Redstate

The crapping-on of devout and conservative christians by public school systems in this country is becoming "Dog bites Man". That a federal judge in Massachusetts supports said crapping-on is spectacularly unsurprising.

I was reporting, nothing more.

I thought Conservatives don't want activist courts...

I don't. I just want courts to apply equal rights to homosexual activists and devout christians. That shouldn't be too hard.

when the Conservative judge says this has no merit you upset?

I think you mischaracterize - at least twice - in this somewhat understandable fragment. Care to explain?

Take it up with the school board...

Sure, because school boards are superb arbiters of one's civil rights.

...or as an economics perspective move to a community with your values in mind.

So I suppose you agree with Sophist (downthread) that devout christians forfeit their right to free exercise and teaching of their belief when they chose to settle in Massachusetts. Again, that's not particularly surprising - I just want to get you on record.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...do you think that parents should be allowed to sue their kid's school if they teach things that they don't like?

Yes - if the civil rights of devout christian parents are being ignored - as they were here.

What exactly is the basis for the claim?

That their rights to teach their children morality as they see it were subverted by the government-run, taxpayer-supported public school system.

And how is this not an attempt to legislate from the bench.

Well gee flyer, now all of a sudden libs are opposed to legislating from the bench?

This simply is not a Constitutional matter unless you start being really creative in what you define as Constitutional rights...

Well gee flyer, now all of a sudden libs are opposed to being "creative" in what is defined as a Constitutional right?

For the record, I accept neither premise as you've set them out in those last two statements I've highlighted. Schools have no business in this area, period. Full stop. Because by getting into this business they get to decide what is an is not acceptable morality. They are basically telling these devout christians their "teaching" on homosexuality is unacceptable.

If the roles were reversed, and it was homosexuals screaming about their lifestyle being declares "unacceptable" by a public school system, the irony-challenged ACLU would be all over the school system with both feet.

But because the rights of devout christians are being infringed, it's a proverbial nothing burger.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Yes - if the civil rights of devout christian parents are being ignored - as they were here.

The rights of the devout Christian parents are not being ignored unless you are suggesting that gay marriage is a religious practice.

That their rights to teach their children morality as they see it were subverted by the government-run, taxpayer-supported public school system.

How are their rights to teach their children anything being subverted? BTW, which Amendment covers being allowed to teach your children your morality, or is that an emanation and penumbra?

Schools have no business in this area, period. Full stop. Because by getting into this business they get to decide what is an is not acceptable morality. They are basically telling these devout christians their "teaching" on homosexuality is unacceptable.

What area are you speaking of? The area of morality? You sure you want to make that claim?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The rights of the devout Christian parents are not being ignored unless you are suggesting that gay marriage is a religious practice.

Bzzzzt. The right of devout christians to spread to their children the teaching that homosexuality is not "normal" and therefore that homosexual relationships are not "normal" is what is being ignored - or, at best, merely subverted by a taxpayer-supported, governmnet-run school system. Please do try to keep up.

How are their rights to teach their children anything being subverted?

See above. Oh, and by the way, (with the caveat that multiple anecdotes is still not the singular of data) in practice the public school folks usually are quick to point out that no "right-thinking people" have a problem with homosexuality. Square that circle at your leisure.

What area are you speaking of? The area of morality? You sure you want to make that claim?

Morality and sexuality. And yes, I sure as heck do.

Come on back, anytime.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Bzzzzt. The right of devout christians to spread to their children the teaching that homosexuality is not "normal" and therefore that homosexual relationships are not "normal" is what is being ignored - or, at best, merely subverted by a taxpayer-supported, governmnet-run school system. Please do try to keep up.

How are the schools preventing parents from teaching that homosexuality is no normal? Are laws that allow homosexual also forbidding parents from teaching their children that homosexuality is not normal?

You are welcome to teach your child whatever it is that you like. However the public schools teach what the community thinks is important. If you don't agree, home school or send them to a private school.

Morality and sexuality. And yes, I sure as heck do.

Really? So schools shouldn't teach kids that lying is morally bad?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Preventing? Not directly, perhaps, yet. Subverting? Yep. Working overtime to contradict said teaching? Yep. Setting-up in first-graders conflicts on issues they need not know about yet? Uh-huh. And all at taxpayer expense! The fun never ends!!

Look, maybe you think it's swell that I have to pay taxes to cover the costs of a public employee who works to convince my 7-year old that everything they learn on Sunday and in my house is crap. I don't. So there we are.

And I'll back-up on the morality. I would be perfectly happy at this point if schools just stayed out of the sex business for a while. Happy?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

And I respect your wishes and believe that you should have every right to convince your local school board to teach in a way you see fit. Generally speaking I agree with you. I really don't see why it is necessary for the school to teach such things. But I don't like in Lexington Mass so I have no say in the matter.

HOWEVER, that doesn't change the fact that the judge was spot on. The school system did NOT violate the civil rights of the parents in any way. The parents were simply trying to get the courts to do what it could not convince their local school board to do.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

And I suppose we'll just leave it at that.

But in case you're wondering, here's what I think are some acceptable solutions to this larger issue:

1) Drop the "gay-friendly" course - no need to substitute "gay un-friendly" in it's place
2) Allow for an easy opt-out
3) Eliminate compulsory attendence requirement
4) Stop funding schools with taxes
5) Fund schools with taxes, but give parents full freedom on where the money is spent (as in, $ follows the kid).

You'll note that "grovel to an elected board" doesn't appear on that list. Hence, the disagreement.

And by the way, the judge could have ordered either of the first two - which is why dismissing the case is not a slam-dunk spot-on decision, by any stretch of the immagination.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

And by the way, the judge could have ordered either of the first two - which is why dismissing the case is not a slam-dunk spot-on decision, by any stretch of the immagination.

The judge could have done a lot of activist things. But he chose not to. Something you would normally applaud except that in this case you WANT activism.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

On one level, I'll admit to being a bit frustrated that judicial activism seems only to flow in one direction.

