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.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Close to Home
Free Market sent me an update with a story I find truly disturbing. It is a short article. Here it is.
A Fort Worth mother was kicked off a bus this past week for reading the Bible to her children on the way to church. After Christine Lutz was ordered by her bus driver to stop reading the Bible to her children and told this was not the appropriate time or place for that, she disagreed. The bus driver pulled over soon after, and Mrs. Lutz and her children were escorted into a supervisor's van. Free Market's legal division has stepped in to represent Mrs. Lutz in the case. She is demanding an apology letter from the Fort Worth transit system. In addition, Free Market's legal division is seeking clarity from the transit authority in what has become a public debate, demanding that the transit system distribute a letter to all its drivers, informing them that individuals have the freedom to read the Bible while riding public buses.
Here is my response from Fort Worth Public Transportation.
On Saturday, Dec. 29, on Route 6, a T bus operator reported that a womanwas reading in a very loud voice. It is against The T's bus policyfor passengers to be loud or disruptive while riding the bus. Such busrules, as no loud or disruptive behavior, are a common practice withinthe public transportation industry to help ensure a calm and safeatmosphere and respect for all passengers. They are posted clearly atthe front of the bus.
After the passenger declined to lower her voice, the operator calledthe supervisor to assist. The supervisor met the bus and explained tothe passenger that it was the loudness of her reading that was againstthe T's policy. The lady would not lower her very loud voice and so the Supervisor transported her to her destination and allowed her toread as loud as she wished.
It was not what she was reading, it was the very loud and disruptivevolume. She was asked to lower her voice, but refused. Otherpassengers on the bus were looking to the driver for proper enforcementof the rules.
This driver acted in a very courteous and professional manner toproperly deal with the situation. The T, as a public transit authority,has no policy against reading any type of material on the bus. Only when behavior of a passenger reaches an extreme volume, such as in thiscase, is a supervisor called.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Ruddell
President, The T
I then called Free Market. They said that was the T's story, but at the time the driver actually said that it was innappropriate to read the Bible out loud on the bus. They are standing by the mother's version of the events.
A Fort Worth mother was kicked off a bus this past week for reading the Bible to her children on the way to church. After Christine Lutz was ordered by her bus driver to stop reading the Bible to her children and told this was not the appropriate time or place for that, she disagreed. The bus driver pulled over soon after, and Mrs. Lutz and her children were escorted into a supervisor's van. Free Market's legal division has stepped in to represent Mrs. Lutz in the case. She is demanding an apology letter from the Fort Worth transit system. In addition, Free Market's legal division is seeking clarity from the transit authority in what has become a public debate, demanding that the transit system distribute a letter to all its drivers, informing them that individuals have the freedom to read the Bible while riding public buses.
This shows the anti-christian mindset arising in America today. If this had been a muslim mother reading the Koran, there would have been public outrage. Well, I at least plan to voice my displeasure with the Fort Worth public transportation.
EDIT 1/10/07Here is my response from Fort Worth Public Transportation.
On Saturday, Dec. 29, on Route 6, a T bus operator reported that a womanwas reading in a very loud voice. It is against The T's bus policyfor passengers to be loud or disruptive while riding the bus. Such busrules, as no loud or disruptive behavior, are a common practice withinthe public transportation industry to help ensure a calm and safeatmosphere and respect for all passengers. They are posted clearly atthe front of the bus.
After the passenger declined to lower her voice, the operator calledthe supervisor to assist. The supervisor met the bus and explained tothe passenger that it was the loudness of her reading that was againstthe T's policy. The lady would not lower her very loud voice and so the Supervisor transported her to her destination and allowed her toread as loud as she wished.
It was not what she was reading, it was the very loud and disruptivevolume. She was asked to lower her voice, but refused. Otherpassengers on the bus were looking to the driver for proper enforcementof the rules.
This driver acted in a very courteous and professional manner toproperly deal with the situation. The T, as a public transit authority,has no policy against reading any type of material on the bus. Only when behavior of a passenger reaches an extreme volume, such as in thiscase, is a supervisor called.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Ruddell
President, The T
I then called Free Market. They said that was the T's story, but at the time the driver actually said that it was innappropriate to read the Bible out loud on the bus. They are standing by the mother's version of the events.
Friday, January 4, 2008
God is Sovereign
Randy Alcorn has a good blog today. Here are a couple of quotes.
Isaiah 33:22 says, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." That about covers it, doesn't it? God is the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the government of the entire universe. Men are not saviors. Only God is. Put yourself first under God's government, and only second under man's.
Yet God delegates to men governmental authority, as Romans 13 makes clear. And in any country He honors leaders who bow their knee to Him and are willing to say and do what is right regardless of its popularity.
