🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian Trotter wrote:
> 
> fedrick@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Kelvin Fedrick) writes:
> 
> >In article <55tcqs$5ji@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
> > <cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
> 
> <snip: legalization of abuse?>
> 
> >The bottom line is that opponents got scared after people continued to
> >support the amemdment even knowing that is was introduced by the
> >"religious right" so they stooped to spreading lies.
> 
> And as one of the 57% (?) who voted against 17, I must say that
> I didn't believe that it would legalize child abuse.  I thought
> it would bring the entire public school system to a crashing
> halt under a flurry a lawsuits as every second parent in the state
> filed to prevent (or require!) specific books, lessons, or even
> whole curricula from being taught.

[ .. chop ..]

IMHO the school system is at a 'crashing halt' already. In any case, a
parent using A17 to sue the school district to NOT teach, say, Darwin,
is conflicting with your right under the same amendment to have your
child taught Darwin. This is not to say I agree with your assessment -
just to remind you that you would have the same rights as the suers. 
Nothing in A17 said that the school districts had to give anybody
anything ... only that they could not compel people to educate their
kids a certain way. Had A17 passed, schools could resolve disputes over
curricula by telling parents they had the right to yank their kids out
of school - a right they now lack(private schools are accredited by the
state; homeschooler must ask permission and submit to state supervision;
all others face legal action up to and including loss of custody). 

=Eric