26 Comments to “Homeschooling is Illegal in California”

1. HP said:
   March 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm EST

   That’s ok. You keep on voting for Obama, and those Christian parents that are forced to send their kids to public school will be forced to have them taught about evolution and how “natural” homosexuality is, ESPECIALLY in California, the home of San Francisco…

   http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58317

2. Lance said:
   March 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm EST

   I completely agree with him. And for the record, I voted for Ron Paul.

3. HP said:
   March 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm EST

   I wasn’t talking about hate speech or the fact that all people should be treated equally (other than the fact that GOD defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and I choose to “obey God rather than man” on that score). I can love the sinner, but still call sin SIN. And I refuse to let a public school teach my children that homosexuality is ok. (I said “homosexuality,” not “homosexuals.”) I can’t imagine the frustration of any Christian parents in San Francisco who are homeschooling and saw the ruling in this post. If you don’t think its coming soon, that may be because you are privileged to teach where you do, in a Christian school. There is an agenda out there, we are all just a bunch of frogs in the frying pan watching the temperature rise. Satan has his eyes on our children, he is seeking who he may devour.

4. Steve said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 1:07 am EST

   I’m thinking the “California Appellate Court for the second district” has seriously miscalculated their ability to hi-jack the Constitution to suit their liberal agenda(s). There is no way this is going to stand.

5. Roy said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am EST

   God fearing folks need to put aside their bigotry and treat everybody with respect. Let ‘your’ God pass the judgement…

6. Lance said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 8:25 am EST

   The ruling actually stemmed from a case where a son claimed that his father, a homeschooling dad, was abusing his younger siblings. The lawyers in the case, presumably trying to protect the children, went the unusual route of challenging the dad’s right to be their “teacher” … and the resulting ruling was vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations (including the one I quoted from an appeal in the case). I don’t think that anyone had an agenda going in (other than to protect their clients) … but it sounds like the California Education Code might have some glaring holes in it.

   There are a number of reasons, including the teachings on homosexuality and other hot-button issues, why parents might choose to homeschool their children. Personally, the quality of the school/teachers would be a much bigger motivation for me than any particular curricular content. I was just surprised and reminded of my sister’s experience in Germany.

   HP, I thought it was strange that you brought Obama into this topic … so the video I posted was merely intended to be a clarification of the viewpoint (and the motivation behind it) about GLBT rights that he has consistently held throughout his career.

7. HP said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am EST

   Their “rights” as equal Americans and human beings I do not question. Its when their “agenda” impedes upon my right to raise my family as I see fit and to be a married man as God defines marriage. So the problem I have with candidates like Obama who back these GLBT groups with a blank check is that their agenda most definitely includes impeding on my rights. Candidates need to say that they are equal people under the Constitution, but draw the line when their special interests want to push their agenda beyond that point. The same as they don’t want me to “force my religion” on them, I don’t want it coming the other way at me either.

8. Lance said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am EST

   Woah, that’s a big accusation. Who’s “back[ing] these GLBT groups with a blank check”? Any evidence?

9. HP said:
   March 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am EST

   When a candidate backs them unconditionally, I call it a blank check. Especially when you look at what these organizations are REALLY trying to do. If you read this article, you will note that it does not bash homosexuals, it bashes their attempts to indoctrinate children that their unBiblical lifestyle is normal and ok, whether those children’s parents agree with that or not. And they do it in a PUBLIC SCHOOL with taxpayer dollars to boot! I’m telling you, its coming, and you’re sticking your head in the sand if you don’t believe me. It starts innocently enough, but thats how it started with evolution, and now you should SEE how many times it says “millions of years ago” in our kids textbooks…

   I would like to see a candidate say they are still people that God loves and who are equal as human beings under the Constitution, but that their lifestyle goes against God’s principles as laid out in scripture.

10. Lance said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 11:05 am EST

    So no evidence? I see.

    I think I’m a little confused. Do you want a pastor or a president? Expecting the same from the C.E.O. of any major public corporation in our country would be ludicrous …

11. HP said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm EST

    The country isn’t a corporation. I would love to have a Pastor as our President, or at least a Bible believing Christian. One nation under GOD….etc. Though I know that isn’t a reality. Despite his faults, I do believe that Bush at least has a relationship with Christ and has attempted to lead with that perspective in mind. (No wonder the left has attacked him! Can’t TOLERATE a Christian in command now, can we?)

    I hate to paste in a really long article as “evidence,” but I think you are being sucked in by this new form of subtle persecution (Satan is subtle, if nothing else) called tolerance. I’m a pretty busy guy and I don’t have a lot of time to look up a bunch of evidence regarding these gay/lesbian groups and their “agendas.” Maybe somebody else on this blog has more time than me to find evidence to support the obvious.

    the following is taken from:
    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/focusmagazine/publicpolicy/A000001074.cfm

    “Tolerance” has become a primary goal of schools, government and media. Yet few of us understand what our society means when the word tolerance is used.