On another, maybe I'm just a little sick of my brothers in faith being continually crapped on by taxpayer-financed entities.

And on yet another, maybe I'm more than a little sick and tired of schools teaching sex to first-graders when the seem to have trouble teaching english and math.

Though honestly, really, truly, it's a little hard for me to see how "ordering an opt-out" (just as an example) is "activist". YMMV.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

aren't as kooky as I once thought. There is a group of Christians that want to move down here and kind of tale over with numbers. Of course, we all agree with them.

But you know, the pc left has had its influences everywhere, even in the South. Too many conservatives are intimidated by lawsuit threats to allow God's name to be spoken unless its in vain.

But one thing we must not do: have judges impose our will.

No, we can win at the local level. We are the majority most places.

savvy?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Number One child is a Catholic School middle schooler. Couldn't be happier.

Number Two child is SpEd (autism), out of district, and we've been involved up to our eyeballs with that Education Plan since Age Three.

But what our experience did provide is a huge, wide-open window into the universe of difference between private (Catholic, in this case) and public "day student" (non-SpEd) schools. Universe is, in fact, an understatement.

And you're a better man than I for insisting that judicial activism continue apace unilaterially. I just cannot get there.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Though honestly, really, truly, it's a little hard for me to see how "ordering an opt-out" (just as an example) is "activist". YMMV.

Activism isn't judged by severity. It's judged on whether a judge is ruling to achieve a result rather than to upheld the laws as written.

Ordering an opt out would have been creating law out of whole cloth.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I'm pretty sure the 1993 Ed Reform statute allows for parents to opt-out but leaves it up to the individual school system to implement it (because of course "Home Rule" is "King" in these parts).

I don't have a cite though - so I'm forced to rely on the experience of a good friend who happens to be the chairman of my town's school committee. Again, anecdote ain't the singular of data so take that for what it's worth.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Give that the parents were arguing this was a Constitutional rights issue and not a violation of any specific federal statute, I have to think it wasn't applicable here.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But that particular remedy is, I'm lead to believe, statutory. No "whole cloth" required, therefore.

Good luck digging through the laws to find it, however. I've already ruined at least 2 keybords trying to work my way through the education section(s) of the MGL.

Usually goes like this - read, pass-out, smack head on keyboard, run to Staples for a new one, read, pass-out ...

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

How are the schools preventing parents from teaching that homosexuality is no normal? Are laws that allow homosexual also forbidding parents from teaching their children that homosexuality is not normal?

It isn't so much that they are preventing parents from teaching this stuff, but that the diversity classes are teaching their children that their parents are bigots and homophobes and that anyone who thinks that way is one too.

So you tell me-is this an acceptable solution? Are we now to the point where everyone getst to feel comfy and cozy in the school system except children and parents that have traditional religious beliefs?

Why is it okay for "diversity" classes to be taught to grade schoolers in such a way that it leads said grade schoolers to think badly of their parents and what their parents are teaching them?

You know, I've been trying to say precisely what you've just said for the better part of the last hour and have not been able to wrap a cogent argument together.

Nicely said, JM. Cheers.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Honestly I am not speaking to the relative values of kids being taught one thing or the other. I remember when I was a kid, my parents were constantly lamenting how poor my education was because I wasn't learning what they were taught as a child.

But regardless my point in this diary isn't about what the kids should or should not be taught. My point is that the judge did exactly what he should have done. He made the correct ruling.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

of conscientious parents - period! Thank God I no longer have a kid in the re-education camp system anymore. As Just Me points out, the only thing the schools seem to effectively teach is that children should hold their parents in contempt. Whether it is the constant "child abuse" crap - anything the kid doesn't like is abuse - or all the "good trying" self-esteem, they have created a couple of generations now of ignorant, disrespectful brats. The so-called educators whine constantly about lack of parental involvement while equally constantly teaching the children that they should not adhere to anything their parents say.

I'm proud to say that my oldest never fully succumbed to it and my youngest boy is recovering nicely thanks to the US Army. My oldest boy is now a college educated lazy, ignorant lout who feels very good about himself, but contact with the reality of going to work and sometimes paying his own bills is beginning to have some impact on him; like the old Mark Twain saw, he's continually amazed by how much smarter his parents have become. Unfortunately the younger daughter remains locked in the Church of Perpetual Victimhood to which she was initiated in school, but we keep trying. And before Flyer and some of the other resident defenders of the government schools chime in in, it wasn't for lack of trying on our part; it was just like trying to shout back the tide. We gave them the hard way to live, the school gave them the easy one. Which do you think they chose?

In Vino Veritas

every move I made when my were in school, was to move to the district with the best schools.

also, achance weigh in on this

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/feb/20/gamecocks_retort_to_h...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

So, and I apologize for not have the correct case cites, what you are saying is that - for one - the SCOTUS decision in the case brought by JW parents regarding a requirement of the school district, approved by the local school board, that children should start their day with the Pledge of Allegance where SCOTUS found that the school did not have the right to require such, was wrongly decided in favor of the parents.

Or that the NY case concerning a simple prayer written by the Board of Regents of the State of NY, was also wrongly decided.

After all, parents in both of those cases could have appealed to the school authorities (local board/state authorities) for redress. Given that they were denied, they could have moved somewhere that didn't require a pledge or a prayer.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

in cases where it is the liberal/non traditional information being taught, not when it is the traditional stuff.

This is a great example of hypocrisy, and one reason why I think school choice in the end is one of the better solutions.

that the other options involved a cost to the parents in addition to what they were already paying for their districts public education system.

Now some parents can afford those other options, others can't, so should they be held hostage by a school district that teaches things they are opposed to?

This to me is a perfect example of why school choice is needed. Parents can opt to send their children to a school that focus on those things they value, rather than having to compete with the school in the area of values or even education.

their diploma because rather than teaching the fundamentals, they are teaching social nonsense. Our nations scientists and engineers have to come from India and Japan because our public school graduates know nothing about math...but they are tolerant of other's lifestyles.

