# The Assault on the Family



## pastorway (Nov 5, 2005)

"Gay" Marriage, Parental Rights, the 9th Circuit Court ruling, and the command to "train up a child" - how are these all related?

Read more about it here:

The Assault on the Family by Pastor Way.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 5, 2005)

Thank you very much, Pastor Way. There are issues here that are relevant to discussions in our areas as well.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 5, 2005)

Thank you for the link, I didn't realize there had been a ruling. Sickning. And scary. Both for our country, our country's future, our children and the parents!

On a personal note: My kids are homeschooled and in the 3rd and 4th grade. The school system is already beginning a push (in East Tenn anyway) to have homeschoolers go through the public system. They offer free computers and text books, but the parent is to teach what the school wants taught. The kids take all the school systems tests and questioniers. The home directly reports to the superintendant. You see where I'm going with this...

I only hope and pray that we can complete another 9 years OUTSIDE the system.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 5, 2005)

From a strict-constructionalist viewpoint the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct. There is no right found in the Constitution for parents to determine what their children learn in state schools. Such matters are for the individual states to decide.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 5, 2005)

Back in the 1980's we were homeschooling our children up to grade two. After that we intended to send them to Christian School. We were the only ones doing that, of the Christian School group. But the rest of the homeschoolers were out of the puplic system. 

One day we got a call from the CBC, Canada's national broadcaster for both radio and TV, for an interview on the subject. The reporter was straight out with the request, telling us that we were their last hope, as all the members on the Homeschooling list they had gotten through their sources had turned them down. Being in the "V" catagory put us last on the alphabetical list, I guess. I assented to the interview. We had already done an interview with a local wide circulation newspaper. 

They came with their cameras and big truck and set up in our class area, the dining room table, wired my wife and myself, and a couple of the kids, and commenced to chit chat until we got to feeling comfortable with the cameraman around. Then the questions came a-flying. It aired two days later on the 6 O'clock news for national coverage. ( But it only made the French National broadcast, not the English one, that I know of. )

I recall one question was whether we knew if it was legal to do what we were doing. And I recall my answer. "They are our children, not the ministry's [of education], nor the School Board's. I have a natural right to veto anything that the government thinks best for my children" ( or something very like that. )

Before the interview was aired the reported called us back to inform us of the time of airing, as well as the result of the research work she had done. And she had consulted the highest authority, the Minister of Education, which is under Provincial jurisdiction, that they not only justified that one statement of mine, but that they whole-heartedly approved of that statement, and wished more parents would take on the same attitude. 

After that report, being broadcast nationwide, homeschooling took off. It was the reporters, both of the newspaper and the TV News, with their efforts of which we were only a negligible part in the end, that opened the doors for it. The stiffest opposition we faced was the Christian School movement, and they quieted down when we told them that it was our intention to send them to school when they were old enough, no sooner than grade two level. 

But at the time the principle of the Christian school was trying to rally public support to make Kindergarten in a formal school mandatory. And it is still true to quite a degree today, more than twenty years later, that those who have the most at risk financially are the ones who protest the most. 

The church we presently attend has an official policy that the education of the children is primarily the church's business, not the parents'; it is the parents' responsibility to "cause to be instructed therein to the utmost of their ability." Therefore, officially, they also oppose homeschooling.

This is where the tricky part is. To some degree they are right, that there is a responsibility for the church to educate. It is one of her primary callings, and she is the authority on the matter being taught, namely the knowledge of God and of His creation and salvation. But taken too rigidly ( which the church does not so far ) it will only facilitate the state's movement to take over complete charge of what the children will be taught and how. The public impetus rests on the complacency of most parents of children in public schools; the impetus for the church is to ensure proper catechizing of the members of the covenant. But both ways, if neither position of God-given authority, neither the State nor the Church, upholds the right and responsibility of the parents as primary and of first order, then the parents are truly on their own, and do not even officially have Scripture on their side. 

This is where the rubber hits the road for my family. We have had no spiritual support from our church ( not the church we are attending, but our own home church ) in many years. We have truly been on our own for over five years now. So we know what it is to have to fight for intrinsic rights and freedoms, and for the social mores within which our children were born, not the new ones being imposed upon us, either by the State or by the church. Its message is clear: change with the times or feel the wrath. 

But for us the the other message is clearer, and has been for ever so long: abide in my Word and you will be free indeed.

These are my experiences, few that they are. I hope that they also are helpful to others. Most everyone here has a supporting church, and you must value and nurture that; it is so very important.

[Edited on 11-5-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 5, 2005)

> From a strict-constructionalist viewpoint the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct. There is no right found in the Constitution for parents to determine what their children learn in state schools. Such matters are for the individual states to decide.



This is incorrect. A strict constructionist takes into account the cultural mileu of the framers.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> From a strict-constructionalist viewpoint the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct. There is no right found in the Constitution for parents to determine what their children learn in state schools. Such matters are for the individual states to decide.



Scott,

I disagree from a Constitutional jurisprudence standpoint. I realize that there is some disagreement here (read: Bork/Scalia vs. Thomas/McConnell), but it would appear that at a bare minimum the Free Exercise Clause should cover issues of sexuality instruction. It is also incredible ironic that the ruling comes from Reinhardt, who has found a "Substantive Due Process" right of criminals to have their semen shipped out of jail (at the State's expense) in order to procreate while in prison.

You can see some more of my comments on this issue at Tim and David Bayly's blog:

Ninth Circuit of US Court of Appeals subverts parental authority


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> 
> > From a strict-constructionalist viewpoint the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is correct. There is no right found in the Constitution for parents to determine what their children learn in state schools. Such matters are for the individual states to decide.
> ...



This is the issue of the 9th Amendment, which I agree takes into account the legal/moral/cultural rights of the Framers' day.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 5, 2005)

But does this not limit the say of what will be presented in the classroom, not what the parents see fit for their children? Are these not separate issues, traditionally as well as within the framework of the constitutions?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> These are my experiences, few that they are. I hope that they also are helpful to others. Most everyone here has a supporting church, and you must value and nurture that; it is so very important.
> 
> [Edited on 11-5-2005 by JohnV]



John,

Your testimony by the grace of God is very powerful and much appreciated.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 5, 2005)

beth,
I cant believe that


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 5, 2005)

to andrew.

JohnV not being married or a parent yet I thnak you for standing up for homeschooling and for stronger parental roles in childrens education. Knowing what I know now I would homeschool or send to classical christian school.

blade


----------



## SRoper (Nov 6, 2005)

Good points, Fred. Lawrence, I distinguish between strict-constructionalism and originalism, but maybe that is unwaranted. Fred's the lawyer, I'm not. I myself believe the 9th ammendment suggests a "presumption of liberty."


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Nov 6, 2005)

Beth,

Do you belong to HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association)? If not, I'd enocurage you to join.


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 6, 2005)

We've thought about it Janice. I keep up with the news on their site. So far we've put that money into books, but dh and I were just talking about joining a few months ago.. 

Though we haven't yet, times are changing, and <b>the</b> time may be fast approaching.

Are you a member? Could you please u2u me with your personal experience?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 8, 2005)

wow, so the children ultimately belongs to the state :bigsmile: Therefore if the state turns overtly godless, your children ultimately belongs to an overtly godless state  If the state is reformed and righteous, your children ultimately belongs to an overtly righteous state. But who gave the state authority to appropriate the children of citizens to herself??????????


----------

