entropy

Just a teenie-weenie little question:

What has homeschooling to do with globalization? Is it the same link as between Israel and global warming?


I second the statement of Ironduke, and by being one of the youngest in this thread I take on myself the right to speak freely (I was a child 4-5 years ago, I can relate the best):

Parents should be limited in their way to raise their children.

__________________
If memory serves...

Ironduke

I have no idea. That was one heck of a stretch.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Shamus

I'm not positive,but I think the point of that statement is the belief that your children if left in the public and parochial school systems would be taught the way the government wants them to be taught instead of being taught by free thinking individualists(their parents).IE the government would teach them all the same tripe the same way in a subtle mass mind control project(Read New World Order here).This assumes that all schools teach basically the same cirriculum at the same level,which any parent(public or parochial) will tell you just does not happen.I moved my family from the town I grew up in to get better schooling for my children.I have close friends who have home schooled their children for years and decided to stop because it was obviously hurting their abilty to function socially in society.

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Julie

I don't agree with homeschooling. It is a selfish way of sheltering them from the real world, that at some point in time, the children will have to deal with. I have a neighbor who home schools her two daughters, ages 8 & 10, and I see them walking up and down the streets daily playing and walking their dog.

USAUSAUSA

Here's a decent opinion article on him.

National Ledger - Debating Ron Paul

Not sure if it was posted and I simply missed it.

ExNavyAmerican

Which is why I said I don't agree with them; I was stating an opinion. Second of all, those same people also thought probition was okay. It's my distinct impression that you're not thinking critically in regards to this subject. This entire subject started because Ron Paul believes, and I agree, that the income tax should be repealed.

This has nothing to do with reconstructionism. I'm not talking about amendments. Reconstructionists say that the constitution is not literal. That it changes meanings to conform with the views of society as time goes by -without constitutional amendments.

Constructionists take a very literal view of the constitution. It has nothing to do with amendments.

So we basically agree on this point. You personally disagree with homeschooling, but don't think it should be outlawed. I personally agree with homeschooling, and don't think it should be outlawed because the government has no right to stick its nose in familial decisions.

That last part I disagree with. A child has absolutely no right to make such a decision. They've not had to work for a living, bear the burden of raising a family, nor have they had to make tough decisions. The parents have. The child may very well choose to opt out on education, and that would probably happen a lot. When my kids start dictating to me at the age of 14 or 15 what they're going to do, but still depend on me for support, It'll be over my dead body.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

ExNavyAmerican

entropy;

The belief that the government has a right to interfere in raising children is a fascist belief. 'nuf said.

Julie;

Personally disagree with it all you want. Just don't form my opinion for me.

ExNavyAmerican

Very objectice, shamus (sarcasm).

If statements like the one below weren't so common, I'd agree with you. Also, what teachers in our public schools teach, doesn't agree with you.

“The fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”
-former Senator Paul Hougland

I'm not one of the "new world order" nuts. But I'm not blind; I deal in facts. I believe that many people want a society where nations are interdependent, and therefore not sovereign. And I believe that officials is government agree with that -George Bush included. I don't believe there's anything conspiratal about it; it couldn't be more obvious. People like to deceive themselves, though. As Hitler said:

"How fortunate for those in power that the people never think"

Has nothing to do with cleverness of the government because there's no conspiracy: it has to do with the stupidity of the people.

Ironduke

I believe that as under-18s grow ever closer to the age of 18, parents should naturally let them gradually take responsibility for their own lives and begin to make decisions that affect them. If a 15 year old wishes to be educated in the public school system, a parent with good sense ought to oblige them. If a 17 year old wishes to apply to Ohio State and not the University of Minnesota, that parent ought to oblige them. If parents keep an iron grip over their minor dependents until adulthood, said dependent is going to have a hell of curve upon reaching the age of majority when they very well may have to fend entirely for him or herself.

ExNavyAmerican

I see your point. But you can't make generalizations. A parent should give their children more responsibilities and more privelages as they grow; but it's very relative. If the child was raised right, there shouldn't be many problems. But if the child was raised wrong, and makes mistakes as a minor, it's the parents' responsibility. So, the law should be that the parents have full control from 0-18. If the parents have any sense, they'll grant greater and greater autonomy, but it's ultimately up to the parent.

But as far as a choice of universities goes, I agree 100% that a 17 should have a say. It's absolutely appaling that parents should dictate what their child's going to major in, and which university he's going to considering that he'll be a major long before he graduates. But, there's another side to that coin. IF a child chooses, and the parents disagree, the parents shouldn't have to contribute one penny to tuition.

Ray

I totally agree!

I lived in the protective world of the Army.

Today, I am a total unfit for the civil world. I have lived with ideals and now I see that the civilians are out to make a buck, the means is of no concern!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

entropy

How is it that parents know what the child wants and what is the best for their child? How is it that parents can read children's minds and understand their psychology? How is it that parents have the right to push their children around like they were dogs?

It is something I can't understand. The child is not a part of the parent, it is a person on his/her own. Not letting children choose is what the barbarians in Muslim countries do. Enforcing a belief, an education, a set of moral values on the child is pure fascism.

entropy

ExNavyAmerican,

I see you are a person with strong beliefs, willing to debate them, but I have never seen you enforcing them on anyone else. So why should you enforce them on your children?

ExNavyAmerican

Two reasons. One is religious. In the Bible it says, "children obey your parents and the Lord, for this is right"; and we all know, "Honor your father and mother that your days may be prolonged". These verses are enough for me.

But since I live in a secular world, I have another reason; more philosophical, but that what politics is. Children are the future of my country; which means that they have to be given a good upbringing, and be provided for. But, as children, they're not mature enough to make decisions that influence their well-being. This isn't to say they're stupid; it just means they're immature. They have one basic right: a right to life. That means that they have to be provided for. Who's gonna provide for 'em, hmmm? And it's no problem providing for my children; I just reserve the right to raise them how I want. The same way that the government taxes us, but we elect the members of the government. Children don't belong to anyone as they are God's creation the same as adults; but they have to be taken care of, to be taken care of, someone needs to have the authority to make sure they grow up to be productive, civilized human beings. You see, there's a difference between a human being and a civilized human beings. Those people who are being bred by the public school system; getting involved in violence, drugs and everything else unholy did not exist when parents were the absolute authority in the home -with full powers of discipline. Yes, I mean corpral punishment.

ExNavyAmerican

But this is getting off track

Someone post something thought-provoking that has to do with the election.

If anyone has another purely philosophical question that should never be decided by politics, PM me.