My son is in college and realized this year, that he had not taken an English class that taught grammer in his entire k-12 experience. He was taking an English writing college class, and discovered that he had NEVER been prepared for this! His HS, hardly a bastion of liberalism, offered such English classes as Film Studies, and Internet.

Math? Again, the HS allowed math credits for many non-math subjects.

The public schools need to get out of the social engeneering business, and back into the teaching of fundamental education!

The scandal! In today's New England, that puts you in the stocks!

Seriously, schools should teach civility - respect for the rights of all citizens, regardless of their differences in faith, values, etc. They need to get out of the social engineering business.

Until they reach somewhere around the age of 21, most "children" are nothing more than savages, with no regard for anyone but themselves. They are self-centered "me, me, me" little creatures.

Without a whip and chair, educators should hot approach with 10 feet of the little darlings.

That said, civility is probably out of the question! We should probably hope for something above armed insurrection!

I have to agree with you on that.

The education establishment people have at some point decided that grammar isn't all that important. I think it happened at some point while I was in school, because while I remember getting grammar in elementary school, I don't much remember it being part of my middle or high school experience.

I think my kids actually do more grammar in their middle school courses than I did in mine-so the tide at least in this area may be turning back to some degree, but I will wait and see.

I do notice that there seems to be more courses offered that meet English or Math requirements that don't really involved learning much of either. Touchy feely or bunny type courses seem to have hit high schools.

I honestly don't have a huge issue with taking a class about film studies-but it shouldn't be for an English credit, it should be an elective.

I remember seeing a study on various blogs a while back that indicated our elementary age kids are on par or even above their international counterparts, but somewhere in middle school they start to take a huge dive, and end up well behind them.

I think half the problem is that we lower expectations for kids in these age groups, they want the easy way, and the educrates don't want to hold them accountable-so they dumb everything down so the kid can feel successful while they aren't learning much of anything.

And what happens when you have 20 different kids with parents that want to teach their kids different things?

By sending your children to public school you accept that they must abide by the curricula defined by the community, or state or Feds these days.

It may not be ideal but it is the only way a public school system can function. It simply cannot have separate curricula for each child.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

has anything to do with educational curricula.

Which is BS.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

The 4 R's, there was no and an S.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But as a conservative, I would want the legislature/school board making that decision. Less policymaking by judges is a good thing.

-TS

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia

that devout christians forfeit their rights to free religious teaching and practice when they chose to move to Massachusetts?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

No, it is my position that devout christians forfeit their "rights" to have courts impose their particular preferences on a school in whatever state they happen to reside in.

They have every right like anyone else to (a) run for school boards, (b) run for the legislature of Massachusetts, (c) campaign amongst their citizens for change. They further have the right to pull their kids out of the public schools.

Furthermore, they have every right to sit their children down and explain to them that what the school is teaching them is not natural, not in accordance with their beliefs, etc.

Now, I also believe that the parents should have the choice to have their tax dollars going towards education available to pay for private schooling -- aka, the school voucher program. But that isn't what was litigated.

A fundamental precept of contemporary conservatism is protecting democracy from encroachment by men and women in black robes. This is a policy-neutral point of view, in my opinion, that should not change whether the policy is something we support or not.

-TS

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia

I sympathize, as I am sure you do too, for the cries for what the school board OUGHT to do, but the problem is that there are so many liberals in America that don't wear robes.

Hence, another front in the culture war. Fixing the courts is only half the battle. A necessary battle to make a free speech battle for hearts and minds able to be be fruitful in self government.

The battle is harder or course in blue city enclaves. But battle we must.

Most libs and many libertarians here imagine that GC wants to evangelize in public schools. I don't and if Christians in my community wanted to, I would oppose it. What I have we wanted is to stop the schools from teaching values contrary to judeo-christian values under threat of judges.

Down here there most of the PC ing is due to threats of judges and a minority of libs.

Remove the threat and the majority rules, but even then we don't want school to be church.

But the majority should rule, whether they are christian or pro gay secularists.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

But the majority should rule, whether they are christian or pro gay secularists.

This is one situation where we don't have to be satisfied with majority rules and tough luck minority, suck it up. With a free market education system, all consumers rule.

Obviously educational needs and wants that are in higher demand will naturally result in more providers offering those services, but I am certain the free market will be much more capable of providing for the minority wants and needs than any monopolized, centrally managed, one-size-fits-all standardized system that the government administers.

Until then, I guess we're stuck with battles to control the school board. Which is the theSophist's important point - no one is denied the right to petition their government or seek electoral/judicial redress - plaintiffs sought the latter and lost.

it is my position that devout christians forfeit their "rights" to have courts impose their particular preferences on a school in whatever state they happen to reside in.

Where have the plantiffs requested this remedy? Where have I?

They have every right like anyone else to...

Ah, so my "free from government interference", unfettered ability to propogate my religious beliefs is dependent on electoral success. Thanks for that.

Furthermore, they have every right to sit their children down and explain to them that what the school is teaching them is not natural, not in accordance with their beliefs, etc.

Well gee, that's just swell. Let's see how that conversation will go - "Mommy, my teacher says that you and Daddy are bigots and homophobes." "Well sweetie, teacher is going to Hell." Yep - that's precisely the conversation I want to have with my 7-year old over corn flakes in the morning.

Now, I also believe that the parents should have the choice...

Agree, all.

A fundamental precept of contemporary conservatism is protecting democracy from encroachment by men and women in black robes.

Oddly enough, I'm on board with this concept. I just wonder whether continuing our policy of unilateral surrender in all things judicial is a wise policy given our history with if lo these last 2-3 generations.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Let's see how that conversation will go - "Mommy, my teacher says that you and Daddy are bigots and homophobes."

