]]> large has a duty to protect the minds as well as the bodies of vulnerable children from abuse by authority figures. In most cases home schooling parents have a strong religious agenda and therefore on First Amendment grounds such education does not meet the standards for a generalized public subsidy. A case can also be made that to the extent home schooling attempts to disobey the principles of consensus science not only should it be denied government support it should also be expressly prohibited. Recently. I discussed () an by Thomas C. Hunt and James C. Carper which derided public schools as an example of a state church promoting the “religion” of secularism. I dismissed their wrongheaded lay as “doing violence to the language and common sense.” I also noted my objections to home schooling based on the fact that many home schooled children experience a form of one-sided brainwashing by religious parents saying “they may never have a chance at academic excellence critical thinking or intellectual honesty. By strategic and systematic miseducation they have been rendered impotent and unable to participate in an increasingly technical and competitive society.” And while the past stereotype of the non socialized homeschooled child may have carried some truth it does not apply to this new set of homeschool children. They are involved in community projects are environmentally aware have educational opportunities in a wider range of encounters and organizations and have more involvement with a wider variety of social interactions with all ages than the public school could imagine to provide. This postmodern/secular homeschooled child is better prepared than any other generation to give leadership to solve the crises facing our planet during the next century. I am absolutely determined that my children WILL be equipped to participate in the mainstream and I evaluate homeschooling is by far the best way to achieve that goal. I’m homeschooling because both my daughters are highly gifted (as was I) and I want them to have every chance at academic excellence critical thinking and intellectual honesty. I don’t think the public schools - or even the majority of private schools - can give my kids that kind of chance; so I’m doing it myself. (Oh don’t get me wrong - I avail myself of every resource I can dig up particularly in areas that are not my specialty - but I’m making the determination of what’s best for my kids rather than some anonymous committee member choosing their curriculum for them.) And why should I be held to a higher standard than the public schools are when I’m using my own money (which if tax credits were approved. I’d otherwise be paying in taxes) to give my children with a superior education while the schools are using other populate’s money to provide their students with a poor one? Perhaps I should have qualified this statement a little more since I agree that it is indeed possible for earnest and committed parents–who are not religious extremists–to avoid the worst of the problems of home schooling. I understand both these rationales and I can sympathize with the two commenters’ desires as parents to take a larger than ordinary role in their own children’s education. [All three of my own sons completed the bulk of their high-school education at domiciliate. The difference was their program was officially sponsored and overseen by the Los Angeles Unified School District.] But back to the debate. In my response to Ms. Muser. I noted four specific points I found problematic with home schooling: In her. Ms. Muser simply confirmed my worst suspicions about her as an extreme fundamentalist doing her best to brainwash her children. She began by insisting that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics the “law” of biogenesis and the law of cause and effect. This is classic creationist pablum and demonstrates that this woman is profoundly unfit to ameliorate anyone let alone her own children. The second law of thermodynamics says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life nor is there any such “law” of biogenesis (which is just a fancy way of saying life couldn’t mouth on its own). Saying evolution violates the “law” of biogenesis is the same as saying evolution violates creationism which is a tautology. Doubtless she has already convinced her kids that modern science is ignorant of these “facts” and conditioned them to dismiss any bear witness which contradicts her faith position. ) rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U. S than in less theistic pro-evolution secular developed democracies (). At all ages levels are higher in the U. S. albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U. S also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates which are starting to go again as the microbe’s resistance increases (). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and adore of a creator and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U. S. (). that is the most important for child development. It is this that is most lacking in home schooled children. They may cerebrate very well to adults and authority figures but will most likely be lacking in team-building assort dynamics learning to deal effectively with the rough and tumble of ridicule and social ostracism and other peer-related social skills. This lack may also contribute to latent adult social anxiety disorder. Studies by Advocates for Youth (AFY) on the long-term impact of federally-funded abstinence-only programs on teen sexual behavior confirm recent literature on the subject: the programs have no long-term effect on teens’ intentions to have sex but sour them on contraception making it less likely they ordain take responsible measures to protect themselves if they do engage in intercourse…The results are consistent with a Columbia University study by sociology chair Peter Bearman. Bearman’s study which tracked the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents between 12 and 18 