Category: NewsDuJour

And one of those oars is in the hand of California assemblyman, Joel Anderson, who has introduced legislation to reverse the lower court’s decision to dramatically restrict homeschooling in California.

Written Friday, March 7, 2008. This has been quite a Newsy Week! As a diversion to the mudslinging political campaigning, home education is on the chopping block in California (my dear home state believe it or not!).

It’s always amazing to me that when “liberal beliefs” or a liberal position is *agreed with* then everything’s well and good. But, if that position or those beliefs are challenged in any way, then there is incredible offense taken. In many cases, everything’s right except righteousness – and the Bible says this will be so. The Lord even forewarned of these very days, these perilous times. He forewarned the hatred of God, of Himself and of those who would love God. And so, while not surprising, the signs of the times and the events or activities of the day are strangely just that: surprising. I found myself, many times yesterday, marveling in disbelief. I listen to the campaign rhetoric and shake my head. How can all this possibly be happening in America? But it is. How can believers be so unprincipled that immorality, unrighteousness or unbiblical stands are acceptable and even given support in candidates campaigning to hold the highest office of this land. Amazing.

Yesterday was a whirlwind of activity, phone calls, emails, petitions, letters, etc., regarding the California case that could, if enacted, literally dismantle legal homeschooling in California and make it so difficult that only a very few parents could legally do so.

In an attempt to get a more accurate (instead of what I assumed would be — and is) feel for the climate surrounding the recent ruling, I attempted to wade through the hundreds and hundreds of comments on the SFGate page that were posted following the recent ruling pertaining to homeschooling in California. What an education! What contrast! Those championing tolerance and liberal thought were absolutely the most narrow, closed minded of all the contributors. It would seem that “liberal thinkers” would be the most open to home education or to private education or whatever other form of ‘alternative’ education would be undertaken by parents and students. But no. No, such was not the case at all.

All of this has once again led me to ask, as I have on numerous occasions in the past, why is public education so critical to liberals or whatever name might be given to those who so ardently stand against ‘conservative’ parents? Why does it matter so very much and why is such an incredibly high amount of money put toward the ‘education system’ in America (and, of course in many! countries around the world)? Indoctrination. Mass indoctrination. Simple. Get enough people assembled in one place and tell them lies often enough, they will not only believe, but embrace and defend. And interestingly, as an assault or attempt to denigrate the practice, that’s just what is leveled at home-educating parents: indoctrination. You see? Indoctrination is mocked by liberals. But it is precisely indoctrination that makes public education so necessary.

I know I’m standing on the proverbial edge here, but I’d say the opposition to homeschooling is a farce. And I’d say further that it’s an attempt to dismantle or topple parent’s rights so that the massive machine can continue unhindered: destroying the foundations of Truth and Righteousness in this once great nation. Now, do I think every homeschooler is being taught in sincerity and truth and that every homeschooler is receiving an excellent education in truth, academics, righteousness, morality, patriotism, faith and obedience to God and goodwill and honour toward men? No. But I’m very confident that all the homeschooling families I know or have met are earnestly attempting striving to do so. And so that’s probably what’s most disheartening about the attack on homeschooling and the negative comments regarding home education and/or parent’s rights to home school their children.

In the end, I find I want to say to all those in opposition who personally have “school-age” children: go ahead, send your children to school. God bless you. You’ll be doing what you think is best – as the parent of those children – that’s your deal.

To those in opposition of homeschooling — who do not have children: well, hmmm. Until and unless you have children of your own, it’s foolish to make selfish demands on others who are thoughtfully and diligently bringing up and training the children who are the future of this nation.

To those who have “school age” children in the government schools and who are opposed to homeschooling or to parents who homeschool, consider this: millions of your peers (parents of children) are paying to home educate their children and are paying, in part, for your children’s education as well! For consider this, not only are the children of homeschooling families not taking up seats, time and space in government schools, they’re also not wasting government resources — though their parents are paying for other’s children in what is often unquestionably a waste of government resources.

To those who are just fighting the issues of home education vs. public education because there’s nothing better to do: there are many marvelous and fruitful ways to spend time and energy. Fighting against home education is fruitless unless there is something at stake. What is it?

And then… because I’ve been spending so much time thinking about the public or government vs. home or private schools, I find myself wondering why progressive thinkers are so adamantly opposed to home education or home schooling. Could it be that conservatives are really the progressive thinkers and liberals are not? Could this be? I know, I know, the whole dialectic praxis… but, really, it’s amazing that liberal thought can be so… so… not liberal.

 I’ve read a bit more about SB777 since I commented on it a couple of days ago. And surely, since I received a strong negative comment here (which I sincerely appreciated, btw). And I’ve had more time to mull over the potential consequences or outworkings of the bill/law. I’m not “carried away with the witch hunt,” but I do wonder what led to the necessity to craft a new bill/law? The further protection / endorsement of a class of people is the only reason I can see for the crafting of the bill/law.