I guess at this point, I've read so much heresay as to what is actually being communicated to the children in this situation that it seems necessary to point out: thus far no one to my knowledge has actually provided evidence or facts regarding what the "official curriculum" says to teach or what verbiage was actually being used, aside from the linked article's description of a book that was read where a prince kisses and marries another prince.

Now if you want to submit a cite demonstrating that the teachers in this situation used the words "homophobes" and "bigots" to describe the parents of children in their classroom, then you probably ought to urge the parents to file civil suit directly against the teachers. If you can't then maybe you should offer some speculation that's a little closer to reality.

If in fact what is being presented is something along the lines of, adult men and women sometime decide that they'd rather live with another man or another woman respectively (two daddies/two mommies), that America as a nation accepts those relationships, and that citizens ought to treat them with courtesy, respect, and civility just like they do any other human being - then what's the beef?

So - would you like to make an attempt to more accurately characterize what it is being taught? Are children being taught the values of civility and mutual respect - live and let live, even if "they" live, look, or believe differently than you do - or are the kids being taught that they really oughta give homosexual relationships a try, parents be damned? Or is it somewhere in between?

... (and the canned parental response should have been your clue as to the nature of that fictional discussion)...

What is being taught is that homosexual relationships are "normal", that homosexuality is "normal", and that all such should be treated as "normal". And that said "normality" really isn't up for debate.

That is in addition to the usual "respect" and "civility" stuff.

Generally - and again, I can only offer anecdotal evidence from local sources, including a neighbor who is not prone to wild flights of fancy, so take it for what it's worth - questions on the "normality" of either the behavior or the relationships are treated tersely - "Well, some people believe that..." "Well, that might be what you think..." Which is quite a bit for a 7-year old to sort through on their own in front of an adult authority figure and a room full of peers, no?

For the record, I highly doubt the teachers use the words "bigot" or "homophobe" - can't say what the classmates are saying as a result, however.

Better?

To try to get this back on track, here is some analysis of the decision with which I am largely in agreement. FWIW. The reaction to the parents by the school system that is the subject of the lawsuit speaks for itself and I won't comment further.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

1. sex eduxation is not a curriculum. I favor efforts to eliminate it from the school curriculum.

2. If parent has a real moral objection to something being taught he/she should at least have the right to pull their kid out of the room while that subject is taught. That's how it was where I grew up, albeit a conservative Ornag County California school district.

www.mymanmitt.com

And what happens when you have 20 different kids with parents that want to teach their kids different things?

The only way to resolve a situation where education consumers have, at times, wildly divergent needs (e.g. special education versus gifted) and wants (religious course material versus sex education) is to enable the marketplace to form itself in such a way as to best meet those needs and wants.

Such a marketplace is held back by centralized management of education at the state government level and increasingly (thank you, NCLB) at the federal level; mandated one-size-fits-all standards (thank you again, NCLB); and monopolization of service.

Such a marketplace would allow like-minded teachers and administrators to group together of their own free will in organizations of their choosing to teach subject matter that they both want to teach and believe will meet a need and/or want. Different organizations attempting to meet the same needs/wants will compete for consumers (parents) on the basis of the quality of their staff and curriculum, rather than the current situation where the pairing of consumer with provider is determined almost entirely by geography. All competent participants of the education system (parents, teachers, administrators, children) will come out for the better in the free market scenario.

>By sending your children to public school you accept that
>they must abide by the curricula defined by the community, or >state or Feds these days.

Parents do not have to agree to abide by whatever nonesense the public schools decide to teach their children. They have every right to make a fuss if they don't agree with what is happening at the school, even if it was a private school. And it's good to have the parents involved, though legal action should be the last option.

Parents should of course have a realistic option when they have a strong disagreement with the school, and homeschooling, private schools, and moving all require major and sometimes unworkable life changes that some parents can't, and shouldn't be forced to make.

>And what happens when you have 20 different kids with parents >that want to teach their kids different things?

This is the problem isn't it.

Does anyone think it is actually possible for the public school not to promote some type of worldview? Everyone has certain presuppositions about the nature of reality and man through which they interpret history, current events, etc. If you don't allow religiously based perspectives in school, then are you not promoting various forms of secularism by default? You're just exchanging one system of thought for another.

So the question is whose worldview and values should be promoted in the school (assuming our govt can't pass universal school-choice)? Should the govt (supposedly acting on behalf of the majority) choose one worldview to use in all public schools? Or should each community be allowed to have the teaching in the public schools reflect community values? Either way there is still the question of the right's of idealogical minorities to educate their children the way they see fit.

simply want the right to compete with their free religious speech.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

And what happens when you have 20 different kids with parents that want to teach their kids different things?

But I do think schools, especially in younger grades should stick to the basics, and not worry about self esteem, touchy feely, etc stuff.

Avoid things that are overtly controversial, and honestly, be upfront with parents when you may be covering things that are constroversial, and allow them to have an opt out.

Yeah it may mean a bit more work for the teacher, but not that much, and frankly while I think the school is mandated to teach my kid reading and writing and math, I am not so sure it is their job to teach my kid about sexuality or values (beyond basic character concepts)-when they are in elementary school.

And if the school doesn't want to fool with opt outs, then maybe they should release some of the tax funds they get from parents, and allow them to choose a school that is more in line with their thinking?

I have no problem with what you are saying. And I sure hope you are active in your community's school board to ensure that this is how education is done where you live.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Court has no relevance here. The parents had very clear options. They didn't like them so they tried to subvert the system.

Avoid things that are overtly controversial, and honestly, be upfront with parents when you may be covering things that are constroversial, and allow them to have an opt out.

And who gets to decide what is and what is not controversial? Is Biology controversial? If I'm a communist can I claim that economics is controversial? If I speak Spanish can I claim that forcing my child to learn English is controversial? Just curious where the line is drawn and who gets to draw it.

And if the school doesn't want to fool with opt outs, then maybe they should release some of the tax funds they get from parents, and allow them to choose a school that is more in line with their thinking?

OK. And if I don't have any kids can I opt out of paying for the school system entirely? Cause that would sure cut down on my tax bill.

