Zo interviews the founder of the Black & Beautiful billboard campaign
Zo: Okay. And yet these people think that people like you should be afraid of the white, right-wing Christian family that adopted you, right?
Ryan: Yeah! The white, right-wing Christian family, the ones who don’t care about children after they’re born, the ones who adopted ten children, loved them, fed them, paid for their college degrees. Yeah, those evil right-wingers. They’re horrible.
Zo: Now, even though the left-wingers would have had you killed before you even saw the light of day, right?
Ryan: Yeah, be killed and pocketed some money, yes.
Zo: Wow. That is some deranged dookie.
~ Zo interviewing Ryan Bomberger (pictured above) of the “Black and Beautiful” billboard campaign, PJTV, July 6
Jul.15, 2011 6:00 am |
Free Speech, Genocide, Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You know, I think that “Could you please explain how your conception wasn’t your fault?” may be the best interview question I have ever heard in my life. It cuts to the heart of the matter while being laugh-out-loud funny.
Great job to both Zo and Ryan. Not just on the interview, but your work in general. I love it.
Well, some conservative Republicans are racist. But it seems that many white “liberals” talk about diversity, etc., and live in the whitest suburbs and send their kids to the whitest schools they can find. People should be able to send their kids to any schools they want and live where they like, but I find this somewhat hypocritical. In other words, they “talk left, but live right!”
Beautiful. Beautiful ministry. Beautiful living of the gospel. Beautiful family. Beautiful message. Just plain beautiful.
But it seems that many white “liberals” talk about diversity, etc., and live in the whitest suburbs and send their kids to the whitest schools they can find.
Phillymiss, well, yeah, that’s no doubt true, although on the schools it may not be that they are “fearing non-whites” but rather it’s the best choice for school for their kids.
Likewise, even in the most “diversified” inner-city areas, one may find some real “conservatives,” as well.
Now, even though the left-wingers would have had you killed before you even saw the light of day, right?
That part is really silly. “Left-wingers” are not the ones trying to tell women what to do, in the main, that’s much more the province of “right-wingers.”
Doug, I think you missed the point.
@Doug, REALLY? Do you know that according to Planned Parenthood, they aborted over 300,000 babies last year and only referred 7,000 for adoption. That means they ARE telling women what to do with their bodies and to their children. They are telling them to kill their babies. Is it that they care so much for the women and their troubles? NO they are doing it to make money AND they make millions (all while raping the tax payer for $300+ million per year). Let me see??? Who is it that supports Planned Parenthood??? Must be those evil right-wingers, NO? Oh yeah that’s right… it’s the left-wingers that do that!… “And the truth shall set you free!”
I think I’d rather try to convince women that unborn humans are actually humans and they should not be arbitrarily killed. Either that or sit idly by while millions are slaughtered, then come to a pro-life blog and sneer at those “nasty right-wingers.” How dare they try and tell women that treating another human being as property to dispose of as they see fit isn’t a good thing.
@Doug — yes, just like Obama and the Dems oppose school vouchers that would allow Washington DC kids to escape the bad city schools, while sending their kids to very exclusive institutions.
TimH: Doug, REALLY?
Hey Tim. Yeah, really.
____
Do you know that according to Planned Parenthood, they aborted over 300,000 babies last year and only referred 7,000 for adoption. That means they ARE telling women what to do with their bodies and to their children.
It’s not up to PP to make the decision. It’s up to the woman. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, and she goes to PP, it makes perfect sense that most of the time she’s looking to have an abortion rather than continue the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption. If, in an individual case, PP employees really are “telling the woman to have an abortion,” without regard for what the woman herself wants, then I don’t agree with that, any more than I agree with the spin that some CPCs attempt to put on things. And of course – in any case, some given CPC personnel don’t determine what “right-wing” really is any more than some given PP personnel would determine what “left-wing” is.
____
Is it that they care so much for the women and their troubles? NO they are doing it to make money AND they make millions (all while raping the tax payer for $300+ million per year).
The vast majority of women who go to PP are glad they did, and glad that PP is there. Yes, PP does charge money, as most things do. The fact remains that PP does not determine what “left-wing” is, nor is it surprising that a lot of women who don’t want to be pregnant end the pregnancies versus continuing them.
____
Let me see??? Who is it that supports Planned Parenthood??? Must be those evil right-wingers, NO? Oh yeah that’s right… it’s the left-wingers that do that!… “And the truth shall set you free!”
That too is silly. In the quoted article, who is “these people”? At the very least, it’s generalizing (incorrectly) from the particular – and it’s just as incorrect to infer that PP or left-wingers in general would have somehow “forced” his mother to have an abortion. If she went to PP, she obviously didn’t end up having an abortion.
Doug — yes, just like Obama and the Dems oppose school vouchers that would allow Washington DC kids to escape the bad city schools, while sending their kids to very exclusive institutions.
Phillymiss, I’m not for the Obamas getting school vouchers, either. You think DC schools are bad now? Vouchers would rob them of a good bit of money. That’s one problem with vouchers in general. Another is that it violates the principle of the separation of church and state – you’d have tax dollars from not just people of a certain religion going to pay for vouchers for kids of parents of that certain religion.
Edit: internet gremlins; double-post.
Doug, please furnish us with proof of your “vast majority” because we also have stats that say more than half of abortions are coerced.
Waiting.
My tax dollars are already being funnelled to Planned Parenthood who gives some of the money to political candidates I don’t support. So cry me a river about voucher woes.
The vouchers are wrong I think. In fact I am against ANY form of education other than public schooling. Home schooling is wrong as are private schools and charter schools. No group of American children should be better funded and educated than any other. The idea is to provide 1st rate public schools for all our children.
I hate home schooling! You are depriving your children of a real education in more than math also you are not teaching them real science, just your bible censored version of it which is a disservice to your children. All form of schooling other than public should be illegal until that child goes to college.
Just keep wondering why we are falling behind the rest of the world while you deny science and refuse to teach it to your children… There is zero evidence of intelligent design but that don’t matter to you guys so no evolution for your children… Raising morons.
Public schools, really?
In California, students in many public schools score low on tests and in general most school districts have outdated facilities, including broken or out of order restrooms, dangerous environments for children (gangs, drugs) and worse. However, the governor of California has decided that we don’t need to fix all that, instead we now have compulsory ‘education’ about the contributions of gay people in history. Wow, I mean, we couldn’t just make a pro-gay movie or a pro-gay after-school televsion special to be viewed in their own private time, nooooo. Let’s just leave the facilities in disrepair, ignore the math, English, and geography scores, and keep teaching them feel-good BS that won’t help them later in life. So what if they graduate unable to read, balance a checkbook, or find Afghanistan on a map? At least they can twitter.
Public schools, indeed.
That part is really silly. “Left-wingers” are not the ones trying to tell women what to do, in the main, that’s much more the province of “right-wingers.”
I’d rather have someone “tell me what to do” than rip off my limbs and force me through a vacuum tube the diameter of my leg or poison me to death. Yeah, you REALLY missed the point, buddy.
Test results
Numerous studies have found that homeschooled students on average outperform their peers on standardized tests.[24] Homeschooling Achievement, a study conducted by National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), a homeschooling advocacy group, supported the academic integrity of homeschooling. Among the homeschooled students who took the tests, the average homeschooled student outperformed his public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. The study also indicates that public school performance gaps between minorities and genders were virtually non-existent among the homeschooled students who took the tests.[25]
In the 1970s Raymond S. and Dorothy N. Moore conducted four federally funded analyses of more than 8,000 early childhood studies, from which they published their original findings in Better Late Than Early, 1975. This was followed by School Can Wait, a repackaging of these same findings designed specifically for educational professionals.[26] Their analysis concluded that, “where possible, children should be withheld from formal schooling until at least ages eight to ten.”
