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 14069 times)

rossby

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

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?

I actually did not call her a liar: I wrote "untruths" (instead of "lies") for a reason. It's very possible she fervently believes that she's being religiously persecuted. She'd just be wrong. But how convenient it would be if she could frame her family troubles in terms of something that would give her instant sympathy and support? Then the 9th Commandment should service as quite an appropriate reminder of Christian values.


This is a sideways attack on Christianity and the family. They love to put freedom in a lose lose situation and especially love undermining faith.  Even if they chose to let the girl be home schooled everyone has conceded that the final word is up to the courts they will continue to expand this new found power as they always do.

You misunderstand the facts of the case. The courts have not done anything the father has not requested they do.

If they let the father win then they have proven again the court has more input then parents and children AND that Christian education is barinwashing and dangerous...

Again, you clearly misunderstand the facts of the case. This is civil dispute between a mother and father.


!.)  fact is that the mother and the girl want to keep the homeschool ed. and not attend govt schools.  She is not being harmed in any way physically or emotionally or socially and I am sure her education is much better.

The father disagrees. It is not your child.

2.)  What if the ex-husband was a sodomite living with his boyfriend and the mother said I don't want my daughter exposed to that perversion. I am sure in this twisted world they would say if she is not being physically harmed...

Again, you misunderstand the issues. As part of their divorce, the father has a right to be involved in the upbringing of the child, including educational decisions. The parents could not agree. IIRC, if was the mother who took the father to court. And the court sided with the father--and given the facts, rightfully so. (However, I personally do not think public school is good; just that the father was in the right.)

In your hypothetical, one parent seeks to keep the child from the parent completely because of the parent's beliefs. Sorry, very different situation.


...

And please, to all, take all "my church is better than your church" discussions out of this forum. This is not the corner of the Internets for that. While I have not read all the posts in this thread yet, please remember that bigotry violates this site's posting guidelines.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 04:24:00 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

ONLYWAY

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

Actually you did call her liar. you said "thou shalt not lie"

Actually you are again WRONG...again!  At least you are consistent.  The court did rule on this case on thursday...why don't you go and read the court filing and listen to some of the staements made by the judge before you dig your hole any deeper and get back to me.   http://www.christianpost.com/article/20110107/nh-supreme-court-hears-homeschool-case/

BTW - it is you that is full of untruths!  you should apologize to posttrib777 they are not the liar.  I wouldn't call you a liar over this issue but bigotted and ignorant would certainly fit.

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?

I actually did not call her a liar: I wrote "untruths" (instead of "lies") for a reason. It's very possible she fervently believes that she's being religiously persecuted. She'd just be wrong. But how convenient it would be if she could frame her family troubles in terms of something that would give her instant sympathy and support? Then the 9th Commandment should service as quite an appropriate reminder of Christian values.


This is a sideways attack on Christianity and the family. They love to put freedom in a lose lose situation and especially love undermining faith.  Even if they chose to let the girl be home schooled everyone has conceded that the final word is up to the courts they will continue to expand this new found power as they always do.

You misunderstand the facts of the case. The courts have not done anything the father has not requested they do.

If they let the father win then they have proven again the court has more input then parents and children AND that Christian education is barinwashing and dangerous...

Again, you clearly misunderstand the facts of the case. This is civil dispute between a mother and father.


!.)  fact is that the mother and the girl want to keep the homeschool ed. and not attend govt schools.  She is not being harmed in any way physically or emotionally or socially and I am sure her education is much better.

The father disagrees. It is not your child.

2.)  What if the ex-husband was a sodomite living with his boyfriend and the mother said I don't want my daughter exposed to that perversion. I am sure in this twisted world they would say if she is not being physically harmed...

Again, you misunderstand the issues. As part of their divorce, the father has a right to be involved in the upbringing of the child, including educational decisions. The parents could not agree. IIRC, if was the mother who took the father to court. And the court sided with the father--and given the facts, rightfully so. (However, I personally do not think public school is good; just that the father was in the right.)

In your hypothetical, one parent seeks to keep the child from the parent completely because of the parent's beliefs. Sorry, very different situation.


...

And please, to all, take all "my church is better than your church" discussions out of this forum. This is not the corner of the Internets for that. While I have not read all the posts in this thread yet, please remember that bigotry violates this site's posting guidelines.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 08:25:10 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..."

ONLYWAY

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

ah ha so now the truth comes out...you are drawing a moral equizalence between a Christian homeschool education and whipping and stoning???  really?  no wonder you don't get this thing.

The article is one-sided. It refuses to acknowledge the father's legal rights.

So the father shares responsibility, but has no say in the upbringing of the children?
If your child told you were going to 'Hell', because you didn't 'obey' her mother... what would your reaction be?

And should the government protect your wife's rights? Or should you be able to whip or stone her for her disobedience?





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..."

John Edward Mercier

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

No... the case was a legal matter.
Your suggesting that the government stay completely out of protection of legal rights.

And since the secular public education can not harm the Christian home schooling... as both can proceed, the Court didn't violate any protection of individual faith.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 08:34:21 am by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

ONLYWAY

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

Obviously this case is about a father and pervert govt agent (aka the judge) discriminating against Christianity.  If anyone disagrees with that then check out the reason for teh judge's decision and the father's claims.  This judge is a piece of garbage of that there is no doubt.  BUT how should things be set up to prevent the govt from having an excuse to be involved in this family or any other broken family.