You know I actually think the school voucher system should be explored. But this notion that parents SHOULD get the money they paid to support the school system back because they don't like the school system is pretty silly.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

were they realistic?

I have issues if they didn't try to work with the school district, but I have real issues where a school district is unwilling to accomodate concerned parents at all, which seems to be the case here.

Saying the parents could always homeschool, private school or move is easier said than done. Our financial situation isn't such that we could excersize any of those options.

And that is where my problem is with this whole case-what happens, when the options listed aren't really options for every parent with similar concerns?

Also, where does religious thought or teaching fit in this debate? We are essentially elevating secularism to the point that those uncomfortable with it-aren't even given the ability to opt their kids out, and their options all involve a financial burden to them. How is this list of options really any different from a school offering ID, or a prayer before basketball games?

The parents had very clear options. They didn't like them so they tried to subvert the system.

Did the school at any point try to accomodate them? Did the parents ask for an accomodation?

What are the real options where accomodations aren't available?

I think this is where I struggle-I think we have essentially created a list of options that weren't really options at all, and then said-yep you had those options, so beyond this, there isn't any recourse for you.

I in general am not real keen on courts intervening in these cases, but I guess what I don't see are realistic options.

If I was in their situation, none of those options other than the school board would exist, and I live in a small enough town and know how the school board works here to know that it isn't in reality the option you think it is. Maybe it is easier to overcome the entrenched cronyism in a larger town, but around here that isn't much of a possibility (that said in general our schools do not do much at all regarding diversity or controversial type stuff, and the school board has a pretty tight thumb on curriculums and what is or isn't approved). We haven't had anything diversity like in our elementary schools-not the one I work in or the older elementary school.

And who gets to decide what is and what is not controversial? Is Biology controversial? If I'm a communist can I claim that economics is controversial? If I speak Spanish can I claim that forcing my child to learn English is controversial? Just curious where the line is drawn and who gets to draw it.

Can I just say this argument is redundant and you know it.

Most people know that it is the diversity, values oriented stuff that is usually controversial. Not too many people get up in arms over economics and biology, although they do get up in arms over ID, but apparantly the courts feel they are entitled to intervene in that case.

Most people know if they invite a gay group to come into the schools it is going to be controversial. They don't teach any sex ed in our school without a parent signing a permission slip for their children to attend-schools in general know what is or isn't going to be controversial.

Our school doesn't allow teachers to show movies PG-13 or higher without a signed permission slip.

It isn't that difficult to get a sense for what is or isn't going to go over well with parents. Better to cover yourself and allow for the opt out-it also makes for a happier school community.

And if I don't have any kids can I opt out of paying for the school system entirely? Cause that would sure cut down on my tax bill.

Nope, mostly because having an educated population in general makes for a better place to live, and if you opt out of your property taxes, then in the end you won't have an educated populace to pay taxes so you can collect your social security and medicaid when you are old.

Honestly, I am not anti public school. My kids attend a public school, and I work in the public school. I am, however, very pro school choice.

You know I actually think the school voucher system should be explored. But this notion that parents SHOULD get the money they paid to support the school system back because they don't like the school system is pretty silly.

I disagree.

#1 parents are mandated by law to send their children to school. They do not have the right to opt their child out of education entirely.

#2 If they feel like their child is being indoctrinated or taught things contrary to their personal belief systems, the "option" available to them should be real options.

Just saying-hey if you don't like it, you can send your kid to a private school, homeschool or move-isn't going to provide a real solution to their problem, if they aren't financially able to excersize those options.

Trying to change the local school board is also an option-but is one that they may not succeed at, or may take far more time, while their kids attend a school that is teaching their children contrary to their values.

Basically you advocate a trap=they either get themselves financially capable of excersizing their options of they just suck it up and deal with what they object to.

If I am required to educate my child, and the public school system my taxes support is teaching things I find objectionable, and doesn't allow me to opt my kids out of those things I object-then by all means I should get at least some of the money I pay into the system and get the ability to really excersize those options.

your key paragraph:

"Trying to change the local school board is also an option-but is one that they may not succeed at, or may take far more time, while their kids attend a school that is teaching their children contrary to their values."

A school of more than one will have students of parents that beleive different things. This is why the founders favored local control, so that the like minded could congregate in a community and transmit their shared values.

I have decried federal judges that denied local schools the right to transmit judeo-christian values by falsely claiming an estblishment of religion.

Justme, it is at the local level that these decisions should be made. Not judges. If one wants to change the policy for opt outs or to get the book out, then lobby and run for school board.

I have moved many times due to schools.

Yes, for some, the options aren't as easy.

But going to court in this case was exactlythe wrong way to go unless their were some state law being violated. There was no federal right in this case.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I think this is one of those issues where I know what the financial burdens are, and we couldn't do it. Nor can we afford to send our children to a private school.

Homeschooling would be an option, but that would mean losing an income.

Also, in the case of single parents-it is doubtful either of those are real options.

Back to the school board issue-I believe strongly in local control, but even then local control shouldn't mean that parents are unable to get any cooperation from the schools. That seems in the end to be the real problem-parents had a problem, parents told to go fly a kite by the school, parents in this case may have had those other options available, but if it was me, those other options wouldn't be viable for us, at least not at this point in time.

My point is that it is easy to say-you have other options-but all of them require a financial burden not all can carry. And changing the school board takes money and time-and still may not succeed in the end.

And I am not even saying really whether this case belongs in the courts or not, it is mostly that I think there is a real injustice in the idea that a kid who doesn't want to pray at football games gets his way, because the courts said it was wrong, but a parent is unable to opt their child out of a non academic diversity seminar in elementary school, and they are told they have options that in reality aren't options for many of us.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The argument you are making here is a common one that Liberals make regarding the plight of the poor in many different ways. And the common response of Conservatives is that, while it may be harder, they still need to do whatever it takes and shouldn't be given help from the government.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I am asking the government to provide what it says it is providing, and to provide me the ability to know what it is they are teaching, while giving me the ability to opt my kid out when I find things a problem.

