California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[jmdrake]

I don't blame them, homeschooling is often abused by parents to resist tolerance teaching.

You mean brainwashing? It's not the school's job to teach "tolerance". That's the job of the parents. In fact it's time for the American people to be LESS tolerant. We tolerate the government forcing themselves upon all aspects of our lives. We tolerate corrupt decadent politicians. We tolerate elective wars and "free speech zones". We tolerate police "boot camps" where children are sexually abused and beaten to death. We tolerate schools where children are patted down, treated like animals and scared by terrorism "drills". I'm glad Ron Paul is an unequivocal supporters of homeschooling. It's a shame that the Huckabee got the HSLDA endorsement when he clearly didn't deserve it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

It's a good think that you have Hillary as an avatar because you sound a lot like her. You push everything Ron Paul is against.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Look this really isn't this hard.....

(1) California law requires having kids schooled (private or public) or taught by a qualified individual. It doesn't say you "can't" homeschool, but if you do, you have to have someone who knows stuff.

(2) The case was only brought after the oldest child reported that the parents were abusing kids, and that homeschooling was one of the ways in which they prevented the outside world from knowing this.

(3) The dad is crazy. From the case: "Over the years, the parents of the children have given various reasons for not sending the children to school. Although previously they stated they do not believe in the policies of the public school system, more recently they have asserted that they home school because of their religious beliefs. The father also recently opined that educating children outside the home exposes them to 'snitches.'"

(4) The part you would care about is the Court ruled there is no Constitutional Right to homeschool your kids. That's kind of an interesting assertion. The Supreme Court has already ruled that compulsory education laws are Constitutional. I'm just not sure where any "right to homeschool a child" would be found in the Constitution. Perhaps you or your biased article could help me out? You see, if there is not some Constitutional right, then you simply have a "bad law" (according to you and World Net Daily), which can be overturned by the will of the people. The case does not hold that it is unconstitutional to homeschool kids; instead, it holds that if a state has compulsory education laws (like California), then you have to comply with them if you choose to live in that state.

Now either answer the points and show me where you get the right to override state law, or quit arguing over it. Clearly you can't show me how you have ANY legal ground to stand on.....

 

[jmdrake]

Are you serious? The first Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

You're a joke... and an octopus (running gag).

She's serious. She actually wants the first amendment changed to strike the free exercise part. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=124637

I'm not sure why someone like this would vote for Ron Paul since he DEFENDS the bill of rights and is AGAINST the government running everything, but I guess it takes all kinds.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[IRO-bot]

Wow, Very interesting debate. If I may, I will add my two cents.

As for homosexuals, I have no problem with them. Kind of grosses me out, at least when it's men.
Now, for the marriage part. First, marriage is an institution between your religion and the couple. If the Bible doesn't recognize gay marriage. Find, whatever. Should gays not be allowed to marry? No. Like Ron Paul said, they should be free to do what they want. Should they get benefits? That needs to be hashed out in the private sector. If Company A wants to give health insurance to a gay couple, fine by me. If not, fine as well. It should be that was for straight couples as well.

As for school. It should be the parents choice. Public schools suck. I live in Florida, I know firsthand. Homeschooling is a right of the parent.

Finally, whoever called TDCCI a pedophile, rapist, or whatever else it was should be ashamed. That is disgusting language. You may not agree with homosexuals, but to use such vile language on someone who is defending someones right to live how they please without fear, to me sounds very, very anti-christian in values. Your God may not like gays, but he still loves them. Remember that.

 

[IRO-bot]

Look this really isn't this hard.....

(1) California law requires having kids schooled (private or public) or taught by a qualified individual. It doesn't say you "can't" homeschool, but if you do, you have to have someone who knows stuff.

I have a problem with this. Who is "qualified"? What makes them "qualified"? Is it a college education? I know alot of dumb people with those. The words are to vague and limits it to whoever hold the power to make the interpretation. Very tricky and definately lacks in freedom.

 

[Tdcci]

I'm not sure why someone like this would vote for Ron Paul since he DEFENDS the bill of rights and is AGAINST the government running everything, but I guess it takes all kinds.

Good job making the subtle implication that religion, the bill of rights, and limited constitutional government are tightly intertwined

 

[Tdcci]

I have a problem with this. Who is "qualified"? What makes them "qualified"? Is it a college education? I know alot of dumb people with those. The words are to vague and limits it to whoever hold the power to make the interpretation. Very tricky and definately lacks in freedom.

The court decides, that's their job, to interpret the law.

 

[IRO-bot]

The court decides, that's their job, to interpret the law.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The purpose of our govt is to protect the freedom, liberty, and property of it's citizens not to tell them how to run their lives.

