-- Comment At Your Own Risk --
Read that again my friend:
“We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.”
It doesn’t say in the school system it says “independent of…or encompassed” by. That means you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to “direct the upbringing and education” of your children, in regards to sexual material.
This isn’t about contract rights or law, its about the government having the absolute authority to decide what’s best for your kids regardless of if they are in public schools or not.
Res brings up an excellent point. The way this decision is worded, there is plenty of room for the government to move into both private and homeschools at some future time and dictate what is taught there. Moreover, it leave room for any intervention the government might someday decide to take in the raising of our children.
Right on Res and Birdie! This is dangerous precedent. Things are rapidly changing in our land now and things are falling in place for real persecution. Better turn to the only One who can help you and start praying about what you are going to do!
Love and shalom,
Someone please show me the contract
Must be one of those "social contracts". The same one where you agreed to pay for government schools even if you have no childen.
Good job, Difster. That was my opinion as well after reading about this over at Billy D's blog.
Res, Birdie - that's the dangerous part of the ruling. If it hadn't included that sentence, I wouldn't care what they had ruled.
I commented with this over at Billy D's site...From the 9th circuit ruling: "While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. Whether it is school curriculum, the hours of the school day, school discipline, the timing and content of examinations, the individuals hired to teach at the school, the extracurricular activities offered at the school or, as here, a dress code, these issues of public education are generally 'committed to the control of state and local authorities'" (Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist., 6th Cir. 2005.) We (the 9th circuit in this ruling) endorse and adopt the Sixth Circuit's view.
So, Dif, you are on the money when you assert that the state serves the interest of the state not the parents. They'll tax our butts off and tell us when and where to go take a crap.
We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.
I guess I was mostly paying attention to the sentence above when I wrote my post.
I'm going to have to think about that other part a little more. If I take off my tinfoil hat for a moment, it just looks like it means that you have no recourse if your kid happens to get sexually related material other than from you (common sense). Putting the tinfoil hat back on, it certainly looks like the judge is saying that the government has the right to force sexual (and other) instruction on your children.
We must beware when the state makes ANY ruling regarding their authority over our children. I believe we should oppose any and all rulings of that nature, whether our children are in public schools or not. The slippery slope begins...
hmmm, Reinhardt? Is he from The Hague?
I'd think differently of it if it were worded 'to which their children CAN be exposed' instead of WILL be exposed. Although I can understand inadvertent exposure to undesired information, it's still a parents responsibility to prevent such information from being exposed to children when it becomes apparent.
...what was the POINT of that survey? It sounds like a bunch of leading questions that are aimed at determining if kids are sexually abused or not. Problem is- with that sort of question, doesn't it put stuff into the kid's heads?
Sounds like the start of a witch hunt, to me.
You're absoultely right Moonbatty, no child should be asked those questions unless there is a REALLY good reason for it.
So, Difster, if I understand correctly, just because it is public school, we should make no effort to demand a certain level of decency? I just get the feeling your opinion is more driven by spite than what would be the good thing to so. Like your saying, "Ha ha! Take that you losers." I'm not a big fan of the public school system, but for now it is the way the majority receives their education. Should we not do what we can to ensure it has some level of standards? Especially when we pay for it (no choice in the matter) whether we use it or not.
It's convaluted and tortured logic. Not to mention overreaching and unconstitutional. The ninth circiut will be overturned once again. I agree with Res Ispa - the reach wasn't for total authority in school but total state outhority over, per se.
As an aside - I put my kids in public school today. I will be talking to my kids about what kind of information is appropriate to share with their school/teachers on a daily basis. We are in a very conservative school district however. Schools don't try this tripe when there is an overwhelming amount of conservative lawyers whose children they're teaching.
I agree with Res' original thought. This wasn't a contract, this was the school deciding on how and what to teach YOUR children. This was just another step of the government controlling the educational process of your kids.
It's no wonder that many of the liberal educational associations are dead set against homeschooling. They kids are actually learing, not becoming indoctrinated.
I thought about this at work today. Dif, how is this ruling benficial to the country? Why support it because it allows you to say, "See. Socialism doesn't work." Wouldn't it be better to advocate the premise that government should not overstep it's bounds so much? By your "it's your bed you made, now lie in it" logic, you should revel in every failure of socialism, and rejoice each time the ACLU wins a case. Then you can point and say, "See, I told you socialism doesn't work." Does the "See, I told you so" argument tend to be persuasive for you? Because I would like to learn your technique for persuading people by reveling in their failure. Wouldn't it make more sense to continue to advocate the ways in wich alternatives are successful, such as the success you've had educating your daughter, and the success of localities that allow for school voucher programs. We got this socialist in small increments, and that's how we need to get out. Celebrating yet another increment that takes us in the wrong direction is not persuasive, nor is it beneficial.
Fitch, the result of this case is NOT beneficial to the country at all.
The reason that I support part of the ruling is that it reveals the true nature of the beast. The ruling was essentially correct. When you hand your children over to the government with no contract, you no have absolutely NO say in what happens. You can vote with your feet and take your child out of the system but until then they are in loco parentis. The government serves as the parent because YOU allowed it. This ruling simply revealed what is but certainly not the way it should be.
Commenting by HaloScan