My complaint here is that the "other options" defense has been used for these parents, and they may not have in reality had those options truly available to them.

I think there are two solutions at hand-one is vouchers (unlikely to ever happen in liberal Massachussettes-at least not until they become the done thing in a lot of other places) or the easiest which is to try to afford parents the ability to opt their kids out of thing that are non academic in nature.

Diversity stuff at the elementary level isn't needed. Kids are trying hard enough to get math and reading down, but if a school district just absolutely must have it, then they should afford parents the courtesy of letting them decide whether they want their child to attend or not.

And I will point out that I work in a public school, my kids attend the public school. AT this point I have no complaints about the curriculum or extras being taught my kids in their school. And the things that may be controversial actually have notices sent home to parents where they are given the option of letting their kids participate.

But I empathize with parents who are required to educate their child, but live in a district that wants to indoctrinate them, and they do not have the financial ability to excersize the options.

I like the idea of school choice-because I think it is a win/win situation for parents, students and the schools.

Do you also empathize with the Upper West Sider who moves to your school district and wants your school district to adhere to his or her beliefs?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

one side and all kids have one choice of school.

But what is it this westsider wants?

Our school already has a plan in place that informs parents of non academic asemblies and the like and parents are given the option to opt their child out.

Not sure how this plan harms the upper west sider.

The Upper West Side of Manhattan, the epicenter of Liberal smugness. Perhaps I should have said Cambridge or Haight-Ashbury. :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I am a rural girl, and have most always lived in small rural towns where the school boards were small, and the school districts rarely had more than 1500 students total from k-12, and there was only one, maybe two elementary schools in the whole town.

And like I said, just what demands would this upper westsider be demanding in our district? And how would those demands be unworkable with an opt out situation?

Honestly I don't see any reason to teach elementary age children anything beyond the academic basics, and if the school wants to offer all the touchy feely diversity stuff, then offer classes outside of school hours where parents can take their kids by choice rather than have them be captive audiences.

In this case of PUBLIC schools, the remedy for these parents is to get local school policy changed.

Problem: to many libs and pc silenced conservatives have a majority

what to do

1-move
2-home school
3-lobby for vouchers
4-lobby to end mandatory schooling
5-lobby school board to prohibit the teaching of homosexual relationships to prepubescents
6-lobby for opt out to school board
7-lobby...

Self government.
In the end, as I at times have had to do living amongst the pagans, sometimes we have to simply find a way to teach our values and denounce the school without causing the child to rebel!

its tough
we live in a fallen world

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

problem is that there are too many liberals in this school district, massachusetts and America that do not share our values, yet get to vote and wield power. There is no procedural answer.

The answer is to out vote them and out procreate them.

Yes, the school board SHOULD do many things. But they are liberals.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

government-run schools. And that's what we should be calling them, not the positive-sounding "public schools."

The way I read it on picks he is 3 for 5.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Yes, you're right. I confused nominations with confirmations. For all we know, Bork and Ginsburg would have been excellent justices, but sadly we wound up with Kennedy. Still, considering the stakes, I think Reagan's people should have tried harder.

There is no excuse, however, for O'Connor. Reagan made a stupid campaign promise (which probably gained him zero votes) to put the first woman on the Sup Court, which pretty much guaranteed that he had to fulfill the pledge on his first opportunity since there was no guarantee he'd get another chance. That meant he was picking from a slimmer slate of women candidates than he would have a few years later.

First that means if I believe Biology is propoganda then I shouldn't have to take it if it is required. Which I shouldn't

Second again then is a good ruling and this blog just makes me think the court system is under attack to much these days. You want to have it both ways. You want to use the courts impose religious beliefs but you don't want to impose secular beliefs. Judge just said that courts have NOTHING to do with this situation and should be left up to the school board.

When did conservatives start asking for the court to impose religious beliefs?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

the rights of local school boards to decide what's taught their children. Its libs that seek to remove any and all reference to God or morals or j-c values via courts.

I think the school in this case should accomodate the parents with an opt out, but the decision should be one for the state, not the federal government, any more than ID or what can be said inscience class should be an ocasion for 126 page fed ct opinion.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I mean, if you're not going to bother reading something to which you are responding, then you really shouldn't bother responding.

I don't see how you could read what I said and come away thinking that I said that the court should have 'imposed religious beliefs.' I plainly said that its better for the courts to stay out of it, and that I wasn't sure this decision marked this judge out as a bad one. I also explicity said that judicial restraint should cut both ways, which is the opposite of wanting to have it both ways.

So I really don't know what you're talking about, because you are responding to something I didn't say.

As to the part about propaganda; it seems you did read that, so thanks. On this, I realize I'm putting forth a tricky, subjective standard. But to most reasonable people, I think the difference between standard biology instruction versus 'lets worship diversity' is clear. It would be nice if the school board recognized this, and permitted parents who don't worship at the altar of diversity to opt their kids out of "Heather Has Two Mommies" day.

It would be nice, but I don't expect it from the Left. Afterall, it is the Left that is truly intolerant of dissent. That is why they invented the ludicrous 'living Constitution' doctrine, so that they could impose (via the courts) their radical agenda on an unwilling population.

Still, it would be nice. But even though I don't expect this bit of decency and respect from this leftwing town in this leftwing state, I do not (and did not) call for the courts to intervene.

...that the line by the judge that goes "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation" is worthy of contempt.

You want to use the courts impose religious beliefs but you don't want to impose secular beliefs.

Where have I said this?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

the opt out. Although I may be thinking of a different case.

But I agree that allowing for parents to opt their children out of certain curricula that isn't really neccessary for learning or academics is a reasonable solution.

Although I think the most reasonable solution is to allow for school choice.

Why should the parents in this case assume a greater financial burden in order to educate their children in a way they approve? That is the real question coming to a head I think.

