Posted by Sharon on August 28 2009 at 20:42:02:
In Reply to: Following their loss in Federal Court, HSLDA suit resumes in state courts posted by Howard Richman on August 26 2009 at 21:07:34:
Howard, This is far from new theology. The new theology is that a child is property of the state and the state can decide what is best for a child even when no crime has been committed. The Hebrew scriptures clearly states that it is the father´s responsibility to teach and train his children. Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Proverbs 22:6. These teachings are repeated in the New Testament in Ephesians 6:4 and Galatians 4:2. The Massachusetts colony was not known for its religious tolerance or freedom of expression. People were imprisoned or ran out of the colony who did not hold to their Puritan beliefs; which is why the Baptist preacher Roger Williams founded the Rhode Island colony.
I believe as did Jefferson who was a huge proponent of public education, but thought that it was wrong to force it on anyone. "It is better to tolerate the RARE instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father." I believe as did our Founding Fathers that parents will act in the best interest of their children. I do not educate my children because the state demands it, I educate my children because I love them and want to do what is best for them. I do not want one of my nine children to someday point a finger at me and say, "I cannot do what I desire with my life because of the poor upbringing (education) you gave me!"
Forcing children into state schools is something that happened in the 20th century with the idea of helping people who could not afford it. The Supreme Court has repudiated your theology that the state owns the child. The Supreme Court stated that the “child is not the mere creature of the state.” (Yoder v Wisconsin) and has upheld the parent´s right to choose where the schooling of their children takes place (Pierce v Society of Sisters).