Their reason was that children, “are not mature enough for formal school programs until their senses, coordination, neurological development and cognition are ready.” They concluded that the outcome of forcing children into formal schooling is a sequence of “1) uncertainty as the child leaves the family nest early for a less secure environment, 2) puzzlement at the new pressures and restrictions of the classroom, 3) frustration because unready learning tools – senses, cognition, brain hemispheres, coordination – cannot handle the regimentation of formal lessons and the pressures they bring, 4) hyperactivity growing out of nerves and jitter, from frustration, 5) failure which quite naturally flows from the four experiences above, and 6) delinquency which is failure’s twin and apparently for the same reason.”[27] According to the Moores, “early formal schooling is burning out our children. Teachers who attempt to cope with these youngsters also are burning out.”[27] Aside from academic performance, they think early formal schooling also destroys “positive sociability”, encourages peer dependence, and discourages self worth, optimism, respect for parents, and trust in peers. They believe this situation is particularly acute for boys because of their delay in maturity. The Moores cited a Smithsonian Report on the development of genius, indicating a requirement for “1) much time spent with warm, responsive parents and other adults, 2) very little time spent with peers, and 3) a great deal of free exploration under parental guidance.”[27] Their analysis suggested that children need “more of home and less of formal school” “more free exploration with… parents, and fewer limits of classroom and books,” and “more old fashioned chores – children working with parents – and less attention to rivalry sports and amusements.”[27]
John Taylor later found, using the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, “while half of the conventionally schooled children scored at or below the 50th percentile (in self-concept), only 10.3% of the home-schooling children did so.”[28] He further stated that “the self-concept of home-schooling children is significantly higher (and very much so statistically) than that of children attending the conventional school. This has implications in the areas of academic achievement and socialization, to mention only two. These areas have been found to parallel self-concept. Regarding socialization, Taylor’s results would mean that very few home-schooling children are socially deprived. He states that critics who speak out against homeschooling on the basis of social deprivation are actually addressing an area which favors homeschoolers.[28]
In 2003, the National Home Education Research Institute conducted a survey of 7,300 U.S. adults who had been homeschooled (5,000 for more than seven years). Their findings included:
Homeschool graduates are active and involved in their communities. 71% participate in an ongoing community service activity, like coaching a sports team, volunteering at a school, or working with a church or neighborhood association, compared with 37% of U.S. adults of similar ages from a traditional education background.
Homeschool graduates are more involved in civic affairs and vote in much higher percentages than their peers. 76% of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 24 voted within the last five years, compared with only 29% of the corresponding U.S. populace. The numbers are even greater in older age groups, with voting levels not falling below 95%, compared with a high of 53% for the corresponding U.S. populace.
58.9% report that they are “very happy” with life, compared with 27.6% for the general U.S. population. 73.2% find life “exciting”, compared with 47.3%.[29]
In summation: Biggz, your former statement was absolutely the epitome of moronic.
“I hate home schooling! You are depriving your children of a real education in more than math also you are not teaching them real science, just your bible censored version of it which is a disservice to your children. All form of schooling other than public should be illegal until that child goes to college.”
Um, excuse me? I was homeschooled, never set foot in a public school, and I do a lot better in general than others my age. And that was with parents who were really, really bad at homeschooling. I probably would have done a lot better with better parents, but I didn’t do poorly. I think you just basically called homeschoolers uneducated. As xalisae has shown, you are dead wrong.
I have my problems with homeschooling, and I won’t homeschool my own children, but it isn’t your or my decision to decide what other people’s kids are learning.
“we also have stats that say more than half of abortions are coerced.” – what, the ones you made up?
Wow, a homeschooling advocacy group delivers a report showing homeschooling in a positive light, what a surprise.
Provided links – running through wikipedia which I thought you didn’t advocate as a reliable source – lead us, in part, to HSLDA whose “officers, directors and employees are followers of Christ”.
Tell me xalisae, were you homeschooled? I mean, given your understanding of what constitutes an autobiography. If you weren’t homeschooled then maybe homeschooling does have some positives.
Ha, Reality I was just about to jump all over you for being unnecessarily insulting to homeschoolers before you edited. Thanks.
Oh, you mean the searching you obviously did in order to try and discredit the citations page? I’m sure it was nothing more than a cursory glance, right? Because it’s not as if when I went there to look, I didn’t easily find 2 articles from news publications right off the bat or anything. Oh no.
You have a problem with what constitutes an autobiography, take it up with amazon.com, because that’s where I got the list. By the way, I can’t believe you’re still beating that dead horse. If only you showed this much dedication when pressed to answer real, legitimate questions. XD
No, I wasn’t homeschooled, but I have relatives who were. One of them is a RN who graduated from college at the top of her class and has always been quite brilliant.
So since xalisae wasn’t homeschooled, you think it’s great now, right? :)
Goodness Biggz – do you have actual contact with families that do homeschool their children? I do- several of my friends homeschool, and they do a marvelous job. One family had their children at the top of the class of incoming freshmen at the local state university, and their children were kind, generous, very talented musically, incredibly well-rounded, and smart children. Totally well-prepared for the world and a gift to it.