Obviously, he is lying when he said he respects diversity, because he proceeded to rule that all children should receive the same instruction and that people with opinions other than the majority's must be hammered into place.

He essentially said that the parents have no capacity to direct the education of their children solely because they are in public schools and the general public has the right to direct their education. Where's his vaunted diversity?

He should have said that the public at large directs the instruction at the school through the school board, but that the parents have the right to intervene in the education of their own child.

snark After all, our republic is dependent on our diversity. /snark

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

as they have no force of law and policy going forward. I see no federal right in this case, just as see no federal right in cases in which the federal courts have violated the free speech rights for religious speech in local schools and where they have thrown out local school cirricula based on alleged violations of the "establishment" of religion clause.

The local school should control. The parents must look to like minded people in their community to set policy or seek redress via state laws.

One monkey wrench in all this is the mandatory attendance law and lack of choice given the confiscation of one's money to pay for such schools.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

more difficult states to homeschool in, as far as state intervention in that decision. Some districts overtly micromanage homeschool parents, so even that option isn't a wonderful one either.

Like I said, mostly what this kind of case reveals is the greater need for school choice.

In general the "other options" mantra is good only for those people in a financial situation to excersize them, for others they are essentially held captive by their school district, and I don't know that parents should have to compete daily with the schools teaching with regard to values.

Another reason I am convinced that the diversity crapy, and the touchy feely self esteem stuff doesn't belong in a public school. Public schools should focus on the academics, and let moms and dads take their kids to diversity seminars outside of school hours.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia

When Gamecock and I are in agreement about something.

The judge did NOT say that parents have no capacity to direct the education of their children. He said that HE did not have the capacity to direct the education of ANYONE'S children. You can harp on his diversity comment until you're blue in the fact but it is tangential to the actual ruling.

The parents had clear choices. They didn't like them so they did what Americans like to do, sue. In this case they decided to sue the Supreme Court. They rightly lost.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I am a local control fundamentalist, and if my local district doesn't suit me, I lobby it or move or deal with it in other ways. I have done all three with my kids.

It may shock you to know that I took my kids out of a religious school beacuse I thought it was too strict!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Not a lawyer. Simply someone who has spent some time studying it.

I would never be able to look at myself in the mirror after giving someone their billable hours. :)

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

But you already know the answer to that one - don't you.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

answer, and if the judge said that local school had the right those now praising this decision would be boohooing it.

I do think that the local school board is the place to go, what bothers me is that in this case the school district doesn't care, and while saying parents have the option to homeschool or send their kids to private school-those options only exist for parents in a financial position to excersize them.

This case to me is all the more reason why school choice is so important. As we head into an era where the public schools are viewed as the battleground for secular humanistic indoctrination, and where religious thought is all but banned-parents uncomfortable with that direction have very little recourse.

for private school choice.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I would like to see communities get away from the monstrously huge school districts with thousands of students, and move towards smaller districts with more of a charter school type control.

I do like the idea of schools competing and would like to see vouchers for non public schools.

Just not so sure we should ditch all public schools, and move to a private system.

I kind of like the idea of funding schools a bit like grants for colleges-as in there are public options, but lots of other options both secular and religious available as well. People would get a certain amount of voucher dollars to use and they could choose to use them wherever they want.

I think at the moment there aren't too many private school options outside of religious schools in many communities (NH though has a lot of very expensive secular private schools-although I doubt a public school voucher of a few thousand bucks would pay for tuition to most of them). But this is a case where I think creating the funding program would encourage the creation of options other than religious.

I do think religious schools should be an option for vouchers, just like a person applying for a government college grant can use it at a religious one.

And should childless people get vouchers as well? Why should people with no children be forced to pay for a school system that people with children aren't willing to pay for?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

education? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Like I said I think there is a good reason to have publically funded education, because the reality is that if parents had to fund their kids' educations out of pocket a heck of a lot of kids would remain uneducated.

So, your disconnect is apparantly that if you have to pay for a public education for other people's kids, that parents who do have kids, and are paying for a public education should have no say in what education their kids are receiving, and if they don't like it, they should assume the extra financial burden required to get their child out of that school.

Am I correct?

You are making two different arguments-and they don't really seem connected to me.

One is whether we should have publically funded education.

The other is whether parents should have the ability to choose a school that is more in line with their goals for their child and have access to some public funds to do so.

If you agree that we should have publically funded education-then everyone should pay, just like we have publically funded police forces, fire houses and the like.

The other debate is whether a voucher system is wise or helpful and fair.

that the school voucher idea, as currently constructed, has a fatal flaw. If we allow parents to take money out of the school system why should non-parents be forced to pay for a school system that they don't support either?

I very much support our public school system. As such I think that any voucher system should only be used towards other public school systems. Any voucher system that allows parents to take money out of the public school system will doom the system.

Then again I think that school systems should not be funded by local property taxes but rather by state taxes and that school systems should be created in a regional style in which parents can choose to send their child to ANY state funded public school. Schools would receive money based on the number of students that are enrolled and given other incentives based on performance indicators.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

or is it that you think that parents should suck it up and always have to kow tow to the public school system and their "diversity" crap?

Also, while allowing for a voucher from one public school to another public school sounds good-it is in reality mostly crap, because first, not all school districts have a lot of choices close by (our whole district has only one option for schools at each level-one lower elementary, one upper elementary, one middle and one high school). I also don't think other school districts will neccessarily be beating down the door to accept every child that wants to attend, even if they come with a voucher in hand.

Every district surrounding ours currently is dealing with crowding issues-I am not so sure they would be game.

Then who provides transportation?

How does this help the poor parent? Several parents in our district don't even have cars, so are they out of luck?

Any voucher system that allows parents to take money out of the public school system will doom the system.

How so? And if the school system isn't providing what the parents want, why should they have to stay within that system sucking it up while their kid gets mandatory diversity training, but can't lead a prayer at their graduation?

Now here is my idea-why not do vouchers much like the college grant system (and last time I noticed state supported universities weren't doomed to failure).