    The new definition

    Tolerance traditionally means simply to recognize and respect others’ beliefs, practices and so on, without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing.

    But today’s definition is vastly different. Based on the assumption that all truth is relative (a view held by 66 percent of the American public, according to The Barna Group), this new tolerance means to consider every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle and truth claims as equally valid. So not only does everyone have an equal right to his beliefs, but all beliefs are also equal, demanding praise and endorsement of that person’s beliefs, values and lifestyle.

    This new tolerance gets complicated.

    1) In a belief system where the sole virtue is tolerance, the cardinal sin is, of course, intolerance.

    2) Since tolerance is based on the assumption that all truth is relative, it becomes not only permissible but also imperative to be intolerant of those who do not agree that truth is relative.

    3) To the relativist, then, it is not inconsistent to be intolerant of Christ-followers who insist that absolute moral standards do exist, which is considered inherently “intolerant.” That is why many institutions can endorse all sorts of views and behaviors while simultaneously condemning or silencing biblical Christianity.

    Love’s response

    Such a monumental cultural shift presents a formidable challenge to even the most savvy Christian. But it is a challenge that can — and must — be met. God’s Word offers the timeless guidance we need.

    Writing to the church in Ephesus, a first-century city with many 21st-century characteristics, Paul urged the church to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). That biblical prescription has never been timelier.

    In fact, speaking the truth in love is not only timely but also critical. We must recover — without embarrassment or apology — the basic belief in truth. This means embracing all people but not all beliefs. It means listening to and learning from all people but not necessarily agreeing with them. Even if it makes us objects of scorn or hatred, we must courageously speak the truth in a sympathetic, compassionate and humble spirit (1 Peter 3:8).

    Christians are subject to a much higher standard than tolerance. We are called to follow the way of Christ, who accepted the despised Samaritans and Phoenicians (John 4; Mark 7:24-30) and treated even prostitutes and tax collectors with dignity (Luke 7:36-50; 19:1-10). The Christian imperative exceeds tolerance, which simply avoids offending someone; we are commanded to “do everything in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14).

    Tolerance says, “You must approve of what I do.” Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will love you even when your behavior offends me.”

    Tolerance says, “You must agree with me.” Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth, because the truth will set you free.”

    Tolerance says, “You must allow me to have my way.” Love responds, “I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because you are worth the risk.”

    Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.

    It will not be easy to speak the truth in our homes, schools, churches and communities. But we must obey the Word of God rather than yield to the pressure of our culture.

12. HP said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm EST

    oh… them italics be UGLY! remove them if you’d like!

13. Lance said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm EST

    I replaced the “i” with “blockquote” in your tags … makes quoted material so much prettier, like this:

    quoted material

    I went to church in college with the co-author of that article, Bob Hostetler … in fact, I’ve talked with him on several occasions about this very topic. And it’s quite striking to me how much Barrack Obama’s words in the video above echo that article’s sentiment. Ironically, claiming that the current political candidates are endorsing niche special interest groups, without any evidence, seems to directly contradict the article’s urgings.

    Truth is, we are not a Christian nation … and until we learn to place Christ in the proper context, we will only continue to resist His kingdom and bring shame to His name. We’re about to finish eight excruciating years in our country’s history with a pastor (albeit, a terrible one) as president … and the result clearly speaks for itself.

14. HP said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm EST

    You need to find a plugin that puts little buttons at the top for italics, blockquotes, bold, and a href’s…

15. Lance said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm EST

    Yeah, I might. I’d like to avoid cluttering it up, but maybe I could get rid of some of those smilies to make room.

16. Annie said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pm EST

    While a few homosexual people may have an “agenda” of some kind, in my experience most homosexual couples/families are just out in the world, trying to raise their children and live as regular Americans, just like you and me. No one has ever been able to explain to me how marriage and equal legal rights for GLBT folks infringes on my rights as a married heterosexual woman.

    I’m an English teacher in a public high school, and I attend a church that welcomes every person, regardless of belief, so I know many same-sex couples, with and without children. I have yet to see any “evidence” of an agenda - But I see the struggles that they go through on a regular basis because they are discriminated against by hateful Christian people who only claim to “hate the sin, not the sinner.” It was this kind of attitude that almost made me leave the church in college. Luckily, I’ve found a church who doesn’t subscribe to this point of view.

    I teach my students that they are allowed to have any point of view about any subject, and they are allowed to express it in my classroom. But they must express it with respect for everyone involved. Not all of my students are from a Christian background — It’s not my job to make them believe what I believe. It’s my job to teach them how to think for themselves and express their opinions intelligently, without disrespecting others. I happily support this agenda of tolerance.

    Our country is hateful enough as is it.

17. HP said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 10:01 pm EST

    Annie,

    If hating sin makes me “hateful” so be it. God also hates sin, and I strive every day to be more like Him.

