California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[jmdrake]

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

It works fine if you can read. I mean you are a part of the Ron Paul campaign right? Or are you?

And I didn't simply make an "argument to authority". I laid out my case clearly. The federal government has taken over public schools at the state level. I guess you're ok with that since you seem to think government is the answer to the "tyranny of the family".

 

[TrueFreedom]

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

No one is saying you cannot home school your children. So this idea of "rights of homeschoolers" is flawed. First off, where do you find this "constitutional right". Secondly, California never said you couldn't homeschool, just if you did it had to be with a qualified person. Thirdly, if you truely believe in states rights, then no you should not be pushing a new law at the federal level on education, the government has no business in it and new laws only add to the problem.

 

[IRO-bot]

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.

Ah, I can see your point. We are not allowed to hire, or not hire someone base upon their race, gender, age, and sexuality.
I would suppose then that to me at least. Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. I don't know. Complex issue.

 

[angelatc]

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

Funny, coming from an advocate of the State.

 

[Tdcci]

The federal government has taken over public schools at the state level. I guess you're ok with that since you seem to think government is the answer to the "tyranny of the family".

I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

 

[jmdrake]

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.

That just has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum and believe me that's saying something! If you aren't protected from "punishment" then for a particular action then you don't have freedom of that action. It would be like someone in communist Russia saying "Homosexuals have the right to live as they wish, but if they get caught they will be sent to Siberia". (Yes, communist countries did brutalize gays. I know that may come as a shock to someone like you.) Really, if you think that the government needs to protect everyone from the "evils of Christianity" even to the point of micromanaging what parents teach their kids then why aren't you a Hillary supporter? You know, the whole "It takes a village" concept?

 

[angelatc]

Ah, I can see your point. We are not allowed to hire, or not hire someone base upon their race, gender, age, and sexuality.
I would suppose then that to me at least. Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. I don't know. Complex issue.

Ot we quit giving people special protections period. Let employers hire and fire who the heck they want.

Let the government hire the rest.

 

[IRO-bot]

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.

Are you for freedom of speech zones then? Do you think all members of the KKK should be jailed because of their hate speech? What about those who hate jews?

Please elaborate on the "does not prevent you from being punished for your speech"?

How is it freedom of speech if you can be punished for the speech?

 

[IRO-bot]

Ot we quit giving people special protections period. Let employers hire and fire who the heck they want.

Let the government hire the rest.

Great point as well. Let the free-market hash everything out.
My emotions want me to say hey it's not right to not hire someone because they are "such and such".

At the same time i feel that collectivism will never die as long as we continue to give out special rights.

 

[angelatc]

I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

It's not ok to hate gays, but it is ok to hate Christians?

What's all this "we" stuff? I could give a rat's ass about how you think my kids should turn out. But I suppose that's why you need them in public schools.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm OK with a Judge (maybe federal since I don't trust the bible belt states) deciding whether or not a parent is qualified to homeschool their kid. One of these qualifications should be a principled lack of extreme religious beliefs. We have to ask ourself this: Do we want a generation of honest, hardworking citizens or a generation of suicide bombers?

Yes. You want federal judges deciding everything. In other words you are the direct opposite of Ron Paul. (He submitted a bill to strip federal judges of their right to abuse their authority.) Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian? And why have Chrisitans in Lebanon not taken to that technique? They aren't perfect by a long shot, but none have joined the ranks of the suicide bombers.

 

[Tdcci]

Since marriage is a religous institution. Gays need to create a new religion or something. I don't know. Complex issue.

It's not complex at all. Same-sex couples are not lobbying for the church to recognize them, they are lobbying the state to recognize them. This is why there is such a thing as a "civil union", it's like marriage but without the religion. The government should only be in the business of handing civil unions to citizens.

 

[angelatc]

Great point as well. Let the free-market hash everything out.
My emotions want me to say hey it's not right to not hire someone because they are "such and such".

At the same time i feel that collectivism will never die as long as we continue to give out special rights.

The free market will take care of it. It always does. I never eat at Cracker Barrel because they had that stupid anti-gay policy, but that doesn't mean that I think they need a law forcing them to maintain any specific hiring practices.

 

[Tdcci]

It's not ok to hate gays, but it is ok to hate Christians?

That's not what I was saying, but yes. Christians have a barbaric belief system that mentally impairs them. Gays are victims of their genes. I don't advocate any soft of hatred, but if you're going to hate someone, you shouldn't hate them for who they are but what they believe and what they say.

 

[IRO-bot]

It's not complex at all. Same-sex couples are not lobbying for the church to recognize them, they are lobbying the state to recognize them. This is why there is such a thing as a "civil union", it's like marriage but without the religion. The government should only be in the business of handing civil unions to citizens.

I can somewhat agree to this. It's not a bad thought.

 

[IRO-bot]

The free market will take care of it. It always does. I never eat at Cracker Barrel because they had that stupid anti-gay policy, but that doesn't mean that I think they need a law forcing them to maintain any specific hiring practices.

Wow I did not know that. Pretty sad, but I like their biscuits and hunny to much to not go there. Sorry gays. My tummy like the yummy.

 

[angelatc]

Yes. You want federal judges deciding everything. In other words you are the direct opposite of Ron Paul. (He submitted a bill to strip federal judges of their right to abuse their authority.) Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian? And why have Chrisitans in Lebanon not taken to that technique? They aren't perfect by a long shot, but none have joined the ranks of the suicide bombers.

I agree with you.

Somehow Christians aren't hard working? Or perhaps that's the extent that our faith should extend - only to the goal of being hard working citizens.

Wow. What a great life! Serfdom.

 

[Tdcci]

Are you for freedom of speech zones then? Do you think all members of the KKK should be jailed because of their hate speech? What about those who hate jews?

I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.

Please elaborate on the "does not prevent you from being punished for your speech"?

How is it freedom of speech if you can be punished for the speech?

Supreme Court to the rescue.

 

[Deborah K]

Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies.

Interesting thread.....

Tdcci, out of curiosity, what happened to you to make you so hostile toward Christianity? The vitriol in your posts indicates that there is emotion attached to your blanket statements about it [Christianity].

 

[angelatc]

That's not what I was saying, but yes. Christians have a barbaric belief system that mentally impairs them. Gays are victims of their genes. I don't advocate any soft of hatred, but if you're going to hate someone, you shouldn't hate them for who they are but what they believe and what they say.

OH, so you and yours get to decide who we can and can't hate then? Sweet.

Ironically, they claim lifestyle is your downfall.

And you're right because.....?