Religious Freedom Day is January 16th. Why is it that I have never heard of it. I mean I have heard of Black History Month, Arbor Day, Earth Day, etc., etc. Obviously I have never heard of it because it was not talked about in school or in libraries or in the news etc. Here is an interesting quote about it from California Catholic Daily.
"Public school teachers and administrators are confused and afraid when it comes to students’ freedom of religious expression,” says Eric Buehrer, president of Gateways to Better Education -- a national organization based in Lake Forest (Orange County) promoting greater awareness of Religious Freedom Day.
“This confusion results in public schools censoring students’ freedom of religious expression,” says Buehrer. “We get reports of teachers telling students they cannot talk about their faith; can’t talk about the birth of Jesus; can’t mention their faith in a homework assignment.”
Each year since 1993, the President has declared Jan. 16 to be Religious Freedom Day, and calls upon Americans to "observe this day through appropriate events and activities in homes, schools, and places of worship." It is the anniversary of the passage, in 1786, of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- an important influence on the First Amendment.
In addition to Religious Freedom Day, both Presidents Clinton (in 1995 and 1998) and Bush (in 2003) had the U.S. Department of Education issue guidelines on students’ religious freedom. Each time, the secretaries of education sent the guidelines to more than 15,000 school district superintendents and asked them to distribute them to administrators, teachers, parents, and students. But, like Religious Freedom Day, that request has also been largely ignored.
“I know of no school district that distributed the guidelines like the Department of Education asked them to,” says Buehrer.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
German Homeschoolers Flee the Country
WorldNetDaily has a disturbing article today about the German crack-down on homeschoolers. The article states that homeschooling families are starting to flee the country.
[A] German family wrote to object to such actions.
"The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling," said a government letter in response. "... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."
The European Human Rights Court earlier affirmed Germany's homeschool ban.
That specific case addressed in the opinion involved Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who filed the complaint in 2003 and argued that Germany's compulsory school attendance endangered their children's religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family's Christian faith.
The court said the Konrads belong to a "Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible" and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs that the courses there include.
The German court already had ruled that the parental "wish" to have their children grow up in a home without such influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance." The decision also said the parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education.
The above quotes lead me to think these attacks are religious/spiritual in nature. I thank God we still live in a society where we are free to raise our children as we see fit. I applaud the parents in Germany who have not caved and have given up country, friends, and family to do what they feel called to do.
Part of the way this country goes against God is in giving the government the responsibilities that he gave to individuals. One of those responsibilities is that parents are to train up their children in the Lord. To me, this includes educating them from a Christian worldview.
[A] German family wrote to object to such actions.
"The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling," said a government letter in response. "... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement."
The European Human Rights Court earlier affirmed Germany's homeschool ban.
That specific case addressed in the opinion involved Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who filed the complaint in 2003 and argued that Germany's compulsory school attendance endangered their children's religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family's Christian faith.
The court said the Konrads belong to a "Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible" and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs that the courses there include.
The German court already had ruled that the parental "wish" to have their children grow up in a home without such influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance." The decision also said the parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education.
The above quotes lead me to think these attacks are religious/spiritual in nature. I thank God we still live in a society where we are free to raise our children as we see fit. I applaud the parents in Germany who have not caved and have given up country, friends, and family to do what they feel called to do.
Part of the way this country goes against God is in giving the government the responsibilities that he gave to individuals. One of those responsibilities is that parents are to train up their children in the Lord. To me, this includes educating them from a Christian worldview.
Monday, January 7, 2008
SWAT Team Takes 11-year-old at Gunpoint
After an accident while rough-housing, an 11-year-old boy was checked out by paramedics. They didn't find anything wrong, but recommended that he be check out at the hospital. The dad (having served with the paramedics in Vietnam) said no thanks and chose to monitor the boy himself. CPS was sicked on the family and then finally a SWAT team took the child at gunpoint!! The SWAT team took the child to the hospital where doctors deemed there was nothing wrong with the boy. The following is a quote from the WorldNetDaily article.
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.
However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father's illegal behavior. "I can't tell you specifically," he said.
"He was refusing to provide medical care," the sheriff said.
However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.
"I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision," the sheriff said.
But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
OK. Notice how being a "constitutionalist" makes you some kind of a threat. Notice how even the sheriff acknowledges that he would have wanted to make that decision himself. And I think that I would be rude and confrontational if the paramedics came into my house without permission. This kind of stuff makes my blood boil.
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.
However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father's illegal behavior. "I can't tell you specifically," he said.
"He was refusing to provide medical care," the sheriff said.
However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.
"I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision," the sheriff said.
But he said Shiflett was "rude and confrontational" when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.
OK. Notice how being a "constitutionalist" makes you some kind of a threat. Notice how even the sheriff acknowledges that he would have wanted to make that decision himself. And I think that I would be rude and confrontational if the paramedics came into my house without permission. This kind of stuff makes my blood boil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)