This is the story of a duel.It is a duel between two very unequal adversaries: an exceedingly powerful, formidable, and ruthless state and an insignificant, unknown private individual.Throughout, he finds himself very much on the defensive. He only wishes to preserve what he considers his integrity, his private life, and his personal honor. These are under constant attack by the government of the country he lives in, and by the most brutal, but often also clumsy, means.With fearful menace the state demands that the individual give up his friends, abandon his lovers, renounce his beliefs and assume new prescribed ones.He must use a new form of greeting, eat and drink in ways he does not fancy, employ his leisure in occupations he abhors, make himself available for activities he despises, and deny his past and his individuality. For all he must constantly express extreme enthusiasm and gratitude.
Venessa Mills only wanted to preserve her integrity, her private life, her religious beliefs, and do what was best for her children.
But Judge Mangum seems to be a little confused. He is supposed to work for us, the citizens of North Carolina - including Venessa Mills and myself. And, as such, he owes Venessa a thorough explanation of how she "won" anything at all in his alleged "not a win or lose" ruling.
Why is it that judges can make decisions that make no sense, make rulings that are full of propaganda and false "facts," and there is no mechanism to hold them accountable at that moment? Why do people like Venessa Mills and her children have to suffer under such "judgments" until enough people decide to vote the judge out?
Whatever happened to plain and simple concepts like "right" and "wrong?"
How exactly was Venessa Mills' individuality, religious belief, and love for her children reinforced or supported by Judge Mangum's one-sided, prejudicial written order? Justice would compel Judge Mangum to at least explain himself - very specifically - but, unfortunately, justice is apparently not what our legal system operates by anymore.
Posts
2 comments:
This is a very passionate plea on behalf of Ms. Mills, but you don't seem to recognize that the Judge must balance the rights of you and Ms. Milles against the rights of the children's father, the children themselves, and all the rest of the citizens of the State. I agree with you that people have an obsolute right to religious freedom, and that a mother has a right to teach her children her values, but the father also has an equal right to teach his children his values, and a demand that the father provide 100% of the financial support not only for the children but also the unemployed ex-wife while she teaches the children her values and rejects his seems, to put it mildly, unrealistic. For that matter, the rest of the citizens of the area would likely decline to support her with welfare but instead say that she should go get a job and support herself.
'Whatever happened to plain and simple concepts like "right" and "wrong"?'...I can answer that one. PUBLIC SCHOOL.
Post a Comment
Comments representing supportive or opposing views are welcome, provided they are genuine and reasonable. Anonymous comments are fine, but attacks hiding behind anonymity are more likely to be rejected.
If your comment does not appear, feel free to e-mail me at homeschool.injustice@gmail.com.