Liberals get really testy when some folks, devout Christians for example, choose to live their lives under God’s laws; but have no compunction in compelling others to live under the tender mercies of the Nanny State where they make the rules.
Five years ago, when the smoking ban in restaurants first went into effect in my home state of Connecticut, I told a few folks who were happy about it, that it was only a matter of time before the government came after their private property rights or other issues that were near and dear to their hearts. Most people scoffed at my defense of the restaurant owners’ property rights and one fellow actually said, “"The problem with you people is that all you care about is the Constitution."
Of course, the ensuing years only saw more government intrusion and some shocking court decisions eat away at the liberties of a proud, freedom-loving people. The case that most disturbed my liberal friends was the U.S. Supreme Court’s shocking 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, which essentially eviscerated the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against depriving citizens of their private property except for “public use.”
Now, when I repeat my warnings that, with liberals in power, no one’s rights are safe, I hear little or no argument at all. And the fellow who chastised me about the Constitution has since actually read the eight-page document and is now a proud conservative who joins me in castigating those still in denial.
Yet, while I bemoan the liberal goings-on in my once liberty-loving state, I only have that much more empathy for the many good people of California, who also have a RINO governor, but labor under the "leadership" of a much worse regime. This week’s outrage concerns the ruling of an appellate court that "parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children" and that those who do so might be subject to severe penalties.
Now the judges in this case may actually have a legal leg to stand on, given that California really has no concrete provisions either for or against homeschooling on the books, but of course, that is not really the issue at hand. That more and more parents are taking direct responsibility for the raising of their own children is naturally troubling to the proprietors of the Nanny State.
The father in the case said that he withdrew his children from the public school system because, “"We just don't want them teaching our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe.” This is an affront to those who would wean our children on their secular, socialist agenda. Here is the real kicker from Judge H. Walter Croskey, writing the unanimous opinion:
The parents in the instant case have asserted in a declaration that it is because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” that they home school their children and those religious beliefs “are based on Biblical teachings and principles” . . . [T]hose assertions are not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California’s compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights. Their statements are conclusional, not factually specific. Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child.
One of the many reasons that Judge Croskey and friends fear additional “easily asserted” claims, just might have something to do with a law recently passed in California which states that: "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."
Yep, this law basically says that God might have erred when handing out sex assignments and that the little kiddies — no doubt aided by their state-sponsored counselors and teachers — can now assume whatever gender they choose. The bill also deals with revised “activities and instructional materials” to be used in class. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what that means.
Homeschooling is a threat to these folks because in states that continue to refuse to permit realistic school choice, concerned parents must look elsewhere. This particularly bucks the feminist agenda, which is huge in the educational field, because it encourages moms to stay at home and make the raising and educating of their children their number one priority instead of going out to do battle with the dreaded "glass ceiling." And it has the anti-God squad foaming at the mouth as well.
Liberals get really testy when some folks, devout Christians for example, choose to live their lives under God’s laws; but have no compunction in compelling others to live under the tender mercies of the Nanny State where they make the rules. They seem genuinely shocked when citizens refuse to cede their parental rights to them so they can fashion their children into liberal clones.
The case in California might unfortunately lead to more government regulation of homeschooling, but hopefully it will be overturned on appeal. In his opinion, Judge Croskey cited parts of Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 Supreme Court case dealing with an Amish family who wanted to withdraw their children from public school after the eighth grade. What Croskey didn’t cite was this from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger:
This case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the state, to guide the religious future and education of their children. The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring tradition.
mailbox@lisafab.com
http://www.lisafab.com
Read more articles by Lisa Fabrizio
“Public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality,” said Henry Fielding.
Even the arch-Utilitarian John Stuart Mill said, “a general state education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another … [which] establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.”
Parents should remember the words of Melinda Harmon, a Federal Judge, in 1996: “Parents give up their rights [to their children] when they drop the children off at public school.” Now that should frighten the hell out of any caring parent!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 14, 2008
The judge said "Moreover, such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to home school his or her child."
No parent should ever have to give a reason for homeschooling his own child! The state should be the one giving us reasons why we should let the them teach our kids.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 16, 2008
Mr Stapler, I agree. Here is an extract from my book (pages 11 – 13):
“At the same time however, European governments and courts trample over the freedom of their own people. In Germany for example, something called a "right of a child to a free education and maturation" means parents have an "obligation" to send their children to a government approved school. If they do not, the parents are thrown into prison, and the children taken into care. A certain Mt Stücher, who had the audacity to call for Christians to remove their children from school because he said schools had "fallen into the hands of ‘neomarxist activists propagating atheist humanism, hedonism, pluralism and materialism’” has been threatened with charges of "high treason and incitement of the people against the authorities." As Alexandra Colen reported in the Brussels Journal in an article titled "Hitler's Ghost Haunts German Parents", that charge is the same one used by the Nazis to silence their opponents.
“So far as I am concerned, charging anyone with "high treason" for encouraging parents to educate their own children, incarcerating parents for home-schooling their children, and incarcerating children for being home-schooled, shows contempt for the lives of such people, never mind their freedom. And even if there were such a thing as a 'right to life', tearing children away from parents who have so much love for them that they will sacrifice their own vanity to educate their own children, is an infinitely worse violation of the 'right to life' of those parents than condemning a monster like Saddam Hussein to hang by his neck until he is dead.
“These German homeschoolers did not just give in to this state terror however. They took their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – Konrad and Others v Germany; Application Number 35504/03. The parents, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, complained that a number of their ‘rights’ were being violated by the actions of the German government. These ‘rights’ are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and its various Protocols. Among these ‘rights’ are the following. “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” That’s Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. They also relied on Article 8 which provides that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” However, Article 8 has this proviso: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” These poor German homeschoolers even relied on the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (Article 9), and Article 14 which provides a sort of ‘right’ to “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” of the Convention “without discrimination on any ground of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, etc etc”.
“So, armed with this impressive arsenal of ‘rights’, one could be forgiven for thinking that these homeschoolers would at least have a fighting chance of maintaining some remnant of freedom in respect of their own children. But you would be wrong.
“The purpose of all these ‘rights’, said the Court, is in “safeguarding pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention. In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.”
“So there we have it. That’s what all these ‘rights’ amount to – “the preservation of the democratic society.” Or to put it plainly, a duty to obey all and any dictate of government.
“But it gets better. “The right to education … by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals.” And accordingly, says this Court, the right to education “implies the possibility for the State to establish compulsory schooling.”
“And there are no restrictions whatsoever on the content of this compulsory schooling.
"It is simply a charter for state indoctrination of children.
“In respect of the ‘right’ to family life, and the ‘right’ to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Court found that “any interference with [them] would, for the reasons above, be justified … as being provided by law and necessary in a democratic society and in the public interest of securing the education of the child.” Or, more properly, for securing the indoctrination of the child.
“Now that chilling statement of the Court perfectly sums up the nature of these ridiculous things we call ‘rights’. We simply have an expectation that government will follow certain defined procedures to pass laws, then follow another set of defined procedures to throw us in jail if we breach those laws. Governments are not subject to any set of principles in establishing laws to which we can appeal if we feel any particular law infringes on our freedom.”
As I warn in the book, just such ‘rights’ would one day visit the United States – I just didn’t think it would be so soon! Let’s hope that the CA courts have more sense than the European ones!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 29, 2008