Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: New Hampshire Judge rules against home-schooling because of religious views  (Read 15141 times)

posttrib777

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2


Mom’s Homeschooling Views Work for Her Child but not for NH Judge

A home school case being argued in the New Hampshire Supreme Court Jan. 6 is a window into the kind of subtle bias against Christianity that permeates our modern institutions. Only, in this case it’s not even subtle. The reasoning of a lower court is a jolting revelation of how Biblical Christian values may be publicly marginalized.

People believe in and express strong opinions on all kinds of subjects. When the subject violates the politically correct orthodoxy, however, the rules of engagement change because “we don’t want to encourage that kind of thinking any longer.” It’s something like the grown-up version of shunning the kid in the schoolyard who doesn’t dress or speak the “right way.” Suddenly, certain subjects, i.e. Christian views, must be corrected at all costs; even at the expense of parental rights.

The controversy in NH started in a common enough way – with a divorce, and a young daughter, Amanda, born during the marriage. For four years the matter of schooling was more or less agreeably compromised with the mother home schooling Amanda, while providing occasional classes at the local public school. The plan was successful by anyone’s measure of progress; Amanda excelled academically, and all agreed she was well-socialized and happy. At some point, however, the father decided he would rather see their daughter in public school, and applied pressure for the mother to end the home school arrangement. The mother, on the other hand, wanted to continue the personal attention and emphasis on religious values inculcated through the existing arrangement – an arrangement that by all accounts was highly successful.

Of course, when divorced parents don’t agree, courts inevitably get involved. But, judges must take great care not to take sides in religious disputes. The big surprise came when a judge ordered Amanda to attend government-run school, not on the basis of educational progress, but to counter what the court believed was a narrow religious world view, and to “expose” the girl to a “variety of points of view.” As the judge saw it, “ (i)t would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” Come again? Doesn’t every parent rightfully have this kind of influence over their children?

Now imagine mom was a vegetarian, or an ardent anti-war pacifist. Would a court muse that a ten year old child has been wrongly denied the carnivorous point of view, or should be exposed to military and pro-war types to broaden her thinking? Or perhaps that the narrow views of a Democrat Party official needed to balanced with exposure to Tea Party philosophy. After all, the child is only ten years old; how can she know what she really thinks about health care until she hears other views? More to the point imagine a Muslim parent being told this veil thing is too restrictive; how will young Fatima know if she really wants to follow Islam or wear a burka until she hears Lady Gaga on some other kid’s iPod?

The rules change, though, if the context is some type of Christian orthodoxy that actually believes in something like (gasp) a traditional religious view of right and wrong, or even sin. Overall, a court has no place in evaluating the merits of religious upbringing – unless, of course, it violates the new orthodoxy of relativism. After all, we can’t have kids thinking that sort of stuff any longer, can we?
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest


Mom’s Homeschooling Views Work for Her Child but not for NH Judge

A home school case being argued in the New Hampshire Supreme Court Jan. 6 is a window into the kind of subtle bias against Christianity that permeates our modern institutions. Only, in this case it’s not even subtle. The reasoning of a lower court is a jolting revelation of how Biblical Christian values may be publicly marginalized.

People believe in and express strong opinions on all kinds of subjects. When the subject violates the politically correct orthodoxy, however, the rules of engagement change because “we don’t want to encourage that kind of thinking any longer.” It’s something like the grown-up version of shunning the kid in the schoolyard who doesn’t dress or speak the “right way.” Suddenly, certain subjects, i.e. Christian views, must be corrected at all costs; even at the expense of parental rights.

The controversy in NH started in a common enough way – with a divorce, and a young daughter, Amanda, born during the marriage. For four years the matter of schooling was more or less agreeably compromised with the mother home schooling Amanda, while providing occasional classes at the local public school. The plan was successful by anyone’s measure of progress; Amanda excelled academically, and all agreed she was well-socialized and happy. At some point, however, the father decided he would rather see their daughter in public school, and applied pressure for the mother to end the home school arrangement. The mother, on the other hand, wanted to continue the personal attention and emphasis on religious values inculcated through the existing arrangement – an arrangement that by all accounts was highly successful.

