer the things I find most important,being mindful of space here. jparis,you must be honest in that you sounded in your post suprised at Patrick’s remarks. You expressed joy and tried to co-opt his remarks for your political beliefs. As for your arguements about parents opting their children out of specific classes like Math or Science,I think you are way off base. In general,people want their children to have good educations. Some people might object to the teaching of secular evolution. They have just as much right as those who believe in it. That is a serious social conflict of our time. Now,you mention a group of people who speak a language which is not the common language of our country. Some of my grandparents didn’t speak English as their first language. My cousins and I were taught that we are Americans and that we should speak English in all public venues. So no,I wouldn’t say it’s educationally or culturally proper for Spanish speaking parents to opt their children out of English classes. Further,that is not a deep religious issue such as the teaching of secular sex education in our public schools. That infringes on people’s rights that are protected by the first amendment. About the religious issue of mentioning God and prayer in public schools,the first amendment is very clear. Your children can participate or not,but the right of people to freely exercise their religious beliefs is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment also lays waste to “free speech zones” in any public setting,including institutions of higher learning. Some people,oppressed by onerous taxation,cannot afford to send their… Read more »

“that you support the right of parents to opt their children out of public school sex education classes?”
As far as I know, you CAN opt your children out of sex-ed classes here in Rhode Island, here’s the law:
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/title16/16-22/16-22-18.HTM
“largely ignored part of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prevents the government from stopping the free exercise of religion. So therefore,the mention of God and prayer in public schools is okay with you,right?”
Helen, there’s no ban on the mention of God in public schools. The first amendment and established case law say that the government can’t -endorse- a religion or religiosity itself. You can teach a class on religion if you want. It’s also been established time and again that it’s perfectly fine for students and teachers to pray in school; what’s not OK is leading a class in prayer (because that’s not free exercise, it’s endorsement). If you want Group Prayer in public schools, you can start a student group and meet during activity period, just like the rocket club or the chess team.
“What if parents think that artificial contraception and abortion are wrong and don’t want their children to be be taught differently in the public schools which they fund?”
Then you can opt them out of our abstinence-preferred sex education and teach them your own stuff. Heck, the curriculum that’s being used in Providence Public Schools is so bad, I wish I could opt my niece out of their brain-dead Math program.

jparis,I hope you don’t mind if I share some of my thoughts and beliefs with you here.
I believe that whether you believe in God or not,you are a child of God. You were created as a free human being,you have free will. That means you can have faith or not. You can chose between good and evil. Just like the old song goes,you were born free,japaris.
I was taught that we are all created in the image and likeness of God,so I guess that’s where the anthropomorphic part comes in,eh?
Because you are a free human being endowed with free will,I would say that you have natural,God given rights. They don’t come from words on a piece of paper,or the government,or whichever group makes the most ruckus to get what they want. That is why your God given rights are inalienable.
jparis,I might tease a bit every now and then,but I am not a baiter. I’m just too old and serious to get into silly conversations based on baiting.

Let’s be precise. The only thing standing in the way of holding morning prayers in schools is the Supreme Court, not the Constitution. The First Amendment states in part “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion . . .” The local school board is not Congress and morning prayers is not an establishment of religion. Establishment refers to a state setting up an official church supported by the taxes and laws of that state, like the Church of England where the monarch, acting through the government, appoints the bishops that govern the church. However the Supreme Court long ago decided that it was not bound by anything as silly as the language of the Constitution and set out to make its own rules; so that’s what were stuck with.

You make some valid arguments against holding morning prayers in public schools but they are policy arguments to be directed at the duly constituted authorities in charge of the schools. Even if the consequences of school prayer were as damaging as you suggest, it is far more dangerous to permit nine unaccountable lawyers to rewright the country’s basic law at a whim.

Russ, the who? The Bush Administration? Is he still the president?
I go on the record and bash someone like Lamar Smith for a stupid bill and you somehow wrap that back to Bush? C’mon man, I often try to give you the benefit of the doubt here.