alt.education

In article writes:
> 501e70b1!not-for-mail
> From: "Jeff Strickland"
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush
> References: <41p2u3lvotp62anuamhjfdpb2hrif3lh9i@4ax.com> <2c52bfcf-7085-4b95-a725-c1602cb3512a@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> <1GCEj.9879$%Y2.5922@trnddc08>
> Subject: Re: Why Shariah?
> Lines: 96
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> format=flowed;
> charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Message-ID:
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:20:31 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.67.27.44
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
> X-Trace: trnddc02 1206066031 72.67.27.44 (Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:20:31 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:20:31 EDT
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.usa.constitution:74948 alt.education:106057 alt.atheism:1820548 alt.religion.christian:584816 alt.politics.bush:2188450
> X-Original-Bytes: 5430
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
> news:Hb-dnUI6vqGakn7anZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
> >> news:AM6dnTW5g7YFZ3_anZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>
> >>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody, well not anybody I know, "chooses" to ignore Biblical law wrt
> >>>> dealing with insolent children.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It ain't the courts. Your beef is with your elected officials.
> >>
> >> I do not agree. My legislators are not telling me I can't spank my kids.
> >
> > Yes, they are. If it wasn't written as a crime in the statutes, you could
> > do it.
> >
> >> And, if they are telling me that, they are telling me in response to
> >> court decisions that call pretty much any sort of discipline as abusive.
> >
> > Citation?
> >
> >> You could be right, but my instinct is that legislative action in this
> >> arena is reactive to judicial review.
> >
> > Judicial review begins with legislative (or executive action). The only
> > way you could be right if is the legislature passed a law permitting
> > spanking, and the court stepped in and invalidated that law. I'm
> > confident there is no such case.
> >
>
> Well, when I was a kid, my parents spanked me when they felt I needed it.
> Somebody somewhere at sometime challenged a parent's right ot spank, the
> court ruled that spanking was intolerable and the legislature created a law
> to codeify the ruling.

Oh? Could you be a bit more citive than "somebody somewhere at
sometime" on that one? I'd be most intested to hear of
such a law.


-- cary

>
>
>
> >> In my example of the homeschool and CPS, the courts clearly jumped into
> >> an area of state law that is covered and works -- schooling -- and forced
> >> a family to send kids to school, and the court did it in such a manner
> >> that all home schools in the state may be shut down. The court is doing
> >> this, not the legislators.
> >
> > In this case the legislature passed statutes which required schooling at a
> > public school, private school, or tutored elsewhere (including the home)
> > by a state-licensed teacher.
> >
>
> This is not true. A home schooled child (as of today) can be taught by a
> parent or legal guardian that registers with the state that they are a home
> school, and they use a cirriculum administered by the proper authority
> (where the gamit of authority is too broad to specify here, and makes no
> difference). It is the court that is dictating the credentials that a home
> school must have. The state already has its rules, and it likes them.
>
> The state is happy with the home school laws that we have -- the case is a
> California case, and the California Department of Education is not happy
> with the ruling.
>
>
> > None applied to the parents and child in question, and so they sued asking
> > the courts to invalidate the legislature by declaring a Constitutional
> > right to home schooling.
> >
>
> That is patently false.
>
> The ONLY issue in the case was child abuse. Period. CPS never challenged the
> schooling, never.
>
> The only goal of CPS, the plaintiff, was that it wanted two of eight kids
> observed by the school teachers and administrators for signs of abuse that
> the CPS case workers were not equipped to spot. That is, CPS is so
> overwhelmed that its workers can not perform the inspections necessary to
> preclude abuse, so it insisted that the school be used as a surrogate.
> Nobody in this case ever challenged the quality of the education that the
> children were getting.
>
> PS
> The case is about parents and 8 children. One child charged abuse that could
> not be supported by any evidence that CPS could find. CPS wants two of 8
> children in a school, the remaining 6 are still being home schooled. Of the
> two that are being forced to a brick & mortar building (public or private
> school, CPS does not care and the ruling does not specify as far as I know),
> neither is the one that raised the abuse claim, that child is still home
> schooled.
>
>
>