years old over a five-year period. “found unsafe sex much greater among youth who’d signed pledges to abstain from sex” until marriage. The “virginity pledge” is a key component of many abstinence-only education programs…Studies show that the great majority of parents want their children given reliable and scientific sex education (93% of parents with high school children say it is allot to teach teens about birth control and methods of preventing pregnancy while 84% of parents with high educate children say it is appropriate to inform students how to use and where to get contraceptives. But what is clear is that the degree of success or failure for any kid in public OR home school is dependent most of all on the families interpersonal relationships and commitment aim of the parents. Studies show that children whose parents were highly involved with the kids curriculum in either form of school excelled equally. The above is blatant equivocation based on Muser’s contention that secularism is a religion. I’ve thoroughly debunked this () and am not going to address it again. (Please go read the bind.) She wraps up her religious diatribe with the conclusion that the “secular religion” is privileged over her Christian religion and therefore that her religion is equally deserving of public subsidy. Thomas Jefferson would be turning over in his grave. How can you reason with someone who doesn’t understand that “” as defined by the dictionary is “not pertaining to or connected with religion”? There can be no secular religion. It is an oxymoron. Finally. Muser describes how her efforts to teach her children faith-based ‘critical thinking’ (as opposed to evidence-based critical thinking) are actually better than that taught in public schools. All she’s doing is watering down the value of knowledge and evidence by teaching her kids her presuppositional ideas about God and creation and calling that evidence. This runs completely counter to the scientific world where it’s not enough to just assert it or talk about it you actually undergo to create the evidence and have it reviewed. Muser claims she gives her kids a deeper understanding of evolution than public educate. But by her own admission she “disagrees” with it (as if it were possible to be with facts). So we can expect that her teaching on evolution is simply an clarify cover in Christian apologetics attempting to inoculate her children against any evidentiary conclusions about the affect they may be presented with in college or in later life. communicate about turning out Christian automatons! Yeesh. Muser is so delusional she even co-opts the language of critical thought and has herself convinced that’s what she’s engaging in and passing along to her children. that she knows how the universe began by the simple inductive argument of “,” a stubborn bit of sophistry which actually proves nothing. For in positing a creator as a “First Cause,” Muser forgets that her creator must also undergo a cause. This argument utterly fails as an explanation for the universe due to infinite regress. But Muser has closed herself off from any questioning of this basic premise which she states without evidence and without analysis of the very serious flaw in the logic. Her reasoning is therefore specious and circular and she is teaching her children the very same circular reasoning. This error would never be permitted in public school. Science approaches the issue of the origins of the universe as speculative and unknowable–no matter how good our theories may be–something Ms. Muser’s children desperately need to understand. As stated above there is no “law” of biogenesis. Life is composed of complex molecules in complex arrangements. There is nothing special about those molecules. There is no theoretical barrier to laboratory synthesis of the DNA of any life form. It is simply a be of complexity and management of ever larger genomes which is move to improve dramatically over time. Recently. Craig Venter succeeded in from non-living matter. If he could do it quickly in a laboratory imagine how much more productive the natural world could be during billions of years of evolution. But we don’t undergo to imagine because we can simulate these events in broad depict create on a computer and evolution act place before our very eyes. (Marcy if you’re reading please watch this video with your children.) Evolutionary algorithms are regularly used to create by mental act products. Cutting advance research into biofuels deliberately harnesses random bacterial mutations to achieve a desired prove which are then selected for effectiveness. This is the same affect as competition-induced selection pressure (survival of the fittest) that harnesses raw randomness to create the ever-improving characteristics of life. Final proof of evolution comes through the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. This has occurred worldwide in a span of only a few decades. Again displace this infinitesimally small time-scale against the backdrop of the billions of years the hide has existed and we see evolution’s adjust power. There is no debate. Evolution is what brought human life into existence from its origins in soups of random chemistry on a desolate proto-earth. These facts and events are extremely inconvenient to the Marcy Musers of the world. Though they may have the best of intentions as they vainly invoke their “Gods of the gaps” to miseducate their children they are still perpetuating a grow of base ignorance. As these gaps in knowledge are inexorably filled in by inquiry and discovery the gods become less and less necessary. Rather than hailing these advances the religious extremists scramble ever faster to come up with new reasons why it just cannot and must not be so. In so doing they move ever farther from the progression of the scientific mainstream and condemn their children to a tortuous road of confusion denial and equivocation. Whether it happens at domiciliate or in private schools is of little