To reiterate, my faith is in God, not Mike Huckabee. But the reason I'm serving on Mike Huckabee's Faith and Family Values Coalition (which doesn't take much time, just phone conferences every couple of weeks) is because I think I should do my small part to shine some light and not just curse the darkness.
He also has some pictures of the caucus watching party he attended with Brett and Alex Harris and family.
Isaiah 33:22 says, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." That about covers it, doesn't it? God is the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the government of the entire universe. Men are not saviors. Only God is. Put yourself first under God's government, and only second under man's.
Yet God delegates to men governmental authority, as Romans 13 makes clear. And in any country He honors leaders who bow their knee to Him and are willing to say and do what is right regardless of its popularity.
To reiterate, my faith is in God, not Mike Huckabee. But the reason I'm serving on Mike Huckabee's Faith and Family Values Coalition (which doesn't take much time, just phone conferences every couple of weeks) is because I think I should do my small part to shine some light and not just curse the darkness.
He also has some pictures of the caucus watching party he attended with Brett and Alex Harris and family.
Report Card on the Natural Family
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul got perfect scores on the Report Card on the Natural Family produced by www.saveamerica.net.
Some of the issues covered included homosexual adoption, protecting marriage as between a man and a woman, etc.
Here are the scores from best to worst.
Mike Huckabee 7
Ron Paul 7
John McCain 4
Fred Thompson 3
Rudy Giuliani 1
Mitt Romney 0
Some of the issues covered included homosexual adoption, protecting marriage as between a man and a woman, etc.
Here are the scores from best to worst.
Mike Huckabee 7
Ron Paul 7
John McCain 4
Fred Thompson 3
Rudy Giuliani 1
Mitt Romney 0
Goooo Huckabee!
Last night was a great night for me as a Mike Huckabee supporter. I am so proud that he decided not to run the negative ad and has stood by his convictions and his God.
That being said. . .
I am so tired of people saying that it is "only because of evangelicals" that he won Iowa. It is not that they are saying it, but how they are saying it. It is as though we evangelicals don't count for anything when we vote for one of our own. Would anyone ever say that of any other people group in America? What if Obama wins the SC primary for the Dems? Would anyone say well, it is only because of all the African-Americans? Of course not.
So let's look at all the categories Mike Huckabee won in last night according to CNN.
Male
Female
Concerned with Events in Pakistan
Not Concerned with Events in Pakistan
Evangelical Christians
Like the Bush Administration
Don't Like the Bush Administration (except those that are angry about the Bush Admistration who went Ron Paul)
Strongly Favor Mike Huckabee
Some Reservations Against Mike Huckabee
Every Region of Iowa
Republicans (Ron Paul got the Independents.)
Income Less than $100,00/Year (Mitt Romney got the over $100,000 crowd)
Top Issue Immigration
Top Issue War in Iraq
Top Issue Economy
Top Issue Terrorism
Very Conservative to Conservatives (McCain and Romney split the moderates)
People that Want a Candidate that Says What He Believes
People that Want a Candidate with the Same Values that They Have
(Romney got the people that wanted experience or electability.)
Suburban and Rural (Romney got urban)
Every Age Group
Now to me that looks like a pretty diverse list. Yes, evangelicals are on there, but we are not the only thing on there. Could it be that Huckabee has appeal to diverse people?
Also, here are Michael Medved's thoughts on the subject.
That being said. . .
I am so tired of people saying that it is "only because of evangelicals" that he won Iowa. It is not that they are saying it, but how they are saying it. It is as though we evangelicals don't count for anything when we vote for one of our own. Would anyone ever say that of any other people group in America? What if Obama wins the SC primary for the Dems? Would anyone say well, it is only because of all the African-Americans? Of course not.
So let's look at all the categories Mike Huckabee won in last night according to CNN.
Male
Female
Concerned with Events in Pakistan
Not Concerned with Events in Pakistan
Evangelical Christians
Like the Bush Administration
Don't Like the Bush Administration (except those that are angry about the Bush Admistration who went Ron Paul)
Strongly Favor Mike Huckabee
Some Reservations Against Mike Huckabee
Every Region of Iowa
Republicans (Ron Paul got the Independents.)
Income Less than $100,00/Year (Mitt Romney got the over $100,000 crowd)
Top Issue Immigration
Top Issue War in Iraq
Top Issue Economy
Top Issue Terrorism
Very Conservative to Conservatives (McCain and Romney split the moderates)
People that Want a Candidate that Says What He Believes
People that Want a Candidate with the Same Values that They Have
(Romney got the people that wanted experience or electability.)
Suburban and Rural (Romney got urban)
Every Age Group
Now to me that looks like a pretty diverse list. Yes, evangelicals are on there, but we are not the only thing on there. Could it be that Huckabee has appeal to diverse people?
Also, here are Michael Medved's thoughts on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)