Homeschool ruling reveals educational double standard

Well said, Mr. Viggiano!

Viggiano is one of those people who seem to feel that he knows better than Govt. what is best for himself and his family! He will find he is wildly out of step with Obama's America. We are entering an era of Big brotherism on a grand scale and here is one of the first shots. 8273

Wow, a man so ignorant he cannot even properly spell Bhagavad Gita should not be writing columns on education. Stick to robbing your congregants of their brain cells in your pulpit Rev. Paul as you clearly know nothing about law or education or common sense. What a fool.

I guess Viggiano has been playing World of WarCraft too much. His spelling for the Bhagavad-Gita seems to be borrowed from that.

Yes, I agree the judge seems to have made a bad ruling. It's not the first time. It is also not precedent because it doesn't become case law until decided on appeal and it certainly doesn't apply to California as the decision occurred in another state. The rest of what Viggiano wrote is partisan humor.

ProudIntelligentAmerican wrote:

Wow, a man so ignorant he cannot even properly spell Bhagavad Gita should not be writing columns on education. Stick to robbing your congregants of their brain cells in your pulpit Rev. Paul as you clearly know nothing about law or education or common sense. What a fool.

You are, of course, an expert on law, education etc etc and in a position to lecture on all the failings of others. Here is a pile of stones for you to cast as you are clearly without sin, unlike the rest of us poor mortals.

Bhagavad Gita, Bagavagita, Baga Vagita, Bagavadgito are all acceptable spellings. Notice again the arguments: The author "should not be writing." Censor the writer rather than address the real issue of who should take responsbility for a child's education. Then just simple insults.

Wow. Where do we start?

What has President Obama's speech to do with any of this? Are you trying to establish yourself as open minded? Perhaps you should start with addressing the whole truth of this matter.

How is it that the Rev. Paul Viggiano failed to mention that Amanda was the 10 year-old daughter of a divorced couple, there was to be joint decision making responsibility, and that the father believed that she should be sent to a public school?

How is it that Rev. Paul Viggiano failed to mentioned that during the interview, this 10 year old girl tried to witness to the counselor and when the conselor ignored her Amanda became visibly upset? Is this normal behaviour for a 10-year old girl? I don't think so.

How is it that Rev. Paul Viggiano failed to mention that Amanda did not think her father loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to "adopt her religious beliefs." This is not normal behaviour in a 10 year old girl.

Is perhaps possible that there is a bit of brainwashing going on here? Is it possible to brainwash someone with the truth? Should someone be brainwashed even if it's the truth?

Perhaps the solution should have been to send Amanda to a Christian school and not a public school. End of story. But instead this case is used to launch the usual misrepresentations about public education including the evolution vs creation issue. Unbelievable!

By the way, this is the second article by Rev Paul Vigianno that I have found to lacking in truth and open mindedness. There ought to be a commandment against this kind of misrepresentation.

While the letter may not be perfectly written, the point of this letter applies to many aspects of life. Our country was founded on the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Attempting to subvert those rights by requiring a child to attend any kind of school is a fault of a misguided government. A parent who has demonstrated that her or his child is being properly educated should not be punished by begin dragged to court to have their essential rights taken away. I certainly hope that the defense of individual liberties is not "partisan humor."

BTW, I'm sorry that I spelled "being" as "begin." I suppose that invalidates my argument.:-)

To: Room 222, that is a precise observation.
It is clear that these critics have nothing of value to present to the argument; but are left only to spout their ad hominem fallacies.

To Rev. Viggiano: Peer pressure is not only a form of socialization, but of over-socialization. How many times have children been pushed to do things they were not mentally, physically or spiritually prepared for in the name of socialization by their teachers and peers.

Great article pastor. It often seems that secularism's "hypocrisy knows no bounds"

"Socialization notwithstanding, we chose to homeschool our children nonetheless. Ten years later I must say that socialization is the primary reason I would advise parentsto homeschool."
Totally agreed. The irony.

Doug wrote:

While the letter may not be perfectly written, the point of this letter applies to many aspects of life. Our country was founded on the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Attempting to subvert those rights by requiring a child to attend any kind of school is a fault of a misguided government. A parent who has demonstrated that her or his child is being properly educated should not be punished by begin dragged to court to have their essential rights taken away. I certainly hope that the defense of individual liberties is not "partisan humor."

Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of public education because it is the great equalizer for a person not being able to choose to whom they might be born. The state mandates education to a certain age. You can choose a public school, a private school or home tutoring, but certain standards have to be met in all cases. I thought the judge crossed the line between learning to meet those standards and a parent's right to teach morality and religion to their child. If the good pastor had stopped there, my reference to partisan humor wouldn't have been written by me. But, when he has to get escorted out of the classroom for pitching Christianity to his pupils he is obsessively partisan and fails to know the meaning of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.(That is the same situation the labor guys push when Upton Sinclair was arrested for reading the Bill of Rights on Liberty Hill)

As the comments abvoe, by room 222, were excellent and concise, I will be brief. Hurling ad hominem comments and demeaning speech at someones ideas are not arguments. This type of speaking are key avenues to see the critics prejudices and emotional rantings. The conclusion being that he is only a quarrelsome bully.

