Rules again, more rules

We are talking about the "rules" such as how laws are made and how society is formed. We have "rules of polite behavior" such as opening the door for your mother, or "rules before bedtime" such as having the kids put on their pajamas before they get a bedtime story. These are not laws of the land, such as the 'congress shall make no law respecting...' kinds of laws, but instead, these are "rules of behavior" such as when you slow your car down when you are passing a family of ducklings near the roadside.

As responsible gun owners (and we know that you, personally, ARE a responsible gun owner, since you are reading this paragraph) you probably do those things we just mentioned. You open the door for other people, and you make sure that the kids are ready for bed, and you even care about your neighbors' kids, too! And why not? Those are the rules of polite society. And slowing down for ducks... how could you explain slowing down to avoid hitting little ducklings with your car, yet you might have a shotgun in the truck on your way to go duck hunting?!?! Yet we know that this could be true. I can explain it. You can explain it. The New York Times might not understand it, and they might ridicule you for doing it. And that is OK, because they have freedom of speech, <b>by law</b>.

The following sentence appears in an article which appears on one of our sister sites, viewable by clicking "Latest News" above:

<blockquote>Let’s remind our elected officials that they represent the voters in their district; not the administrators of colleges and universities.</blockquote>
(thanks http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=3837 )

What is Bob talking about here? <b>The rules:</b> these folks who are elected, serve as our public servants and no more. They do not decide when our kids get ready for bed. They do not decide about ducks, duck hunting, or which one of our children should be allowed to exercise those rights which are safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution.

And they are certainly not legislators! They <b>shall not</b> make more restrictive rules on top of the laws that already govern our society. This is not optional on their part. They are flawed, imperfect people, these school administrators, and this is true whether they believe in any god or not. People are not perfect. This is why religion must not be part of any law made by this government. And it must not be part of any "rule" made by administrators, which will ultimately be backed up by law, which will ultimately be backed up with deadly force or removal of freedoms, if and when necessary.

This must be true to be consistent with the First Amendment. And that is just religion. We haven't mentioned the other ideas in that amendment (speech, press, assembly, petition), and that is only the first one of ten.

What Bob is talking about, in our editorial opinion, is that these administrators are charged with teaching our young. As school officials, they have a unique position to influence the way our own children think. No other public position, that is, elected or appointed public servant, has such a role which we temporarily and willingly submit our offspring to have their opinions shaped by a stranger. This is an awesome responsibility, and one which we do not take lightly. And they had better not, either.

Their responsibility ends with fully satisfying their job description. They must do that much, as the minimum. Perhaps they could start by learning what the word "infringed" means, but first, they need to understand better what words in the first of those amendments means, such as the word "freedom" or "grievances" or "right of the people."

Once we are convinced that they are satisfying their job, that is, as a school administrator, then and only then will we think about letting them decide which rights our children -- and we -- are allowed to exercise. (spoiler: the truth is that we want all of our rights, and these truths should be self-evident by now)