consequence. But we are talking about home schooling and since the homeschooling movement is overwhelmingly religious it seems that the debate over homeschooling cannot be separated from the larger debate over religious dogma vs scientific truth. Once again on all available evidence science is the only reliable way of knowing anything. Its process of boundless inquiry and self-correction couldn’t be more categorically different from the inflexible and willful blindness of faith. It is for this reason that I consider religious education to be a serious form of child abuse. No matter what kind of beliefs they might hold about underage sexuality we don’t allow parents to sexually abuse their children because we understand that they don’t own their children’s bodies. Likewise we should understand just as clearly that no matter what their religions might demand they inform parents do not own their kids’ minds. Society has a profound interest in the truthful education and proper formation of its future citizens. Therefore it should be expressly to teach children a curriculum that so blatantly and directly contradicts science–even and especially in private. Such curricula should be treated like child pornography. Because miseducation is at least as damaging to children as sexual do by. We’re talking about the malformation of the brain a child ordain possess for life. It goes without saying that it does not matter whether it is conducted in the home or in a private group setting it should absolutely positively It’s funny how homeschoolers are the ones taking this hit while private schools have been teaching in the same way with the same freedom for decades. Where has the outcry been? Why is it just brought against education at home? I don’t know you at all but it pains me to see your comparisons of home education and “serious child abuse.” I attended public school. I received lousy sex ed … at home AND at school. I received lousy science instruction at educate (creationism or not). I received a very strong Christian worldview at domiciliate yet it was through my own study and my own growth that I discovered my own beliefs. Children who homeschool leave the accommodate … a lot … and are around their peers who do not share their beliefs … a lot. Your judgments are extremely harsh. My grandfather was a pedophile and my grandmother was emotionally abusive. You are equating a mass of parents into that same category. I find that irresponsible and over-the-top. I recognise your freedom to your own thoughts and choices … just as I have the same. I would simply ask you to reevaluate your comparisons. Granted. I have a very open ended believe and approach to sex and science in my home. Yet even those who do not … they are loving their children and are truly doing what they feel is in the long-term best interest of their family. Perhaps your arguments will be heard more clearly when you go away to embrace your common ground as parents. The road to “hell” is paved with good intentions. I don’t care how well-meaning populate are. If they teach their children blatant falsehoods about the world. (such as the world being flat or evolution being “just a theory”) they are abusing them. This is not a be of opinion. We undergo to create by mental act as a culture as to what kind of private behavior we will and will not allow. It used to be that what a man did with his daughters was considered to be his private business. Now we understand that the state has an interest in protecting the bodies of children. I’m saying it also has an interest in protecting their minds. Homeschooling has. IMHO many problems. The fact that some private or public schools (the words have different meanings this side of the Atlantic) are below the standard required by society does not carry the implication that domiciliate schooling is exceed. I very much disbelieve more than a tiny minority if people would be well versed enough in the diverse subjects a modern education requires to be able to teach their children well. Surely the only solution for “loving” parents is to displace the child to a public / private educate and then “top up” any missing areas themselves. I’ve never been to school. I was homeschooled all my life. Now I have a college degree a decent job where I’m earning money that I plan to use to furthur my education. As far as the science thing my mom spent lots of measure on creation and evolution and I’m sure she would undergo even if I had gone to educate. I had the opportunity to choose what I wanted to accept. I wasn’t sheltered. I participated in orchestra basketball soccer and I got to have a job when most highschoolers were in educate that time of day! I do believe that the effectiveness of homeschooling all depends on the commitment of the parents. I also believe that most of the parents who do this are not the ones who don’t care about their childrens education. Those type of parents wouldn’t want to put the work into homeschooling. There are pleanty of kids who don’t do very well in society that attended public educate we don’t blame the school system for that. Let’s not peg homeschoolers either. It’s not a fun stereotype. I never said home schooling couldn’t bring home the bacon. The problem is not so much home school but bad curricula and parents who choose home schooling for the wrong reasons. Again let me reiterate: It doesn’t be whether the miseducation about science occurs at home or in private religous schools. It is equally bad. The whole reason I’m talking about domiciliate schooling is because people are starting to ask for tax money and their motives are largely religious. If taxpaying parents be to pay for public education and then also make the effort at homeschooling. I say have at it. But don’t ask other taxpayers to pay for it. Companies who sell homeschool products must be forced to comply with national academic standards and kids who be to opt out of public schools should face mandatory testing in science and sex education among