And regarding the science and religion thing – please make yourself more acquainted with history -like the University system? Created by religious people. Hospitals? also created by religious people. Charity and help for the poor? yes- spearheaded by religious people. Like living in the New World? – having a system of government where you can say anything you want – including that science and religion are opposites (not true)- then you owe some allegiance to religious people. Like our constitution? Freedoms we enjoy today? signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious people.
And on and on.
many of today’s methods, constructed education and charity systems and other major advances in science were done by people of religious persuasion. Sorry you want to believe (and it is a belief) that science and religion don’t mix, but history says that is not so.
My brother is two years away from his Ph.D. at Stanford. He was homeschooled, finished his bachelors with a 4.0 in Economics at 16- got a job teaching at OU and a full-ride for a Math masters, worked at the Fed in Kansas City as an economist and then Stanford offered him a full-ride.
Yeah, homeschooling certainly didn’t fail my brother. Conventional school failed me. I dropped out of conventional school because it was a waste of my time and struggled to get a university to take me and was rejected once before admission because of my lack of a diploma (I teach at that same university now, ironically and will have my Ph.D. from there next August).
The science clearly shows homeschooled kids out-performing public school kids in virtually every subject. It seems people’s opposition to homeschooling is not the results, but that many do it out of religious conviction- which is why we have a separation of Church and State, to protect parent’s rights to properly educate their kids without government interfere. The Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around- It’s essential for religious freedom. Some clearly oppose religious freedom when it involves teaching our children ourselves, even when we do a superior job. There are some bad homeschooling parents out there, but on the whole, homeschooling is much more effective than even private school education. But that’s not the concern- The concern is that these children grow up with values that these people abhor, values like the sanctity of life, a strong work ethic, community service, personal responsibility and the like. Such people don’t vote to slaughter babies, live off others or expect to be taken care of. In other words, they don’t vote Democrat.
Public school is just fine, if you are of average or below average intelligence and have no real aspirations. Thus it makes sense why Biggz is such of fan of keeping everyone subliterate and not letting those with the motivation find education that actually WORKS.
Biggz: Good GRIEF. Are you out of your ever-lovin’ mind? There are a LOT of secular home-schoolers.
What on EARTH kind of citizen are you, wishing to criminalize the actions of free citizens in a free society — citizens who are bending over backwards to do better by their kids than their local public schools are doing? What kind of total fascist are you? And I’m not being insulting. I’m being descriptive. You’re talking like a fascist.
You think only religious folk are home-schooled? What kind of illiterate are you, rushing to opine on something you don’t know jack about?
Good GRIEF.
Doug: “Another is that it violates the principle of the separation of church and state”
No. The SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that vouchers that result in funds going to religious schools do not violate the first amendment.
I couldn’t care less whether it violates your extraconstitutional “principle of the separation of church and state.” Nor is the court ever obliged to respect anything except the Constitution. And your wish to restrict the freedoms of citizens on an extraconstitutional basis is tyrannical.
Liberals. They’re fine with a woman’s choice as long as it involves killing unborn children. In fact, if she’s in poverty they’d like to see this murder publically funded. But if a poor woman wishes to choose her child’s school, too bad. She can’t be empowered to choose even a secular school, because her exercise of such a choice must be curtailed in order to avoid any possibility of poor religious parents exercising free choices about their children’s education as well.
Vouchers aren’t about religion, they’re about liberty, parental responsibility, and empowering the poor.
Reality, I wouldn’t drop hints about other people’s intelligence if I were you. In the comic thread you demonstrated your capacity to lay claim to knowledge you simultaneously claimed no one would possess until the future. That’s a flat contradiction — and instead of issuing a simple “mea culpa” and moving on, you opted for tossing rhetorical dust in the air to obscure your irrationality.
Love his snarky sarcasim. It’s cute.
“Vouchers aren’t about religion, they’re about liberty, parental responsibility, and empowering the poor.”
Vouchers would be used for Catholic schools. But if money is ”fungible” then what is to prevent my tax dollars going to defense funds for those priests accused of sexual misconduct – let alone a religious group that, in the past, enabled this type of misconduct. And I’m not singling out Catholic schools. One could make the argument that tax payer dollars, paid out by non Catholics like me, shouldn’t be going to any school that promotes religion – particularly the ones that teach “creationism” and revisionist history such as what is being promoted by the Texas Board of Education. While I believe that Episcopalian and Reform Jewish schools are far more progressive, in their worldview, than Catholic and evangelical schools, it’s still a religious educational system. To take an argument used by the anti-choicers about Planned Parenthood – if parents choose to send their kids to religious schools, it’s their choice. Why should taxpayers reward it?