Of course, when divorced parents don’t agree, courts inevitably get involved. But, judges must take great care not to take sides in religious disputes. The big surprise came when a judge ordered Amanda to attend government-run school, not on the basis of educational progress, but to counter what the court believed was a narrow religious world view, and to “expose” the girl to a “variety of points of view.” As the judge saw it, “ (i)t would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” Come again? Doesn’t every parent rightfully have this kind of influence over their children?

Now imagine mom was a vegetarian, or an ardent anti-war pacifist. Would a court muse that a ten year old child has been wrongly denied the carnivorous point of view, or should be exposed to military and pro-war types to broaden her thinking? Or perhaps that the narrow views of a Democrat Party official needed to balanced with exposure to Tea Party philosophy. After all, the child is only ten years old; how can she know what she really thinks about health care until she hears other views? More to the point imagine a Muslim parent being told this veil thing is too restrictive; how will young Fatima know if she really wants to follow Islam or wear a burka until she hears Lady Gaga on some other kid’s iPod?

The rules change, though, if the context is some type of Christian orthodoxy that actually believes in something like (gasp) a traditional religious view of right and wrong, or even sin. Overall, a court has no place in evaluating the merits of religious upbringing – unless, of course, it violates the new orthodoxy of relativism. After all, we can’t have kids thinking that sort of stuff any longer, can we?

Link please?
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801

These untruths again?

"Thou shalt not lie."
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Sort of like saying Christians are anti-father.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053

Sort of like saying Christians are anti-father.


You a Christian?
Logged

Pat McCotter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
Logged
Visualize Whirled Peas

Give Pizza Chance

I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright

Pat McCotter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
Logged
Visualize Whirled Peas

Give Pizza Chance

I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright

creaganlios

  • Guest

Once again, running off half-cocked with a half-baked story. It always does wonders for the credibility of christian home education circles when this stuff continues to circulate like an urban legend....and Madelyn Murray O 'Hair wants religious broadcasting off of the airwaves, and Pepsi left out "Under God" on their "Pledge" cans.... ::)
Logged

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293

That does sound very typical.  The world has made bad into good and good into bad.  According to the world there is noting worse then a Christian.  Don't be surprised by the replies on this board..most of these folks are not very tolerant of Christians.  Well I guess they will "tolerate" Christians if they keep quiet.  Like the way racists will tolerate blacks as long as they act white.  Most of the folks here I think would quietly agree with that judge and do the same thing once they had the power.

like your username - Glad you are post trib...not many americans are.


Mom’s Homeschooling Views Work for Her Child but not for NH Judge

A home school case being argued in the New Hampshire Supreme Court Jan. 6 is a window into the kind of subtle bias against Christianity that permeates our modern institutions. Only, in this case it’s not even subtle. The reasoning of a lower court is a jolting revelation of how Biblical Christian values may be publicly marginalized.

People believe in and express strong opinions on all kinds of subjects. When the subject violates the politically correct orthodoxy, however, the rules of engagement change because “we don’t want to encourage that kind of thinking any longer.” It’s something like the grown-up version of shunning the kid in the schoolyard who doesn’t dress or speak the “right way.” Suddenly, certain subjects, i.e. Christian views, must be corrected at all costs; even at the expense of parental rights.

The controversy in NH started in a common enough way – with a divorce, and a young daughter, Amanda, born during the marriage. For four years the matter of schooling was more or less agreeably compromised with the mother home schooling Amanda, while providing occasional classes at the local public school. The plan was successful by anyone’s measure of progress; Amanda excelled academically, and all agreed she was well-socialized and happy. At some point, however, the father decided he would rather see their daughter in public school, and applied pressure for the mother to end the home school arrangement. The mother, on the other hand, wanted to continue the personal attention and emphasis on religious values inculcated through the existing arrangement – an arrangement that by all accounts was highly successful.

Of course, when divorced parents don’t agree, courts inevitably get involved. But, judges must take great care not to take sides in religious disputes. The big surprise came when a judge ordered Amanda to attend government-run school, not on the basis of educational progress, but to counter what the court believed was a narrow religious world view, and to “expose” the girl to a “variety of points of view.” As the judge saw it, “ (i)t would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” Come again? Doesn’t every parent rightfully have this kind of influence over their children?