other subjects. If not we are still going to have religious extremists trying to “defend” their children from being “corrupted” by the affect of peers and scientific truth. No matter what they say given the overwhelming percentage of religious zealots in the home schooling movement this is a primary motivation. You are missing some of the point here. As an example you have been taught creationism as if it were a science which it isn’t. Choosing what to believe is a great thing however there are times when it really isn’t applicable. A big (IMHO of cover) disadvantage of home schooling is the lack of peer guidance in learning. Now. I agree this is not always a good thing but there is nothing to counter balance teaching which is frankly wrong. If a domiciliate schooler’s parents decided to inform them the Earth was the centre of the solar system they could easily go on and answer in life without anyone noticing (even gain a degree and a good job). However they have still been taught incorrect nonsense and should they in turn end to teach their children the nonsense will continue. I understand your concerns about people being taught something other than what you believe is adjust but who do you think should have power over such things? Just how much power are you willing to give the state? And do you really want to live in a society in which some other authority has the power to be what can be discussed in your home and the thoughts and beliefs in your own mind? As I might have expected when it really comes down to critical thinking and logical analysis you are no more willing to engage in it than most other people. You too direct to a worldview that holds together in your mind and are unwilling to ask yourself why you believe it. So when you consider my statements you simply reject them. You act in name-calling (”extreme fundamentalist,” “classic creationist pablum,” “blatant equivocation,” “religious diatribe”). You make unsupported statements: “it is peer socialization that is the most important for child development,” “This lack may also alter to latent adult social anxiety disorder.” You criticize me for saying that as a strong secularist you are just as religious as I am and in fact you are change by reversal on that point. I should not have called you a secularist but a naturalist or humanist. I fact undergo less objection to secularism - in theory - than to naturalism and humanism which are in fact religious. My dictionary defines naturalism as “a doctrine that denies a supernatural explanation of the origin or development of the universe and holds that scientific laws account for all of nature”; humanism is defined as. “a doctrine or way of life centered on human interests or values.” “Doctrine” is a religious term. If in fact it were possible to remove religion completely from the public schools. I would be happier (though I probably would not put my children in school even so because I still accept they get a far exceed education at home). As it is the schools teach every religion but Christianity and they teach naturalism as fact. This is not secular according to your dictionary definition; and in fact you are insisting not on secular education but on naturalist and or humanist education. You want to use my tax money to instill YOUR doctrines in the nation’s children - and preferably in my children as well - and you be to pretend that in fact you are being neutral. You make the unsupported statement. “Absolute truth is revealed by peer-reviewed and repeatable evidence.” Whose opinion is that? There are many beliefs about how absolute truth is revealed; what makes yours the right one? And as far as peer review how do you know an opinion is right just because a majority of people - or a majority of scientists - or a majority of biologists - or a majority of anyone else - says it is? Many creationist scientists have published studies in peer-reviewed journals; some of those studies are change surface pro-creationist. But your insistence that a chew over must be published in a peer-reviewed journal conveniently ignores the truth (a truth peer-reviewed and repeatable incidentally) that those journals are deeply biased against anything that might possibly suggest a creator. Scientists who have routinely had other studies published suddenly meet a brick wall. Evolutionist scientists who change state convinced that creationism is true suddenly find their studies can no longer be published. And even if the prejudice is all in their minds the very fact that it is possible suggests perhaps peer analyse is not such a reliable indicator of absolute truth as you might like to believe. Democracy does not determine truth; truth is truth regardless of whether the majority agrees with it. You then set up a straw man implying that my belief rejects any level of evolution. You spend an entire paragraph discussing how research relies on the well-documented minor changes in species as if I disagreed with that when in fact I’ve never heard of a creationist who did. There is no disbelieve that changes occur within species minor changes such as colors wing sizes and so on. Every creationist and ID-proponent I’ve ever read (and I’ve construe many) recognizes those changes. In fact there are even changes that become between species - development of new species such as Pomeranians from a wolf-type species. (Species after all is a relatively recent call; I like most creationists like the term “kind,” which is considerably more flexible but still limited.) Loss of genetic information is common - species with wings lose them; species with a variety of sizes are reduced to species of only one size; bacteria that used to include genetic information for both resistance and nonresistance to antibiotics are reduced to only those with genetic information for resistance. What I’ve never seen evolutionists establish with any degree of certainty is how genetic information is GAINED. How does one kind of creature create into a more sophisticated one? You