Private and religious schools operate somewhat differently. The public has less say, and the state government cannot tell a school such as the private Christian school, Republic School, to not ban books. The school board should still think over the arguments for banning books and their flaws. One argument is that “It is difficult to understand how a school board and administration that claims to be Christian… expose children to such immoral and vulgar material” (Source A). This person argues that certain books go against Christian values, so it should be banned, along with any similar book.
When we finally got our independence the people were scared. They were scared about how things would work. They were scared about how the newly formed government would protect the rights/liberties if its citizens. There were laws and documents that were signed to make sure that everyone one was treated right. For example, the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty was a law that was basically about how no one could be forced to worship,enforced, restrained, molested, place or ministry whatsoever, or burdened in his body.
If Mill had his say about this argument he would not oppose limiting the liberty of choice when it comes to Mandatory Vaccination program for two main reasons that are presented in his Liberty Principle. First, the fact that not being vaccinated may well cause harm to others, children who did not meet the age for their vaccination, as it was claimed by physicians in the PBS documentary. The second reason is the fact that most of these vaccinations are given to children who are clearly not adults. According to his theory, he is against limiting liberties given to sane adults. Mills Liberty serves as a good guide in this moral issue, it can help one critically think about their stand on mandatory vaccination.
Even if that meant vaccinating my child against my personal beliefs, mandated or not and without a shadow of doubt, I would have my children vaccinated. For I am unable to comprehend as to why a parent would what to put their own children at risk or for that matter, other children at risk, because of their own personal beliefs. I feel that it is a selfish decision for a parent not to have their child properly vaccinated. After reading this week’s lesson if feel it’s quite clear that people should not have the option to choose to have their children vaccinated. The impact to one’s children and unknowingly to the community is far to great of a risk not to mandate vaccinations for all.
This option may allow parents who are uncomfortable with vaccinating their children all at once with some flexibility. Parents may have had bad experiences with so many vaccinations at once such as high fevers and spreading them out can alleviate that and still continue to keep children getting vaccinations. The con to spreading out vaccinations is that it can cause herd immunity to fail (Lehman, 2015). According to Schwartz and Caplan (2011), the currently recommended vaccination schedule does not put healthy children at risk but the risks of spreading out the vaccinations is clear (Schwarz & Caplan, 2011). When spread out, the likelihood of a series being complete is low, children go through longer periods without protection, and delayed vaccinations can also increase the risk of vaccine-preventable diseases in the community (Schwarz & Caplan,
The United States is trying to create a worldwide immunity against diseases that are easily preventable by making it required. It protects children from getting sick. Many misleading accusations were said like how vaccinations are dangerous and can cause autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), diabetes, etc.. That is not true. They have no relationship towards vaccines. A child got autism and his mother assumed it was because of the vaccination he recently got, but it was not true.
In the United States Constitution the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” ("First Amendment.”) How is it in a country where freedom of speech is held so sacred, we are unable to read about it in books? Another question might be, why are we unable to protect our children from such harmful materials? These are questions asked by many as we experience censorship on a regular basis. Censorship is mainly focused on books that children and schools are reading in America. The idea of Censorship and book banning is to protect the youth from potentially harmful ideas or thoughts, but some would argue that in doing so it goes against the First Amendment rights.
Today, many laws are trying to limit parental rights in the medical decision making of their teens. What would happen if the child makes the wrong decision? Parents have full on custody and are financially responsible for their child until the child is eighteen. Dr. Stacey Berg (2015), a professor of Pediatrics and medical ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, declared that “Not much happens right when you turn 18, but in the eyes of the law you 're allowed to make really bad choices for yourself if you want to"(Leonard, p.1). Teen are not capable in making such decisions on health.
The term “pro-choice” has fallen out of favor when the American public. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) recently discovered that the word just does not seem to have the power to motivate the general population in the way it did when it was first coined. And while other pro-abortion groups may continue to use it, Planned Parenthood is attempting to cast a wider net by abandoning it all together. In the modern media culture, the term “pro-choice” has been used for everything from abortion-on-demand to giving parents the option to choosing what kind of school their child can attend throughout their life. It is purposely vague regarding the “choices” that are actually available.
In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) the Supreme Court determined that “government violates the Establishment Clause if: it does not have a secular purpose; its primary or principal effect advances or inhibits religion, meaning that regardless of its purpose, the action cannot symbolically endorse or disapprove of religion; or it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.” As school administrator, I would first clarify what the teacher felt the value of including verses in the instruction were. I would tell the teacher I would want to hear her/his side of the story before reporting to the parent. I would ask the following questions: Does the activity or lesson have a secular (non-religious) purpose?