State Ruling Ciminalizes Home Schooling

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up. 😛

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.

Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!" 😎

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought you had a great point and I was agreeing with you all the way until the last part. Now I'm convinced that home schooling, for Christians, is not a good idea.

Me too. I want them in the schools with the other kids. 🙂 You can go ahead and agree with the rest of the post without feeling bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are ok with parenting techniques that are harmful and destructive but also legal?

I wouldn't normally nit pick, but you italicized "legally"

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Me too. I want them in the schools with the other kids. 🙂 You can go ahead and agree with the rest of the post without feeling bad. My point was that people can say that Christian teaching qualifies as "harmful" because they don't believe it. Legal definitions are what we're talking about here anyway, and my point is that parents can teach kids whatever they want, it's not our business, unless it's illegal.

I was disillusioned by the delusional part. 🙄

Originally posted by sithsaber408
My point was that people can say that Christian teaching qualifies as "harmful" because they don't believe it. Legal definitions are what we're talking about here anyway, and my point is that parents can teach kids whatever they want, it's not our business, unless it's illegal.

so what would your opinion on harmful legal action be?

Does a parent have the right to do anything legal that they want to the child?

Originally posted by inimalist
so what would your opinion on harmful legal action be?

Does a parent have the right to do anything legal that they want to the child?

My opinion would be that harmful legal action should be illegal.

Yes, a parent has a right to do anything legal that they want to their child, hence it being called "legal".

Originally posted by inimalist
Children should be exposed to a single world-view
Children should be exposed to multiple world-views

now, an important factor here is the explicit desire to expose children to multiple world-views through education rather than it being a consequence of the education process itself. I don't think it changes the point, but it would take more finagling in the "socialization is cultural indoctrination" side of things, which is admittedly a hard sell, and may only be relevant to the way I come at issues.

What objective scale could prove one of these statements to be more valid? I believe the latter to be far more beneficial to almost every facet of society, but benefit is not a proof. These are essentially competing moral sentiments, which, from any humane moral view is easily decided, but from a point of objective validity, it is impossible to know which is true. Essentially in this case, it boils down to the stupid "you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you cannot prove that a single world-view isn't actually the best way" or rather, it is impossible to obtain the proof that a single world view would be best.

The implicit argument presented by each statement is that one is more beneficial than the other. Since each produces results that can be measured, benefit is an objective proof of the claims being made.

This statement is tautology:

Originally posted by inimalist
. . . the purpose of education has never been about such lofty goals . . .

This:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.

It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.

I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.

It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.

When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)

This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up. 😛

In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.

As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.

Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!

How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!" 😎

I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming. 😛

Does not address this:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet it is parents who are seeking to limit intellectual diversity, not private and public schools.

Why should home educators be held to a different standard of certification than private and public educators? By your reasoning, any one is qualified to teach in any educational setting so long as students meet educational requirements.

The scientific ignorance illustrated in this post represents one of the dangers of home schooling. Relativity is "only a theory," but you do not question whether or not gravity exists. Yet, you question the validity of Evolution, which has more scientific support than Relativity.

Moreover, the notion that abortion is being promoted in public schools is a conservative Straw Man. In my entire public school educational experience in characteristically liberal Chicago, abortion was rarely, if ever discussed, let alone promoted.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
''For applicants who may have left formal education some time ago, extensive relevant knowledge and experience and, normally at least one good pass at A-level or two good AS-levels, an Access or other equivalent qualification will be required.'' - Nottingham Trent.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160 '' Plymouth. (A D is 60 points).

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 160'' - Leeds Metropoliton.

''Minimum points required from qualifications with the volume and depth of A level or equivalent: 180'' Newman University College.

All for teaching degrees.

Ush, you can reply to this as well, if you wish.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution has to be taught (which makes sense, it being a scientific fact),

When was it promoted from being a theory? I missed that apparently.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When was it promoted from being a theory? I missed that apparently.

It got promoted from guess to scientific theory with the same likelyness as the theories about gravity and a round earth about 150 years ago. Except for that, you probably didn't miss anything else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It got promoted from guess to scientific theory with the same likelyness as the theories about gravity and a round earth about 150 years ago. Except for that, you probably didn't miss anything else.

So is it officially a proven fact, or are you just calling it one?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So is it officially a proven fact, or are you just calling it one?

Fact or theory? Simple question.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Fact or theory? Simple question.

It's a generally accepted scientific theory, which holds more validity (through research) than intelligent design.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
My opinion would be that harmful legal action should be illegal.

Yes, a parent has a right to do anything legal that they want to their child, hence it being called "legal".

what would be a suitable standard, in your eyes, for "harm"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fact and theory.

How is it both?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How is it both?

Well, it is a fact in the way that it is proven beyond a doubt unless there is some Hokus Pokus involved.

And it is a theory because it fits the definition " a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

don't get into fact or theory debates

if someone doesn't get it, they are willfully ignorant, and to even give ID/creationism the standard as a "competing theory" is willfully scientifically ignorant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The implicit argument presented by each statement is that one is more beneficial than the other. Since each produces results that can be measured, benefit is an objective proof of the claims being made.

ok, I think we are using validity in different ways. I agree with your statement, however, all was initially talking about whether there is objective "truth" to the claim. ie: Can we prove objectively that one is better than the other. Since one claims that in the afterlife there will be salvation for those who reject science, and there is no way to test that, logically we must conclude that we are agnostic about whether or not a single religious doctrine is the best way to raise a child.

I admitted I know how silly this line of reasoning is, and it is mostly just a linguistic trick, but it is a logical problem. I've gone out of my way to say I agree with you about the benefit, but benefit is not a proof of truth. I'd prefer benefit given the strict unknowability of truth, and the idea that any deity wouldn't appreciate science class is laughable.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This statement is tautology:

oh, why thank you, the sentence should read: Systemized and institutionalized education has never been about such lofty goals.

though if you really want to argue about it, I'd have to admit mine was really good, and probably concede that today there are people in the system that do have those goals.