But the SCOTUS says that vouchers are acceptable and that’s a decision you applaud. Meanwhile, SCOTUS established Roe v Wade, which you will never accept. Can’t win them all!
And Rasqual, “rhetorical dust” – your droppings would fill countless dust pans! With all due respect, of course.
And back to the billboards. Here’s part of a scathing comment from an African American women, State Rep. Tishaura O. Jones:
“…Missouri’s laws that would further restrict abortion have no place in my bedroom or my uterus. Those same Bible-toting, scripture-quoting extremists who think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned are the same people who claim to care about black babies, which is utter nonsense.
If you care about black babies, why do they make up 25 percent of the more than 10,000 children in the foster care system, according to the Missouri Department of Social Services?
If you care about black babies, why are urban school districts crumbling?
If you care about black babies, why is Missouri No. 1 in crimes committed against black men?
I was insulted, to say the least, when Missouri Right to Life had the gall to put up billboards in black neighborhoods with offensive and blatantly racist messages.
The wholly unsubstantiated claim made on these billboards is that black women kill their babies, perpetuating the racist stereotype of black women as unfit mothers.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion, I believe that the overwhelming number of Americans would agree that this type of reprehensible rhetoric crosses a line that should not be crossed and has no place in the debate.
Although Missouri Right to Life enjoys a constitutional right to espouse a racist message if it so chooses, I am a black mother of a beautiful little boy.
I do not take it lightly when someone questions my integrity as a woman raising a child in this world.
So, Missouri Right to Life, when you start making a difference in the black community to help us raise our black babies, we can talk”
To take an argument used by the anti-choicers about Planned Parenthood – if parents choose to send their kids to religious schools, it’s their choice. Why should taxpayers reward it?
You have it precisely backwards, CC. Taxpayers are not “rewarding” parents who send their children to religious schools on the voucher system. They are relieving them of an unfair tax burden put on them for using their religious freedom. When my parents were sending us to school, they had to pay taxes for our “free” public education, then pay Catholic school tuition on top of that. As a result they could afford to send only two of us to the Catholic schools (I went to one for only two years – but they were the best and most memorable of my school days). The tax breaks vouchers give simply allow parents to pay a normal amount for their children’s schooling.
Biggz,
How much do you even KNOW about homeschooling?
Have you met any homeschoolers? Do you know people who are homeschooling? Have you looked at the programs? Researched the stats? Talked to anybody who does homeschool?
I know people who do homeschool and who have been homeschooling. In both cases the MAJORITY of homeschooled kids are intelligent, polite, well-adjusted socially and happy kids. (Well all of them were intelligent, but some were harder workers than others, but that goes with any kind of learning environment–some kids just apply themselves more–although I know someone who said he wasn’t “pushed” much in the Public School System)
One of my relatives got a full all 4 years scholarship to college (this one was homeschooled from kindergaten through high school). This person is now attending a public university for graduate school and making high marks, plus also doing some student-teaching at the university in his field. He thought about going into engineering, but then felt more strongly pulled toward music composition (which apparently has a relation to engineering in its thought process–I don’t understand it but he and my chemical engineer father both agree on that).
I don’t understand this comment, “If you care about black babies, why do they make up 25 percent of the more than 10,000 children in the foster care system, according to the Missouri Department of Social Services?”
Is State Rep. Tishaura O. Jones trying to say that if people cared about black babies they would adopt these children? Less than 25% of foster care children are available for adoption. Perhaps the Rep. should be applauding the families that open their hearts and homes to those black children while waiting for their biological family to be ready to care for them.
To Rep. Tishaura O .Jones,
I am trying to understand your remarks. Is it really Missouri Right to Life’s fault that so many black families treated their children horribly? Also, what was the original ethnic ratio of children stuck in the system? Where white children really being adopted out of foster at an unfairly high rate over the non-whites? Please back up your prejudicial remarks with facts!
Now in my opinion, I don’t give a rat’s tail about the ethnicity of the family mistreating their child, or “color” of the child(ren) stuck in the system. People are people, and they matter, period. But if someone wants to lay the blame for these particular tragedies at the white person’s feet, well, I have a bone to pick.