I think there should be a variety of public and private schools for parents to choose from based on their goals for their child.

Parents would receive a certain amount of money in vouchers, to use where they choose much like college students can receive a certain amount of money in grants.

This I think would create a much richer educational environment for all involved, and you in the end wouldn't have money wasted on idiotic lawsuits, because parents would really have options available to them, when something goes down in the school they do not like.

All that is necessary for evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

and it's not just "poor" parents who can't afford to homeschool their kids or send them to private school. Most parents who have middle-class incomes can't afford it, either.

As for homeschooling, in many parts of the country it's very difficult to raise children on one parent's income after paying income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc. (and yes, that's even if the parents don't waste any of that one income on tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and other vices or luxuries)

Home schooling is not for everyone. I am a big supporter of vouchers. Parents *should* have choice when it comes to schooling.

Side note: My wife homeschools and I manage to keep us in the middle lower class.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

teach judeo-christian values have otehr options.

local control
chips fall

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The truth, as I see it, is that religiously conservative citizens that are opposed to teachings that suggest homosexuality is natural or normal DO indeed have other options.

Sure - and they get to pay for them out of pocket while the local school system still gets their cash as well. Gee, what a swell option. Good thing I live in an $850K house in Lexington and can afford private school in addition to my $16K property tax bill.

Oh, but I cannot. So I guess the libs answer is - sucks to be me, eh?

Remind me again why y'all were opposed to welfare reform?

Public school is only on(e) of the places where a child's values are taught.

Praise the Lord for small favors.

Parents are free to teach their child in the home. The government places no restrictions on that.

For now. And gosh, that's sure neighborly of them.

Parents are free to teach their children that the things they learn in school are incompatible with the religious values of the family.

Joy! So I get to try to convince my children of X after having paid good money out of pocket to have people I pay tell those same kids "no right thinking person thinks X". Swell. Just, swell.

Stopping there - I'm just repeating myself.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

You make it sound like you are unhappy that you have the freedom to teach your children your own religious beliefs at home...like that's just not good enough. But, I think that is one of the finest liberties that America offers...a liberty that many people around the world do not have...one that the framers of the constitution took some pains to protect. I recently read about a man living in a muslim country who found out he had been switched at birth. His true parents were Hindu, and he wanted to change religions...not an easy thing to do in that country. This freedom we have is a precious thing, and you yourself are one of the fortunate beneficiaries of it.

You stopped because you said you were repeating yourself. I wish you had continued because, in truth, my comment was the first time the institution of the Church had been brought up as the educational force it is; any commentary from you on the subject of this very significant educational factor in a child's life would be welcome.

I grew up Mennonite. My family had no trouble instilling in me the values they held dear. I was not tempted by the drugs and sex that were a part of other kids lives around me. I think we need to recognize what power parents have to influence their children...if only they will take the same responsibility for bringing them up and loving them as they do tending their bank accounts and politics.

You make it sound like you are unhappy that you have the freedom to teach your children your own religious beliefs at home...like that's just not good enough. But, I think that is one of the finest liberties that America offers...a liberty that many people around the world do not have

You are conflating two things here.

#1 is the right to freely worship and teach our children our religious values and beliefs.

You are correct, that is one of the finest things we as Americans have.

#2 is the schools interference in that right.

No you didn't say it that way, but that is what is happening here.

It isn't that on diversity day or whatever it is, the kids are being told to be nice to other people. Usually these days intell teaching kids that one thing is wrong and those who believe that way are wrong also.

Schools are in a position of authority over children, just as their parents are, so what is happening is a child goes to school and learns that their parents are wrong, their parents are bigots, their parents are homophobes, and if they believe the things their parents believe they are all those things too.

That isn't the same thing as parents having the right to teach their children without the government telling them they can't.

You see the government has a new in-they know they have their children as a captive audience, so instead of restricting what a parent says in the home, they just tell the kid that what their parents are teaching them is all wrong, and if they believe what their parents believe they are all wrong too.

I grew up Mennonite. My family had no trouble instilling in me the values they held dear. I was not tempted by the drugs and sex that were a part of other kids lives around me.

I grew up a Baptist, and I wasn't tempted either. Goody for me. But I know a heck of a lot of kids that were. Not sure what this point has to do with this discussion.

I think we need to recognize what power parents have to influence their children...

You are correct, parents do have a lot of influence over their children, but that doesn't mean the school should put itself in the position to undermine what those parents are teaching at home.

I really don't know that anyone could have more badly misread what I wrote than you apparently, or perhaps evidently, did.

And I was repeating arguments I've already made upthread - not directly to you. My bad for that little misunderstanding.

All that said, I think you greatly - and I mean greatly - underestimate the power of persuasion that teachers and admininstrators have over students - in every aspect of their lives other than discipline, oddly enough. For example - you try to teach your children "X", whatever "X" is. All well and good. You then come to find out that your taxpayer-supported, government-run school system is teaching that very same child that only kooks, bigots and crazy-people believe "X". Don't you think that's an example of a government entity interefering in the free, unfettered practice of your religion?

Here's a hint, you may note how I am - conspicuously - only mentioning public, taxpayer-financed, government-run schools in this article. Think on that for a minute and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

copyright infringement.

Challenging a liberal to think awile also exhibits Gamecock like optimism.

well done

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Let’s look at this closer.

Parents are free to teach their child in the home. The government places no restrictions on that. Parents are free to teach their children that the things they learn in school are incompatible with the religious values of the family.

How kind of the government to allow us to teach our children what we want at home. If I want to teach my child that Christ has risen from the dead but the school chooses to use a position of authority over the child to teach the opposite I should have some means of recourse.

Let me tell you I was force feed all kinds of liberal drivel when I was in high school and my peers learned/accepted it. Why? Not because their parents agreed with it I assure you.

Instead of given schools carte blanche (excuse my French) because we can/should correct the problem at home lets give parents school choice instead.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams