Reply With Quote
Screw that. I prefer living in our townhome close to downtown.
Not like this. A scant 20 years ago you could find such a situation. Today, good luck.
Screw that. I prefer living in our townhome close to downtown.
1950-1990 was the anomaly, not the other way around.
Not at least in smaller and semi-smaller burgs.
I think its a states rights issue, I don't know what all you non-Californians are so upset about.
No, seriously...I disagree with the ruling wholeheartedly, even knowing that some of these homeschooled kids are taught with the Bible as their only textbook, they really aren't any worse off than the kids not learning a damn thing in the public schools here.
And I gotta laugh at that "patriotism and loyalty to the state" line...when was the last time us secular liberals were ever accused of being mindless patriots?
Does anyone have a link to the posted article?
I'm a father of three homeschooled children, and would like to get this information out to our homeschool association.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNJDVF0F1.DTL
Though I wouldn't worry too much if you aren't in Cali.
The movement is most prevalent among white, middle-class families. It is growing among black families who are sick of the poor quality of public schools, but can't afford private schools.
It's like everyone else is Rosanne's husband and ChumpDumper is Rosanne and her sarcastic dry wit kids responding in tone where the voice trails of hoarsely at the end of every sentence.
Hmm, that particular post wasn't sarcastic. I don't know every poster's location.
I actually wouldn't be too worried about it in California either. Home schooling is here (and there) to stay.
It appears that this is one of those laws that the government can get you for if they don't like you for some other reason. In this case, the state appears to have a good reason (that there wasn't really much homeschooling going on in this case), but it's still a bad law.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,"
Holy ing , out and out, unmitigated fascism.
Ins utions, corps, and govt Uber Alles.
der Hitlerjugend.
On whose side would have been today's brown-shirted schoolkids when the American colonial insurgents expelled the King and his Redcoats?
Finally somebody uses a Fascism reference correctly!
When they can find time from taking their daily doses of meds to realize they are soon to be cradle to gravers.
From a jurisprudential standpoint, I don't understand the criticism of the result. Without digging too deeply, it would certainly appear that the California court simply followed the law -- the result is the result that the law dictates. Those who are upset with the court's decision and wish that it were different are, essentially (I think), advocating for the very judicial activism that so many complain about.
It would seem to further my argument that judicial activism is hardly just a "liberal" issue.
I think we've figured out the judges did what they had to do over the past 3 pages. However, it doesn't lessen the shock of actually seeing what the law dictates in print (and NOW being enforced).
I hope all the Texans are remembering that Texas schools are required to say the Texas pledge. California doesn't have all the nuts.
Or,
If all of a sudden, lawmen started arresting, and judges started sentencing individuals for violating the various states sodomy laws...wouldn't there be an outcry? Would the judges be immune to it - and left off the hook by the sodomites (no prejudice there; just using the appropriate word - all orientations can, and do, violate those laws)?
(....loyalty to the state...)
Yeah, but you can home-school in Texas (that's the point).
You REALLY don't want to get into a discussion of which school code has the more crazy mandates on it.
Right, and as you seem to recognize, that result is not on the judges. In a world where judges are frequently (and often, erroneously) charged with activism, here's an instance where there is no activism. Nobody, however, seems willing to applaud the judges for actually applying the law.
@ ES stance change in this thread. Wow dude, that was sure quick.
Stupid liberals! WAR ON THE LIBERALS!
If California liberals actually want to persecute home schoolers on religious grounds, I would be willing to travel there with weapons and contribute to the insurrection.
GOD DAMN IT WAR ON THOSE LIBERALS!It's been a long time since Americans have had to flee a state to avoid religious persecution. I guess the last time was the Mormons in the 1800's?
Liberals will do this to Christian families because they don't think the Christians will fight back. They'd never do this to Muslims because they know the Muslims would kill them.
The bas s may be in for a surprise. If they want to tear up the social contract, they need to remember who owns the guns in this country.
Then Chump says:
And then ES says:Croskey is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican governor.
! Its not liberals, cancel the war.And it may well be that Croskey has correctly discerned that California law does not allow homeschooling. In that case, Sacramento better change that law STAT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions