Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[NYcarbineer]

[The only thing government ever does is take away our rights. laws exist to limit government and protect us from it, they do not exist to establish our rights. I honestly do not understand why that concept is so hard for you to grasp, you have actually provided plenty of quotes that say exactly what I am saying, do you not read your own posts?

You talk as though laws exist in a vacuum and somehow enforce themselves without government.

'Laws exist to limit government' What? That makes no sense. Would you have us eliminate the Supreme Court, for example? Would you have us eliminate the federal government,

so states could make their own rules, and put their own legal limitations on your rights, such as was tried in Illinois with the handgun ban?

Would less central government allow states to bring back school segregation, if they so chose, or segregation in general, or discrimination against homosexuals, or limitations on voting rights,

if the majority in a state so chose? Is that your vision of a better world?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders deemed unalienable rights to be one's property--that which was acquired honorably or ethically and it was not be touchable by the federal government - and -

Whatever a person thought or did that required no participation or contribution from another person. Thus a person's thought, speech, faith, understanding, privacy, and what he or she did in privacy or in cooperation via social contract with others was untouchable by the federal government.

Homeschooling one's child would absolutely be deemed an unalienable right by the Founders. The community or state in which a person lives could also make schooling, even public schooling, mandatory that would be in addition to home schooling. But it could not deny a parent the right to teach his/her child however he/she saw fit.

Hopefully we still have enough local and state leaders who still understand the principles behind self governance and unalienable rights and who also are capable of common sense that only the most wacko states would outlaw homeschooling for parents who want to forego public education for whatever reason.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founders deemed unalienable rights to be one's property--that which was acquired honorably or ethically and it was not be touchable by the federal government - and -

.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks , such as "NYcarbineer", believe that Karl Marx , was our Founding Father.

So according to the narcotized we only have those rights granted to us by the bureaucrats.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Where does it say in the COTUS, that children should be taught fantasy passed off as "education"?

Or are you all ones that think the earth is 10 thousand years old and that man walked with dinasours?

And you wonder why our childrens education is sucking hind tit. Imagine the up and coming scientist who was taught that the earth is only 10 thousand years old. Gee they sure would command respect and their opinion would be highly thought of. At least by todays Rethugs who believe that ONLY the Bible has the "right" information.

Don't the taliban believe that only the Koran has the right information also.

But what I am really tired of is using Federal tax dollars to make kids more stupid by allowing parents to send their kids to a "religious" schools. You parents that want your kids ignorant and stupid, pay for their supposed education yourselves.

Looks like public education is doing such a wonderful job too

Graduation rates are a fundamental indicator of whether or not the nation's public school system is doing what it is intended to do: enroll, engage, and educate youth to be productive members of society.

Yet every year, approximately 1.3 million students—that's over 7,000 every school day—do not graduate from high school on time. Nationwide, only 69 percent of students earn their high school diplomas. Among minority students, only 56 percent of Hispanic, 54 percent of African American, and 51 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native students in the U.S. graduate with a regular diploma, compared to 77 percent of white students and 81 percent of Asian Americans.

High school dropouts face a lifetime of reduced earnings and a diminished quality of life. For example, a high school dropout's lifetime earnings are, on average, about $260,000 less than a high school graduate's. Local communities, states, and the American economy suffer from the dropout crisis as well - from lost wages, taxes, and productivity to higher costs for health care, welfare, and crime, as shown in the potential economic impacts nationally and by state.


LITERACY - An underlining problem with many public schools
Reading Scores for 8th graders

NATIONWIDE - 68% tested BELOW grade level in "Public Schools"

New York - 65% tested BELOW grade level
Illinois - 66% tested BELOW grade level
California - 77% tested BELOW grade level
District Of Columbia - 84% tested BELOW grade level

High School State Cards (updated March 2012) | Alliance for Excellent Education

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders deemed unalienable rights to be one's property--that which was acquired honorably or ethically and it was not be touchable by the federal government - and -

.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks , such as "NYcarbineer", believe that Karl Marx , was our Founding Father.

So according to the narcotized we only have those rights granted to us by the bureaucrats.

.

Actually I think NYcarbineer doesn't admire Karl Marx all that much--as a product of the public school system he may not even know who Marx was or be able to explain the concepts Marx promoted--most public schooled people can't.

But the public schools do not teach the principles behind unalienable (God given) rights these days. They do overtly or more subletly by implication do push an agenda of big government being the mother, father, end all, and great benefactor/protector of the people. As such they are infused with the idea that government is far more important than individual thought or pirnciples. Critical thought is discouraged. Group think is mandated.

And that in a nutshell is the number one reason a parent would choose to homeschool. He/she wants the child to be educated with real history, economic concepts, political and social savvy as well as being grounded in competent reading, writing, math, science, and critical thought. He/she wants the child to be encouraged to hold traditional values that have improved the condition of humankind, and wants the child to look to himself/herself, not to the government, as the master of his/her destiny.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So the people who the other day were insisting that owning and driving a car was not a fundamental right are now insisting that homeschooling is??

lol, funny stuff.

Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.

What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?

No actually they don't.

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.

What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?

No actually they don't.

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

Shak.....you have confronted the true value of the fascist in the post to which you are responding....

We can see it defined in Mussolini's own summary of the Fascist philosophy:
"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)
MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM


For fascists such as the poster, Sloth, the state controls, is responsible for, and is the be-all and end-all.

Taking children from parents is part of the fascist view.

After all, the progressive President who made the US the first fascist nation, Woodrow Wilson's view:
This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111)

This is what we must fight to the last breath.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders deemed unalienable rights to be one's property--that which was acquired honorably or ethically and it was not be touchable by the federal government - and -

Whatever a person thought or did that required no participation or contribution from another person. Thus a person's thought, speech, faith, understanding, privacy, and what he or she did in privacy or in cooperation via social contract with others was untouchable by the federal government.

Homeschooling one's child would absolutely be deemed an unalienable right by the Founders. The community or state in which a person lives could also make schooling, even public schooling, mandatory that would be in addition to home schooling. But it could not deny a parent the right to teach his/her child however he/she saw fit.

Hopefully we still have enough local and state leaders who still understand the principles behind self governance and unalienable rights and who also are capable of common sense that only the most wacko states would outlaw homeschooling for parents who want to forego public education for whatever reason.

The Founders had no clue what were or weren't rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.

What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?

No actually they don't.

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

The government has every right to do so if the People have delegated that authority to the government, which in the case of compulsory education,

they have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders deemed unalienable rights to be one's property--that which was acquired honorably or ethically and it was not be touchable by the federal government - and -

.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks , such as "NYcarbineer", believe that Karl Marx , was our Founding Father.

So according to the narcotized we only have those rights granted to us by the bureaucrats.

.

Actually I think NYcarbineer doesn't admire Karl Marx all that much--as a product of the public school system he may not even know who Marx was or be able to explain the concepts Marx promoted--most public schooled people can't.

But the public schools do not teach the principles behind unalienable (God given) rights these days. They do overtly or more subletly by implication do push an agenda of big government being the mother, father, end all, and great benefactor/protector of the people. As such they are infused with the idea that government is far more important than individual thought or pirnciples. Critical thought is discouraged. Group think is mandated.

And that in a nutshell is the number one reason a parent would choose to homeschool. He/she wants the child to be educated with real history, economic concepts, political and social savvy as well as being grounded in competent reading, writing, math, science, and critical thought. He/she wants the child to be encouraged to hold traditional values that have improved the condition of humankind, and wants the child to look to himself/herself, not to the government, as the master of his/her destiny.

Nobody can argue the facts in this case.

Would you abolish the Supreme Court?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No actually they don't.

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

The government has every right to do so if the People have delegated that authority to the government, which in the case of compulsory education,

they have.

There are some folks who propound that view of the power of government.

Sieg heil!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

The government has every right to do so if the People have delegated that authority to the government, which in the case of compulsory education,

they have.

There are some folks who propound that view of the power of government.

Sieg heil!

It is exactly the basis upon which the Constitution is written.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a powerful central government that protects your rights. The more local you make government the more chance you have to lose rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The government has every right to do so if the People have delegated that authority to the government, which in the case of compulsory education,

they have.

There are some folks who propound that view of the power of government.

Sieg heil!

It is exactly the basis upon which the Constitution is written.

How are you coming up with these posts, randomly hitting the keys on the the keyboard?


"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010



So....the writers of the Constitution, "defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right," are at one end of the political spectrum.....

...and you and the other totalists on the other.

Get it now?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a powerful central government that protects your rights. The more local you make government the more chance you have to lose rights.

Haven't you thought this through?

You'd have no rights under that kind of government.



OMG!!!

I used a form of the word "think" referring to you!!!
My bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are some folks who propound that view of the power of government.

Sieg heil!

It is exactly the basis upon which the Constitution is written.

How are you coming up with these posts, randomly hitting the keys on the the keyboard?


"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010



So....the writers of the Constitution, "defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right," are at one end of the political spectrum.....

...and you and the other totalists on the other.

Get it now?

Are you not aware that the Constitution gives elected representatives POWERS?

Are you not aware that compulsory education at the state level is constitutional?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is exactly the basis upon which the Constitution is written.

How are you coming up with these posts, randomly hitting the keys on the the keyboard?


"Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right."WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010



So....the writers of the Constitution, "defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right," are at one end of the political spectrum.....

...and you and the other totalists on the other.

Get it now?

Are you not aware that the Constitution gives elected representatives POWERS?

Are you not aware that compulsory education at the state level is constitutional?

Are you not aware that there are more posts in this thread than Babe Ruth had homeruns???


Are you not aware that only the Leftist fascists argue that government has the right to co-opt the rights of a citizen??


Are you not aware that 'compulsory education' is as amorphous as the word 'up'???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought rights to you were rights no matter what the law said. You're beginning to choke on your own nonsense, which, incidentally,

is certainly not the least entertaining thing I've seen so far this week.

I choked? You made the claim that the Constitution protects the right to have consensual sex, I provided evidence that it does not, how did I choke?

The Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas:

"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Your obfuscation notwithstanding.

Yet the same court has no problem with prostittuion, which is sexual congress between consenting adults, being illegal. Still wondering how I choked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong with you exactly?

I am trying to figure out if you really believe the shit you spout. If you really believe rights come from laws then any country that pulls people off the streets and kills them is justified, and there would be no reason to object to that happening. Come to think of it, since rights come from laws, there would be no reason to be upset if a country forces a rape victim to marry her rapist, or simply killed rape victims.

If, on the other hand, you think there is something wrong with that, then you obviously agree with me that rights come from someplace else.

The highlighted portion wrongly assumes that no one can object to the law. We have a government of the People in this country because we want the People to decide what rights we have and what rules we will follow. There is no Rights Fairy.

The right to legally own a handgun in Chicago was recently upheld by the Court. The Court of Law. The Rights Fairy did not magically overturn that law, or prevent it from being passed in the first place.

We relied on the more powerful central government to dictate to the smaller, more local, less powerful government what the rules are, what the right is.

It assumes no such thing.

I am pointing out the obvious, there is no ground for objecting to laws unless rights come from a source other than laws. Every time you argue that laws are the source of rights you justify the fact that Saudi Arabia can kill people for theft.

By the way, we did not rely on a more powerful government controlling a smaller government in McDonald v Chicago. No one that understands the way things work has ever argued that, and no one will, even the idiots that think the 2nd doesn't apply to individuals never argued anything like that.

McDonald relied on the fact that people have a right to self defense that supersedes the government, just like all of our rights do. Anyone that relies on the government to protect their rights will end up rationalizing away their rights in defeinse of the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[Really? What lawmaker decided that abortion is a right? If it is lawmakers that decide what rights are abortion would not be a right, it would be a wrong because the lawmakers said that abortion is murder until someone else said that it is a right.

Constitutional law is made by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is constitutional law. Roe v. Wade happened when that big arm of the big central government told the smaller government,

you can't do that because that is a violation of rights. The Supreme Court identified the right and protected it.

Just as they did when they shot down the Chicago handgun ban.

Did you miss the question I asked?

What lawmaker decided that abortion is a right?

Hint, the Supreme Court does not make laws.