Now imagine mom was a vegetarian, or an ardent anti-war pacifist. Would a court muse that a ten year old child has been wrongly denied the carnivorous point of view, or should be exposed to military and pro-war types to broaden her thinking? Or perhaps that the narrow views of a Democrat Party official needed to balanced with exposure to Tea Party philosophy. After all, the child is only ten years old; how can she know what she really thinks about health care until she hears other views? More to the point imagine a Muslim parent being told this veil thing is too restrictive; how will young Fatima know if she really wants to follow Islam or wear a burka until she hears Lady Gaga on some other kid’s iPod?

The rules change, though, if the context is some type of Christian orthodoxy that actually believes in something like (gasp) a traditional religious view of right and wrong, or even sin. Overall, a court has no place in evaluating the merits of religious upbringing – unless, of course, it violates the new orthodoxy of relativism. After all, we can’t have kids thinking that sort of stuff any longer, can we?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 11:19:25 am by ONLYWAY »
Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."

Alex Libman

  • Guest

I have little respect for the Jebus-commies, but there is no religion more dangerous than government.  All other religions, when separated from the state, are subject to competitive forces and in the end can harm no one but themselves.

One alleged exception to that is religion imposed on children, but that goes to the very question of why those children have life in the first place and the nature of Parents' Rights.  Being brainwashed by your parents until you can be emancipated from them is a very small price to pay for being alive.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 01:36:15 pm by Alex Libman »
Logged

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293

See what I mean post trib.  This little kid alex thinks it is ok to call Christians Jebus-commies and the other folks on this site probably think it is funny.

Alex, Jesus is God and He loves you.  Even you want to reject Him and live for yourself please don't mock my religion or my God.  AND Christians are not commies and neither am I...

I have little respect for the Jebus-commies, but there is no religion more dangerous than government.  All other religions, when separated from the state, are subject to competitive forces and in the end can harm no one but themselves.

One alleged exception to that is religion imposed on children, but that goes to the very question of why those children have life in the first place and the nature of Parents' Rights.  Being brainwashed by your parents until you can be emancipated from them is a very small price to pay for being alive.

Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."

Alex Libman

  • Guest

This little kid alex thinks it is ok to call Christians Jebus-commies and the other folks on this site probably think it is funny.

I doubt anyone finds me funny other than myself, and myself is the target audience I write for.


Alex, Jesus is God and He loves you.

Then I guess he didn't see this thread on the other BBS.  The subconscious homoerotic qualities of all popular portrayals of Jesus is a documentary-worthy subject, but I'd produce my Mohammad-on-Aisha lolicon sitcom first just to balance things out.  ;)


Even you want to reject Him and live for yourself please don't mock my religion or my God.

You will find literally hundreds of serious threads where I've defended the Rights and functionalist virtues of religious people.  I do business with highly religious people on a daily basis.  I've done a lot of work for charities, including many religious ones (ex. original design of MissionariesOfAfrica.org).  I can respect religious people as individuals for all their other qualities, but I will not censor my views on religion, especially not in a proper forum on the Internet.  If your faith requires other people's respect, then, sorry, it doesn't have mine.


AND Christians are not commies and neither am I...

Yeah, and camels easily slide through the eye of a needle...   ::)
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

How would Christianity be viewed as communism?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Sort of like saying Christians are anti-father.


You a Christian?
Catholic. But the courts position was actually about maintaining each parent's joint custody legal rights. The young girl was questioning her father's love for her because he refused to support her and her mother's beliefs.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 07:42:32 pm by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

ONLYWAY

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 293

Actually this was one of the top stories of the day...I saw it on several news outlets...why are you calling her a liar?  maybe she should call you ignorant or uninformed. 

This is an important story and speaks directly to the govt trying to run family decisions with their own perverted morality...and yes if someone thinks a Christian education is brain washing and hurtful to a child then they do have a perverted moral system.  I don't understand why the moderator of these forums just brushes it off and calls this person a liar.

Also, I noticed you are quoting scripture so please don't be offended when I do the same.  Perhaps the difference is that it is ok to quote scripture if you are being sardonic.


These untruths again?

"Thou shalt not lie."
Logged
New Hampshire Charter:  "Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necesity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government amonng us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such governments as shall be, to our best descerning, agreeable to the will of God..."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up