Now, I do see some of the problematical views expressed by the writer of the WND article and some of the author’s personal interpretations of what was just signed into law. I see the strong slant – pointing out the potentials of the law. And though the intent of the law *seems* to be non-discrimination, I cannot see it that way. I do not see non-discrimination at all. At all. Non-discrimination bills/laws are already in place. Clearly in place. The wording of this newest piece of legislation is additional protection for classes of people/thoughts/activities that are clearly ambiguous and undefined (for that, I suppose, would be discrimination!).

I am reading attacks against Christians or Conservatives being accused of twisting the words of bill to fit their argument(s). I wonder why the bill was necessary when non-discrimination is already a legal protection. I’d say that crafting a bill to protect people/activities is actually a protection that discriminates against long held truths, ideals and order – thus is a promotion, protection, endorsement of special interest groups with ambiguous attributes. Yes, even though those actual words are not in the bill.

May I say that this ambiguous bill/law is the catch-all protection for special interest groups or of people and/or activities and as such, effectively reverses other laws that are already in place that protect people from discrimination. It is not difficult to imagine the scenarios that will likely take place now with new legal license to cite discrimination when “non-discrimination” clauses or “hate-crimes” clauses have been clearly twisted to fit an agenda or argument in the past – this new law just amplifies or enlarges the special protection for special interest groups. So, then, the writer of the WND article was not making unfounded assumptions or leaps of imagination when stating what appear to be obvious repercussions of the bill/law.

I know it seems offensive when I write against laws such as SB777 signed by Governor S. in California. If I were ramping up the evil, I might say something like Gov. S ought to be burned at the stake or something ridiculous like that – and I didn’t, nor would I, say that. To say or think that would be evil. To point out problematical laws is not evil. And when I comment about people who (are intolerant of) redefine their own (assigned from birth) gender and when I question legal protection for their personal interpretation of their ‘gender’— truly, that’s not bigotry. Homosexuality is an abomination. So-called “transgender” is an assault on God’s design. As far as bigotry and hate pointed at my “fellow man” I must say, I am pointing out what I’m seeing are trends against God, against His holiness, against the family, against people who follow Christ – or more specifically, against Christians and the Bible. I don’t treat people like they are “lepers out to get us” – but I do take a strong stand against things that destroy, alter, shame or reject God’s design and blaspheme His Word.

I believe what we must see and stand against are not only the words of the bill, but the intent — the actions those words will be translated to include and mean. When a bill is signed into law, and when the literal words of the law are ambiguous, then, naturally what will occur or be used as leverage in an argument/lawsuit/etc. will be one’s own personal interpretation of the law. And… as far as discrimination goes, what will likely occur in the “public school” will be discrimination against Truth and promotion of what the Bible clearly defines as sin. When sexuality or gender is expanded to mean or include ‘perceived’ then the vagueness of what the discrimination could possibly be is truly subjective interpretation rather than objective truth. A person’s gender is assigned (or known) at birth and though a person may feel another way, the latter does not define the former.

Interesting to me is the oft used argument, hating sin / loving sinner. I understand the intent but it’s flawed at best and at worst, it’s not Biblical. I know we wish that Jesus had said it. Just like we wish that the Word had said, “God helps those who help themselves” when we’re plowing ahead with an exciting agenda. Only God is capable of hating sin and loving sinners. We’re truly incapable of such love. But Jesus in us helps us love when we don’t “feel like it,” or when we cannot find something lovely or when we have nothing… it is Christ in us – the hope of glory – that loves others… the unlovely, the unlovable, the lost and the saved.

So as far as hating the sin… and loving the sinner… I understand the sentiment and have even said the words or didn’t stand against them in some up-against-a-wall situations in the past. But I must ask, is it truly loving to ignore sin? to wink at sin? to excuse or tolerate sin or worse: to not call sin: sin? When sin is taught, tolerated, required, coddled or protected, then really… the argument to “love the sinner and hate the sin” is a moot point. And it’s not love.

Hate the sin – and love the sinner is one of those guilt trippy things that is tossed at Christians to silence the argument and squash arguments (and Christians). Further, I believe that it is erroneous to attempt to apply that argument to discrimination – especially to such an ambiguous or wide-open-for-interpretation law such as SB777. Here’s a prime example of the silencing of Christians whose straight talk message doesn’t line up (no pun intended) with the protected class.

Defending this bill/law demonstrates the deep inroads made by those who have a complex agenda to destroy God’s intentional design and God’s presence and force accommodation to that agenda.

With your 777th reason to homeschool, remember God’s purpose may seem to be thwarted. But it won’t be. In the end, it won’t be.