may have defeated your straw man (the denial of minor species changes) but that doesn’t mean you’ve provided “final create” that molecules-to-man evolution occurred. Sean by your response you prove only one thing and that is that your core out beliefs are no more carefully examined than anyone else’s. Your “critical thinking” extends only as far as your self-imposed limits. When you are faced with a reasonably intelligent furnish argument you apply to name-calling unsupported statements and straw men. In our homeschool. I challenge my children to TRULY examine their own beliefs to ask themselves for the subconscious reasons why they choose to believe certain things. When they give me simplistic arguments such as you have assembled here. I confront them with the inconsistencies and displace them to face the true arguments of those who disagree with them. (If you want to call that “co-opting the language of critical thought,” that’s your choice. I think that is the very essence of critical thought and logical analysis.) I wish perhaps someday you will actually consider the REAL arguments of creationists rather than your own preconceived ideas. I went back and read the article you posted on the guy who “created life.” I must say reading the procedure: just because an intelligent person can create by mental act an incredibly complex methodology including the use of already living cells to reorganize DNA which is then inserted into other living cells does not prove life can develop from nonlife by nothing other than random chance mutation and natural selection. Not only that the author himself agrees that he’s a long way from actually creating life (see the bottom of the second page). I watched the YouTube video you linked to. That video deliberately excludes the issue of abiogenesis which is a critically important foundation to evolution as defined by the video’s maker. Without an explanation of how the “clocks” got there in the first place the whole question is moot in my opinion. And the person who made the video began with a share of clocks to draw from; without a reproductive process where did the pool come from? And there are far too many questions about the methodology of the computer program that are left unanswered. Not only that the watches had a very limited number of parts; living cells are extremely complex. I clearly stated in the post (and cited evidence provided by Morgaine from her earlier comment) that public school kids with high levels of parental involvement did as well as homeschooled children. In this sense. I don’t think homeschooling is a problem if parents are highly involved. But who’s checking up on them to make sure they do it right? You too easily reject the socialization objection. In no way am I suggesting that kids evaluate other populate’s values without critical thought or reasoning. That definition is clearly not what I’m talking about. As you quoted” “They may cerebrate very well to adults and authority figures but ordain most likely be lacking in team-building group dynamics learning to deal effectively with the rough and come down of ridicule and social ostracism and other peer-related social skills.” It doesn’t take a social scientist to tell you what goes on in classrooms and during group play: it is about interaction much more than values. But like a rock tumbler–being in a large assort teaches kids what they can and can’t get away with and how to get along–it smooths their rough edges. Re: . This is a common problem with kids anyway and affects around 13% of the population at some point in their lives. While not the only cause isolation and unfamiliarity with social situations (reduced exposure and practice) can contribute to the problem. Which can bring about to advance self-isolation. Just as “only” children have different psychological makeup kids who grow up with reduced learn and experience with peers may be prone to being less comfortable in such situations later in life. This is not rocket science. It may be that the increasing need for sophisticated social skills in forming relationships or careers and an emphasis on assertiveness and competitiveness is making social anxiety problems more common at least among the ‘middle classes’.[42] An interpersonal or media emphasis on ‘normal’ or ‘attractive’ personal characteristics has also been argued to fuel perfectionism and feelings of inferiority or insecurity regarding negative evaluation from others. The need for social acceptance or social standing has been elaborated in other lines of research relating to social anxiety[43] I want government standards for kids to be based on these facts. Something that too many creationists are afraid of. You’re comfort trying to deny facts and create controversies where there are none. Don’t act my word for it. The evidence exists whether you choose to accept it or not. I undergo no problem with a science panel that establishes what can and cannot be taught to children. This is sorely needed especially in unsupervised environments such as homes. As I said in the original bind: since they involve the abusive teaching of lies which are no more real than a flat hide unscientific curricula for children should be illegal and carry stiff penalties for violators parents included. Science works and is very comfortable with incomplete knowledge. It takes a certain sophistication to be able to look at the big picture see the gaps that exist and not be tempted to fill them in with conjecture. This develop is at the very core of science as is the need for self-correction when errors are found. I do have to take issue with your use of the word “doctrine”. This is equivocation. Equivocation is not an insult it is a logical term to denote using the same word with two different meanings to misidentify or mislead. Calling naturalism or humanism a “doctrine” is a contradiction in terms. It is also highly ironic since you be to favor doctrinal religion yet when using the term to describe science. “doctrine” becomes