 

[TrueFreedom]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The purpose of our govt is to protect the freedom, liberty, and property of it's citizens not to tell them how to run their lives.

Well isn't that too easy. You limit all discourse by turning to conspiracy. Yes the courts interpret laws, but your only argument is that "well then the courts are corrupt." This is a rediculous assertion that ends all discussion on the topic because you won't debate facts, just your opinions.....

 

[Tdcci]

Should they get benefits? That needs to be hashed out in the private sector. If Company A wants to give health insurance to a gay couple, fine by me. If not, fine as well. It should be that was for straight couples as well.

The government has anti discrimination laws for the private sector, from the days where blacks and women were discriminated against for health insurance, etc. Amending them to include sexual orientation is easy (if you live in a progressive state). To say that being gay is somehow different than being a minority of the past (all of which were persecuted by the evangelicals, lest we forget) defies all scientific explanation, and has no place in government.

 

[jmdrake]

Do I think compulsory education laws are constitutional? Yes I do. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. Plus since education is a state issue, I don't see why Ron Paul and his supporters on a national level would have anything to say about it.

I'm curious. Have you ever read what Ron Paul says about this issue?

http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2001/HR368/default.asp
H.R. 368-Family Education Freedom Act of 2001

Action Requested:
None.

Background:
Official purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.

Introduced January 31, 2001 by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX 14th)
Cosponsors

Status:
1/31/2001: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Bill Summary and Status

HSLDA's Position:
HSLDA supports H.R. 368. H.R. 368 will allow individuals a credit up to $3,000 per student against income tax for the tuition and other related school expenses. More directly relating to home education, section 25B(2) defines a qualified education institution as, "Any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized for the purpose of providing elementary or secondary education, or both." HSLDA believes that parents and individuals who provide for a child's education should be allowed to keep some of their tax money that would otherwise have been used to fund public education. This goal could be accomplished through legislation like H.R. 368.

He clearly supports the rights of home schoolers. Now technically speaking the federal government shouldn't be involved in education at all. But since it is the rights of homeschoolers need to be protected at the federal level. This is how it currently works. The federal government pushes illegal mandates onto the states in the forum of "No Child Left Behind". If you don't agree with the federal takeover of education that NCLB represents you can either home school or send your child to public school. But if states start to try to force NCLB like mandates on private and homeschool then there's no escape. So yes. This has to be fought at the federal level as well as the state level. The answer is not to "move to another state" any more than the answer to Bush tyranny is to "move to another country". The answer to stand up and fight politically at all levels.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[angelatc]

you mean the shiny scales one?

Yes, that's the one.

 

[jmdrake]

Good job making the subtle implication that religion, the bill of rights, and limited constitutional government are tightly intertwined

Good job ignoring the fact that Ron Paul supports the bill of rights AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN! And get mad all you want.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

I'm curious. Have you ever read what Ron Paul says about this issue?

Arguments from Authority don't work as well when you don't have a God to look up to

 

[angelatc]

It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

Just because they're not accountable to you does not mean they aren't accountable.

They have the right to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin. I don't share that belief, but I will defend their right to it.

 

[jmdrake]

The government has anti discrimination laws for the private sector, from the days where blacks and women were discriminated against for health insurance, etc. Amending them to include sexual orientation is easy (if you live in a progressive state). To say that being gay is somehow different than being a minority of the past (all of which were persecuted by the evangelicals, lest we forget) defies all scientific explanation, and has no place in government.

Nonsense. The people who fought for civil rights were themselves evangelicals! (Do you think MLK was called "reverend" just for kicks?) Same for the people who fought for the abolition of slavery. The fact that some of the people fighting against civil rights called themselves Christians is irrelevant. We live in a country where the overwhelming majority self identify as Christian. So you will find Christians on both sides of almost any issue. Ron Paul is a Christian himself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[angelatc]

Yeah that's a pretty ignorant statement. Read the California State Law on this........

BUt you're insisting that the rights and the agenda of the State supercede the rights of the parents.

The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individuals?

 

[Tdcci]

They have the right to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin. I don't share that belief, but I will defend their right to it.

You're right, they do have their freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not prevent you from being punished for your speech, which I advocate- it is only a safeguard against prior restraint. Christian extremism leads to violence and civil unrest, and has no place in a democratic society.

 

[Tdcci]

BUt you're insisting that the rights and the agenda of the State supercede the rights of the parents.

The rights of the collective outweigh the rights of the individuals?

The agenda of the collective Christian parents is hatred, discrimination, and misinformation.
The agenda of the collective state (in this case) is tolerance, acceptance, and education.

Tough decision!