Finally, the campaign itself actually seems to applaud the black mothers who choose to birth their children and do a good job parenting. So it follows that absolutely no one is insinuating, Ms. Jones, that you are a bad mother. If MRTL is encouraging more black women to parent instead of abort, doesn’t that indicate a positive attitude toward the idea of black community?
Unless aborting is actually just as empowering and positive as giving birth. And I hoping that you do not believe that lie.
There is zero evidence of intelligent design but that don’t matter to you guys so no evolution for your children… Raising morons.
Wow, isn’t that interesting? I wasn’t aware that science in its entirety hinges on the theory of evolution. Guess ya learn something new every day.
P.S. – Are you aware that there are secular, evolutionist, pro-abortion, environmentalist home educators? I know a few, and I’m sure there are many more.
Has anyone here seen “Waiting for Superman?”
joy 12:04 – great post!!!
But that’s not the concern- The concern is that these children grow up with values that these people abhor, values like the sanctity of life, a strong work ethic, community service, personal responsibility and the like. Such people don’t vote to slaughter babies, live off others or expect to be taken care of. In other words, they don’t vote Democrat.
Jacqueline, good observations. Though I’m sure some do vote Democrat.
Hi Jack. No, I don’t have a problem with homeschooling per se. In fact I sorta, kinda, did a little bit of it myself with my partners son some years back before he entered high school as he had behavioural issues that the ‘system’ couldn’t/wouldn’t deal with.
The issue I do have with some homeschooling is when it is used as an opportunity to ensure the teaching of dogma instead of facts.
xalisae, you repeatedly contended that obama had written three autobiographies. Eventually, when I was joined by some others in pointing out your folly, you changed your claim to two autobiographies written by obama. And despite numerous requests you have refused to so much as give the title of the second one. Is it that hard? It’s just one little question. What are the two autobiographies written by obama? There’s nothing complex about it.
“it’s not as if when I went there to look, I didn’t easily find 2 articles from news publications right off the bat or anything. Oh no.” – why not show us then?
rasqual, your wishful thinking does not constitute a positive outcome for your assertion. No mea culpa warranted.
Hey Reality,
I wasn’t irritated with you, just Biggz for basically calling homeschooled people idiots. And I still think it is peoples business what they teach their children, as long as they can pass the testing required testing. I always scored far above grade level, so I think I wasn’t negatively affected by dogmatic teaching. And I taught myself about evolution and accept it just fine.
Reality: Do you claim that someday — not now — science will provide us with enough good knowledge about origins enough to force a choice on people who deem religion and science compatible with respect to God creating the universe?
If so, what is your warrant for the claim? Aren’t you acting as if you possess that knowledge now, in claiming that someday this will happen?
Or do you only have a hunch it will?
If the latter, why have you used language of certainty on the matter?
You keep denying your self-contradictions, but you really haven’t defended your remarks. Just assertions. Just denials, when they’ve been pointed out.
“as long as they can pass the testing required testing” – some might have a bit of a problem with some of the science topics though, eh.
rasqual, I keep trying to tell you – it’s god the creator who created the universe and life, or it isn’t.
“…some might have a bit of a problem with some of the science topics though, eh.”
Oh come on now. I passed the science evaluations just fine, even with YEC parents. They just told me not to believe anything that didn’t jive with their beliefs. You can’t force parents to teach evolution or other things they don’t agree with, it just isn’t going to happen. As long as their kids are meeting the requirements, it really isn’t a big deal. You don’t have to agree with it, but it’s protected.
So did your folks get you to give the ‘required’ answers rather than the ones they believed in and taught you?
I can’t verify the accuracy of this, but it’s amusing –
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/
“So did your folks get you to give the ‘required’ answers rather than the ones they believed in and taught you?”
They told me what they believed, I learned their version of creation science from the homeschooling textbooks. I basically taught myself the basics of evolution from a biology textbook, and they told me that I needed to answer the test questions from the biology text. I never bought YEC, while I think the other forms of creation aren’t disproven and fit the facts ok. Anyway, my parents are a bad example, they weren’t good teachers or good people. The homeschool families I know have, almost without fail, very bright well-educated kids. No, I don’t agree with the 6-day creation thing, but it is a parent’s choice if they want to teach that to their kids, along with intelligent design or OEC or whatever. Freedom of religion and all that.
My, admittedly limited, exposure to you finds you to be fairly well-balanced in my view Jack.
How far do you think things should go before parents get ‘pulled-back’ for the concepts they may try to plant in their childrens’ heads?