a pejorative. You can’t have it both ways. Please don’t start with that old argument about radio waves. Before they were discovered they comfort existed we just didn’t know how to measure them. But someone in the 16th century trying to describe this method of communication that had not yet been discovered would undergo had no idea what they were talking about. At some inform in the future if “God” is discovered then “he” will also be a natural phenomenon. But like pre-Marconi descriptions of communicate waves today’s descriptions of “God” are completely incoherent and meaningless. It is for this reason that I assert that by definition the supernatural cannot be measured known or effectively discussed. This is the basis for the philosophy of naturalism. It is not a doctrine but a logically consistent exposit. If “God” created the universe science therefore provides the best knowledge yet available of that god. Religion has nothing of value to say about “him,” and they can’t even agree on who or what he is. Then they turn around and expect people to accept this vague character created the universe? The bar for “test-tube life” keeps getting raised. In the ’70s when I was growing up. Louise cook was born and people thought in-vitro was “artificial life” and freaked out about it. Then the realized it was just a normal sperm and egg and the procedure became routine. Then cloning (by cell nuclear transfer) came along and they freaked out again. Later they realized that clones are just what happens in nature with identical twins. That procedure is also about to become routine. Now Venter used the same nuclear assign procedure as with cloning but instead of inserting existing DNA he created his DNA from scratch. That he used the bomb of a living cell is only a shortcut. The hard part’s over which is creating a synthetic genome. The genome is the part that reproduces so by removing the old genome from the “living” cell he effetively killed it (since it could no longer reproduce). When his synthetic DNA was inserted into the cell it came back to “life.” When I did a little research for my article you can find numerous positive articles on the “benefits” of home schooling. And if the parents are both adept and motivated I am sure many kids are taught well. But what about the parents that are home schooling their kids just to keep them away from what they consider bad teachings? I know a number of Jehovah’s Witness children that are getting a sub standard education at best-and what’s going to happen once they get a job or register in college? I am sure that is rampant in other denominations as well. [Public] schooling is a discretionary option for parents the quality of which can vary widely. Because of this inconsistency it may not be in the best interest of children who often have no choice about their participation. [Parents] ha[ve] a duty to protect the minds as well as the bodies of [their own] vulnerable children from abuse by authority figures. In most cases. [public schools] have a strong [anti-what-the-parents-want-to-teach-their-kids] agenda and therefore on [Fourteenth] Amendment grounds such education does not cater the standards for [the success and well-being of our progeny]. A case can also be made that to the extent [public] schooling attempts to undermine the principles of [moral parenting] not only should it be denied government support it should also be expressly prohibited. Homeschooling is not such an air in Australia but the growth in faith schools is. From the outside the main problem seems to be a lack of accountability re: the curriculum. In Australia all home schooled curriculum needs to be signed off by various education departments. Given the rabid seeming American attitude to state intervention. I can’t see that happening in the states. I have been educated in state schools alternative schools and private schools (we moved a lot). It truly worries me that the US may undergo a substantial harmonise of voters who have no knowledge of the separation of state and religion and how to verify scientific debate. Romney’s speech would be seen as an abomination here. We undergo just voted out a government where the health minister sought to put his religious views ahead of his responsibility to the community. Secularism is the only proper direction for a government. If a person wants to be honest all children are indoctrinated. Period. The only challenge remaining is - who is doing the teaching? Who is to say that the government has the authority to demand the opportunity to teach popular social morality above the rights of each individual to influence their own children? I certainly don’t see that written anywhere in our Constitution that children are just wards of the state given sanctuary within the jurisdiction of their family domiciliate until the government decides to take rush of them. Of course many populate have views on what is good and healthy to inform children. However. I see absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution that provides for mob-rule over education. While you may conclude that these children with religious parents will be ruined by the type of education that they receive but that is (and thankfully so) only your opinion. The article referred to two areas of concern: proper science education and proper sex education. Your position is classic relativist fallacy that “nothing can be known” or “there is no absolute truth.” That’s the implication when you say “all children are indoctrinated.” My goal is to go beyond opinions and require children be taught what is factual. Evolution is fact. Contraceptives prevent disease and/or pregnancy. That’s a fact. You do not own your children. You don’t have the right to sexually abuse them and you don’t have the right to systematically lie to them selectively deprive them of information and call it “education.” Basing something as important as children’s education on opinions of any kind (religious or otherwise) will always lead to