Doug wrote:

While the letter may not be perfectly written, the point of this letter applies to many aspects of life. Our country was founded on the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Attempting to subvert those rights by requiring a child to attend any kind of school is a fault of a misguided government. A parent who has demonstrated that her or his child is being properly educated should not be punished by begin dragged to court to have their essential rights taken away. I certainly hope that the defense of individual liberties is not "partisan humor."

As Live The Truth pointed out, the father of this girl did NOT want her homeschooled. Where do his rights fit in?

Clearly she was being taught a brand of Christianity that I, as a Christian, am uncomfortable with.

I also agree that bring the Creation versus Evolution discussion into this was a non sequitor, and shows the author's bigotry. Most of us accept that Evolution is the demonstrated bedrock of society... and that it is in no way a refutation of Christianity.

It's only with rigid fundamentalists that we get this argument. Note that this guy was removed by "guys in dark glasses" because he was handing out religious tracts in a public school.

Pastor Paul brings up a good point, all world views are not given a fair shake in the secular school system.The Christian world view is banned under the Separation of Church and State, mantra, but I remember being fully indoctrinated by the government schools into Secular Humanism. It infiltrated every class subject but math. Now other religious views were brought up too, but only Christianity was met with outright animosity. The teachers that believed this point of view were even afraid to admit to it lest they lose their jobs. I had one teacher teach us to meditate in class with no such fear of losing her job. The powers that be should at least be consistent, either leave out all religion/ world views including atheism, and secular humanism or include all world views including Christianity.

Chicago Guy, It's not up to you which brand of Christianity the girl is taught, just as its not the girl's mother who can decide which brand of Christianity you teach your children. If this was a Muslim family would we have the same issues? I'd bet not. It's OK to be a fundamentalist Muslim (probably because most Americans assume that all Muslims are fundamentalists).

Frankly, when I wrote my comment, I didn't realize that the father opposed home schooling. Still, then how does one decide? If the father object to anything, does his view prevail? Why does his view override the mother's? The answer in this case is because the government says so. In other words, the point is still the same. What reason did the judge give for his ruling. It had less to do with the father's arguments than it did with the judge's own biases.

The conclusion in this case makes it appear that homeschooling is some sort of crime (as it almost is in California and other states who are rising up against homeschoolers and now online programs).

I suppose if I were that judge and really wanted to help that child, I would have ordered her to attend a Christian school and not a govenment school, but. . .

I totally agree. In December, kids cannot sing Merry Christmas and cards that mention anything that could be construed as relating to Christmas are banned or altered. Then kids are taught about Hannakah, Kwanza, Ramadaan etc. Either leave out all religion (including humanism) or allow it all. There should be freedom of religion but some twist it to be freedom from religion when that religion happens to be Christianity. As for "separation of church and state", I would challenge anyone to show me where that is in the Constitution. It is not there. It is from a letter written and the context was talking about how the government should not enforce which Christian denomination one should belong to.

Gina Deering wrote:

Pastor Paul brings up a good point, all world views are not given a fair shake in the secular school system.The Christian world view is banned under the Separation of Church and State, mantra, but I remember being fully indoctrinated by the government schools into Secular Humanism. It infiltrated every class subject but math. Now other religious views were brought up too, but only Christianity was met with outright animosity. The teachers that believed this point of view were even afraid to admit to it lest they lose their jobs. I had one teacher teach us to meditate in class with no such fear of losing her job. The powers that be should at least be consistent, either leave out all religion/ world views including atheism, and secular humanism or include all world views including Christianity.

The Obama comment was simply to show the contrast between gov't involvment in gov't programs and gov't intrusion into private forums.

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level” has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too “vigorous” in defense of her Christian faith.

So this 10 year olds crime is a religions conviction. I homeschool and I would be proud if my 9 year old would stand up to a judge with his faith. But this childs strenth is viewed as a weakness, because it doesn't conform to the collective montra's of "acceptance".

Yes, the father did want his child in public school. As a product of a broken home, I have to ask the question. Is he using the child as a pawn in the divorce or does he truly believe his daughter is better off in a public forum?

Who was deemed the primary custodian in this case? If it was the father, than the father should be making a decision to send his daughter to public school, not a judge. If it is the mother, neither the court or the father can tell her not to homeschool.

The court forcing the issue of public school is a clear intrusion into a private decision about the proper education of this child.