The answer is simple...whoever breaks the marriage contract..either through adultery, abandonment, abuse etc loses their rights.  The logic is smiple.  The peson who broke the contract cares about themselves more then their family (child) so their motiviations are obviusly not as good as the other parent.  Visitation is another thing.  But as far these types of decisions and moral teachings it should be the parent who put the family first.
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..."

John Edward Mercier

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

Its not.
Its about the equal protection of rights.

Since the mother is not 'obey'ing her husband... maybe she broke the marriage contract?
By what means do you suggest the husband rectify this situation?

The mother is also supposedly teaching the child that the father will go to Hell, a determination that only God may make; thus violating the tenets of Christianity... by what means do we determine that she is capable of overseeing a Christian education?

Logged

ONLYWAY

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

NO...everyone agreed that the girl was accedimically advanced and socially adjusted...she has lots of friends.  The judge's reasoning was  that she was being taught a "rigid" religious indoctrination.  Stop making stuff up and stick to the facts.  the law reads that the education should remains staus quo (she was always homeschooled) unless she is being harmed.  So obviously the judge thought she was being harmed by her religious education  AND HE EVEN SAID AS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No... the case was a legal matter.
Your suggesting that the government stay completely out of protection of legal rights.

And since the secular public education can not harm the Christian home schooling... as both can proceed, the Court didn't violate any protection of individual faith.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 09:16:10 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..."

ONLYWAY

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

First of all her teaching is Biblically accurate..it is you who don't knwo what you are talking about.

Secondly, IT ISN'T UP TO ANYBODY TO EVALUATE...IT IS UP TO THE PARENTS!  Even is she was mormon (which I consider to be a false religion) I would dfend the parents rights to teach their child.

Your whole problem is that you think a Christian education is harming a child and you are such a statist that you think the govt should moderate.



Its not.
Its about the equal protection of rights.

Since the mother is not 'obey'ing her husband... maybe she broke the marriage contract?
By what means do you suggest the husband rectify this situation?

The mother is also supposedly teaching the child that the father will go to Hell, a determination that only God may make; thus violating the tenets of Christianity... by what means do we determine that she is capable of overseeing a Christian education?


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..."

John Edward Mercier

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

Biblically accurate? I don't remember in my Bible where anyone is given the authority to enforce God's commandments... could you point that out for me?

Secondly, IT ISN'T UP TO ANYBODY TO EVALUATE...IT IS UP TO THE PARENTS!  Even is she was mormon (which I consider to be a false religion) I would dfend the parents rights to teach their child.
Which the Court agreed with... hence the father gets his decision to public school, while the mother can continue to homeschool.
Logged

ONLYWAY

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

But the law you think is soo important reads that the status quo should be maintained in child's education as much as possible unless she is being harmed in some way.  The girl has always been homeschooled so can you tell me on what grounds she was forced into govt schools?  well i know you can but the question is will you?



Biblically accurate? I don't remember in my Bible where anyone is given the authority to enforce God's commandments... could you point that out for me?

Secondly, IT ISN'T UP TO ANYBODY TO EVALUATE...IT IS UP TO THE PARENTS!  Even is she was mormon (which I consider to be a false religion) I would dfend the parents rights to teach their child.
Which the Court agreed with... hence the father gets his decision to public school, while the mother can continue to homeschool.

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..."

creaganlios

  • Guest

But the law you think is soo important reads that the status quo should be maintained in child's education as much as possible unless she is being harmed in some way. 

The girl was being systematically poisoned against her father, in direct violation of the divorce decree, and her mother was hiding behind a shield of religious instruction in order to get away with it.

Is that blunt enough?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

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

Actually the law reads that those with legal custody should decide. And should they agree, then it remains status quo.
The Court only took up the case because those with legal custody could not come to an agreement.
Logged

ONLYWAY

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

Nice try...they have been divorced for like 6 or 7 years and the girls has always been home schooled AND they agreed as much back then.

Actually the law reads that those with legal custody should decide. And should they agree, then it remains status quo.
The Court only took up the case because those with legal custody could not come to an agreement.
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..."

ONLYWAY

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

Oh give it a a rest!    The girl was being taught truth, Bible truth AND even if she wasn't it is not your choice or the govts.  Whoever left the marriage contract should lose rights.  for example some guy fnds another woman or man and leaves his wife...screw him!!!  he gave up his rights when he started making decisions for himself and not his family.

The reality is that this idiot father is gong to totally alienate his daughter now...What i see is a godly mother and saved little girl who want to live godly lives being bullied by a sociopathic father and a sack of crap judge who thinks he should be in charge of other people's families.

But the law you think is soo important reads that the status quo should be maintained in child's education as much as possible unless she is being harmed in some way. 

The girl was being systematically poisoned against her father, in direct violation of the divorce decree, and her mother was hiding behind a shield of religious instruction in order to get away with it.

Is that blunt enough?
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..."

John Edward Mercier

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

What if its the mother that broke the marriage contract?

He's pointing out that your personal beliefs are clouding your factual knowledge.
Nice try...they have been divorced for like 6 or 7 years and the girls has always been home schooled AND they agreed as much back then.

Actually the law reads that those with legal custody should decide. And should they agree, then it remains status quo.
The Court only took up the case because those with legal custody could not come to an agreement.
And there wasn't a need for Courts when they agreed.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up