Well, thanks.
I don’t know. I was actually thinking about it the other day, how far parental control goes. I believe that there needs to be reasonable limits. In Florida you have to keep a portfolio of your kid’s school work and have it available if a state official wants to review it (never happens, btw). Also your kid has to be evaluated by a teacher or psychologist annually, or take the state standardized tests (or you can do both). That seems like a reasonable way to make sure that kids are keeping up with their peers.
I don’t think there is a way to evaluate exactly where that line is. It’s discretionary, that’s why states like Florida have a couple different ways to keep track of homeschooled children’s education. As for people’s concerns about creationism and ID, you really think that people won’t teach their kids these things if they believe them, whether homeschooled or not?
Yeah, I had that thought as soon as I posted. Even if a child is in ‘normal’ school, the parents will naturally still impart their way of seeing things, whether they be what I may consider rational or wacky.
True that. A lot of ideas that anyone would find wacky or just flat out awful are protected. I remember a court case where imparting white supremacist ideas to your children is protected under the First Amendment. Not sure who the parties were, but I found it shocking.
It’s a funny old world Jack. Mostly good though.
Reality: Not my question, Reality. Do you claim that someday — not now — science will provide us with enough good knowledge about origins, sufficient to force a choice on people who deem religion and science compatible with respect to God creating the universe?
Howdy rasqual.
Some people consider that there has already been enough scientific demonstration of the fallacy of biblical creationism to warrant a choice being made.
Others require more evidence before they finalise their conclusions. How much more evidence varies from person to person.
Then there are those who will never admit that science can show that god didn’t create the universe and life. They’ll claim something even more extraordinary and fantastic for god.
But if accommodationist scientists are scientifically honest, they’ll face the choice without running away.
Well, there. You nuanced it. A via media, a tertium quid, and diplomatic ambiguity all wrapped up in a great way of expressing your opinion.
Good show, I say!
Doug, please furnish us with proof of your “vast majority” because we also have stats that say more than half of abortions are coerced.
Ninek, many women have more than one abortion. I guess that “coerced” is a good point, but where do you get that statistic? More than a million women have abortions each year in the US, and there is no great epidemic of regret. Yes, some women – “many” women if you are talking hundreds, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, regret having an abortion, but the fact remains that it is their choice, and in a free society there is no guaranteeing that one won’t regret some of one’s decisions.
As far as I know, no good study has really been done, far enough after women having abortions, to really good a percentile read on it. As for “coercion,” very few people operate in a total vacuum – the are almost always other people involved. It remains the choice of the woman, come what may. Sure – there are the cases where the parents forbid the girl to have a baby, and there are cases where the parents tie the girl to a chair (literally, and so to speak) to try and prevent her from having an abortion, so “coercion” certainly works both ways.
Rasqual: The SCOTUS ruled in 2002 that vouchers that result in funds going to religious schools do not violate the first amendment.
That was for a Cleveland, Ohio, program where Justice Rehnquist said, “The Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion.” That is a far cry from the issue in other ares.
____
I couldn’t care less whether it violates your extraconstitutional “principle of the separation of church and state.” Nor is the court ever obliged to respect anything except the Constitution. And your wish to restrict the freedoms of citizens on an extraconstitutional basis is tyrannical.
First you talk about the First Amendment, then you talk about “extraconstitutional.” They are quite different. If religion really doesn’t come into it, then fine, but otherwise vouchers are taking gov’t money for private religious purposes.
____
Liberals. They’re fine with a woman’s choice as long as it involves killing unborn children. In fact, if she’s in poverty they’d like to see this murder publically funded. But if a poor woman wishes to choose her child’s school, too bad. She can’t be empowered to choose even a secular school, because her exercise of such a choice must be curtailed in order to avoid any possibility of poor religious parents exercising free choices about their children’s education as well.
That’s silly. It’s the woman’s choice, whether or not she thinks “child” applies or not. It’s also silly to talk of “murder” – one wonders if you know the definition. That you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “murder.”
The problem is public funds going into private, religious institutions. The solution for “poor women,” if you want them to send their kids to private schools, is to make the private schools free, or have a sliding scale to accomodate the means of the family, rather than take public funds.
____
Vouchers aren’t about religion, they’re about liberty, parental responsibility, and empowering the poor.
If that was really true, there wouldn’t be the opposition there is. It’s not true.
Of course the first option is obviously the most rational one.