    I was going to attack your church, but then I reread what you wrote. I do like the idea of a church “welcoming every person” because I believe it is the sick who need a doctor (Jesus ATE with sinners). But its one thing to eat with the sinner and welcome him into your church, its quite another to deny that what he is doing is sin and not to try and help him out of said sin. Again, I’m not the one who calls it sin…. GOD is. So you can take your argument to Him regarding whether homosexuality is sin or not, and whether God hates sin or not. I, for one, will not allow any teaching of my children (who are in public school) that teaches them that homosexuality is “OK,” or just an “alternative lifestyle,” because it ISN’T“OK,” its abhorrent to the Holy God that I serve.

    “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them: Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: no not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. I have two daughters who as yet have not known man : I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof. But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a, stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors. And behold the men put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door: And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door. And they said to Lot: Hast thou here ally of thine? son in law, or sons, or daughters, all that are thine bring them out of this city: For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them.” (Gen. 19:4 -13)

    “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,” (1 Tim 1:8-10)

    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”(Lev. 18:22)

    “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Lev 20:13)

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”(1 Cor. 6:9-10)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” (Rom. 1:26-28)

    “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)

    “And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly.”(2 Peter 2:6)

18. HP said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm EST

    Oh, and if you are trying to figure out what I mean by an “agenda” get this book out of your library and read it and prepare to have your eyes opened.

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html

    (I’m done trying to do “a href” links.)

19. Lance said:
    March 9th, 2008 at 11:50 pm EST

    By the way, AOL linked to this post on their home page this morning … so lots of people (who came to read about homeschooling) have been reading this dialogue.

20. HP said:
    March 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am EST

    How do you continually get linked to by places like AOL and Google???

21. Willy Wong Ka said:
    March 10th, 2008 at 7:48 pm EST

    “Truth is, we are not a Christian nation … ”

    WHOA!!! You quotin’ ME, Sam?

    “… and until we learn to place Christ in the proper context, we will only continue to resist His kingdom and bring shame to His name. We’re about to finish eight excruciating years in our country’s history with a pastor (albeit, a terrible one) as president … and the result clearly speaks for itself.”

    1. GWB never claimed to be a pastor, despite having access to the “bully pulpit”.

    2. As long as you keep on taking peoples’ word for the fact that they are Christians, instead of observing how they live, you are acting as stupid as the mainstream media. Yeah, I know, that sounds judgmental — so, I’m judgmental. Jesus said to judge righteous judgment, and Paul said to set those who were least esteemed in the church as judges (partly to shame the Corinthians, and partly to point out that if they were going to judge angels in the future, they better start with easier stuff).

    3. Forget the lofty stuff about putting Christ in the proper context and concentrate on living like a Christian. The living is the proof of the believing, because if you don’t believe He is the righteous judge of His people, you have a big surprise coming at wood-hay-stubble time.

    HP - you need to [a href=blah][/a]

22. HP said:
    March 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am EST

    I need to need to [a href=blah][/a]??? What does THAT mean????

23. Ronda said:
    March 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm EST

    I’m too busy homeschooling my children to comment on everything in this thread, but I did want to pop in and say that both the governor and state superintendent of education in California have spoken out against this case and declared that homeschoolers rights will be protected. There is more work to be done to make sure that this one case does not have the authority to set a precedent for all homeschoolers in California, but those statements have set at ease the minds of some homeschooling families there, at least for now.

24. Sarah Sears Webel said:
    March 16th, 2008 at 8:21 pm EST

    If you read the res of the California case, “teaching credential” does not equal education degree/license…

25. HP said:
    April 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm EST

    Nope, the gay lesbian groups don’t have any kind of agenda attempting to indoctrinate elementary aged kids that homosexuality is merely an “alternative lifestyle” and “diversity” in action… Never mind the Christian parents who have raised them to believe what GOD’S WORD has to say about it.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60734

    I told you it was coming and people who didn’t think so had their heads in the sand. If the above case doesn’t get turned over by the Supreme Court then technically we no longer have the right to pull our children out of school the day of their Halloween parties for religious reasons, and we can’t ask to have them sit out when they are being shown a film that we feel is inappropriate (both of which we have DONE). And it would be of no use to complain to the teacher that our 3rd grader was given a book with multiple instances of incredibly vulgar language in it and asked to read it for an assignment. (We were told it was a piece of important “literature.” I responded that there was an entire library of “literature” to pick from that would be more appropriate to a 3rd grader… I mean, I read some stuff like that in high school, and that’s one thing. But in 3rd grade???)

    This is starting to hit a little bit too close to home for my liking…

26. Palm Sundays said:
    May 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm EST

    California Homeschooling Update…

    The court ruling by a California Appeals court that made homeschooling illegal in California has been given a new hearing.

    a ruling concluded parents in the state held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooli…..

Leave a Comment