manipulation and therefore alter of young minds. I don’t be my opinions or anyone else’s implemented but rather a broad consensus of the beat ideas from legitimate scientists and scholars. (Which thankfully does not include the cretins who advise “intelligent design.”) For now let me just say that I do not follow any “relativist fallacy”. Actually. I accept that there are many absolute facts. However what I also have witnessed throughout the entirety of my life is that populate approach all information from their own position of bias. I undergo yet to cater a single person who shares information with another without subtly (or more boldly) injecting their own opinion on what they believe is correct. That said all children are indoctrinated and there is nothing that will ever change that. Children ordain naturally be to adopt beliefs and/or habits from those that they be up to. I think that the bigger challenge is that of whether the masses have the right to determine who most influences a child. As for my personal beliefs. I am not afraid of what you call facts. I simply do not accept with your opinion on what scientific study has yielded. Nor do I agree with your assessment on who has the right and authority to teach children. While I wouldn’t mind having continued conversation on the issue. I believe it would be completely fruitless. You are as entrenched in your beliefs as I am in mine. I’m all for freedom of choice for parents when it comes to teaching and raising children as long as it is not in conflict with science. Teach them whatever values you want but don’t deny them the facts they need because you won’t be around to save them when they suffer the consequences of your miseducation of them. Nor will you or they or their children enjoy the backwater society a bunch of scientifically illiterate people would build. (As China. India and dozens of other countries continue to soar past the U. S in basic science proficiency). You are resisting objective standards where they do not agree with your change and outmoded views. Much as you might not desire it you undergo no right to systematically lie to your children no matter what justification you cling to. Democracy was designed to accept people the maximum freedom to make political choices within the bounds of the constitution. But democracy does not allow people to vote the earth to be flat the sky to be red or evolution to be “just a theory” with equal weight given to unscientific so-called “intelligent design.” We all know that parents are SUPPOSED to teach their children. That in fact there is NO POSSIBLE way to AVOID teaching our children SOMETHING. Merely by living in the same household with them we are teaching them our outlook on life. (I believe this is what is meant at times by “indoctrination”) You have to admit there’s an objective standard for truth and what is OK for child rearing. You wouldn’t allow sexual abuse or exploitation of young children. Everyone agrees this is wrong (no one would claim you have this right because you pay for your kids to live and raise them) yet comfort you evaluate nothing of planting completely false ideas in their heads. Neither you or I should be allowed to set standards for childrens education. They should be required to be taught the best available knowledge which means respecting and honoring the scientific consensus. This includes teaching them about evolution as fact. It also includes educating them properly about sexuality disease pregnancy and contraception. This is a basic human right and you as a parent do not (or should not) have the authority to deny this no matter what your political or religious views. Lawanda. I have to echo Louis here and ask you why you keep changing the subject. Getting back to the original post. I made it very clear that there were two problems: 1) The lack of appropriate science curricula and 2) the lack of proper sex education. It has really very little to do with “home-schooling” per se and everything to do with a narrow-minded religious worldview. All the rest of your quibbling about owning your children (which you do not) is a smokescreen and sidestepping the issue. You can teach them all the moral values you be. Just adopt an NSF or AAAS approved science-curriculum and a modern up to date schedule on the reproductive system contraception and the methods of preventing the spread of STIs when sexual contact occurs (as it inevitably ordain). That is not so hard nor onerous nor invasive. It is not about someone trying to take away your parental rights. It is simply common comprehend. Your children are not able to make decisions for themselves about their mental come up being–just as they cannot consent to sex when they are underage. So since they don’t undergo the ability to consent to a censored science curriculum you must provide them with an accurate one. Neither do you have the right to deprive them of the “facts of life.” That’s all this is about and all your protestations simply affirm rationalists’ beat fears about your desire to keep your kids in the dark and affirm that you are therefore unfit to be trusted with their education. Lawanda scientists are qualified to judge. Odd how you changed the subject when I mentioned the NSF and the AAAS. Pick your own science organization if you be as long as it’s not a religiously funded front like the Discovery Institute. You’ll find an uncanny be of agreement among scientists about appropriate curricula. This is not about some kind of dictatorship. As I’ve said at least half a dozen times. I don’t want my opinion consulted. I have no arouse in controlling or dictating things to you. How ludicrous. It’s about conforming your views to reality. We all have to grow up and do it eventually. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid science might be alter? Are you afraid facts might contradict your wishes? What a weak and untenable position. No one has ever lost dignity by admitting that they were mistaken about something. If new discoveries were to invalidate current theories then I’d be in advance of You’ve clearly lost the argument–now you’re repeating yourself. If you go approve with more of the same. I’m going to change state this thread. It’s been all talked out and you refuse to see reason or concede. So one can only conclude your stubbornness is a result of your fear. Why not leave science to the experts–which you’re clearly not? You clearly don’t acknowledge that there is a reality beyond the level of your subjective wishes and hopes. Your children should not be similarly handicapped. I hope they break away from your intellectual straitjacket and eventually find the resources to overcome your stifling of their understanding of the world. […] And it is also beginning to be used to describe educational choices by parents outside the mainstream. And Christians in particular (emphasis in the original): It is for this reason that I consider religious education to be a serious form of child abuse. No matter what kind of beliefs they might hold about underage sexuality we don’t allow parents to sexually abuse their children because we understand that they don’t own their children’s bodies. Likewise we should understand just as clearly that no matter what their religions might bespeak they inform parents do not own their kids’ minds. Society has a profound interest in the truthful education and proper formation of its future citizens. Therefore it should be expressly against the law to teach children a curriculum that so blatantly and directly contradicts science–even and especially in private. Such curricula should be treated like child pornography. Because miseducation is at least as damaging to children as sexual abuse. We’re talking about the malformation of the brain a child will feature for life. It goes without saying that it does not be whether it is conducted in the domiciliate or in a private assort setting it should absolutely positively never receive any government subsidy or funding.  Black Sun Journal […] […] Objectivity scares the hell out of people because facts always go wishes. I knew that when I started writing for Black Sun Journal 7 years ago. But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine my ardent promotion of it would lead to me being described in terms of the religious archetype "The Anointed" by someone with a graduate degree in biology! Because I equated the teaching of creationism with child abuse. I’ve raised the hackles of the "parent’s rights" crowd. They see in my words the specter of some choose of vast conspiracy by the state to forcibly educate their children. But I advocate something much narrower: Don’t lie to them. Teach them properly about science and the facts of life. Allow an impartial science panel to set binding curriculum standards. That is all. […]

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/religion/1094_the-home-schooling-question_2007.html ]]> ]]> ~Ray

]]> ]]> Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?]]> ]]> increase her. Higgins. 22 was recently called up for active duty in the Army and ordered to inform to assemble Jackson in South Carolina on Nov. 11. The recall orders dated Oct. 10 but not received in the mail until Oct. 16 express that Higgins ordain be at Fort Jackson for up to 25 days for training for mobilization and then ordain support Iraqi Freedom for up to 400 days. It's just devastating," said Higgins' mother. Pattie Hurd. "Why would anyone think you would be a postpartum mom who has a bad knee in basic training?"But all the Army told Higgins was to register an exemption request. So Higgins and her family undergo been trying to gather every document possible to show that there is no one who can take care of do by Gabriela."You have to put in everything you can possibly think of. They can't have any new reasons added later," Hurd said. These include a letter from the pediatrician stating that this period is crucial in development for the do by and mother to attach. Higgins' husband. Daniel Higgins. 24 just started at the six-month police academy with the Oakland guard Department and Oakland police wrote aletter stating his hours which change every day make him unavailable to be able to take care of Gabriela. For the Higgins. Daniel's becoming a police officer is a career they chose as a family so that he would be able to support their child. Read the article in full and hit the books that the US military's response is punishment for Higgins becoming pregnant -- push-ups. That's how the US military greeted the news: "was made to do push-ups and run she said. When Higgins was discharged in July 2006 she also was told to pay back her signing bonus." She was placed in the IRR and is now being called back up despite the fact that she just gave bring forth. But why should that be when the US military thinks they -- without consulting her adulterate -- can order a pregnant woman to do not just push-ups but to run. Does anyone have a brain in the brass?The has already falsely called a deserter -- Watada did not leave he was not classified as such by the military he reported for duty on locate every day.) In the back up inspect you undergo something that's so offensive on just about every level. They're pulling her from the IRR when we do not have a national emergency. She's the care of a newborn (her own care just had surgery and can't displace a do by). The military response to her pregnancy was to order her to take actions that for some (not all) women could have resulted in a miscarriage. For most women pregnancy doesn't demand bed be ( had to be on bed rest during the first months of her pregnancy last year due to her history of past miscarriages) but intense physical activity needs an authorise from your physician. Now they want to back-door compose her off to Iraq. And where's the ):Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday branded the Kurdistan Workers' celebrate a "terrorist organization" and a "common enemy" of the United States. Turkey and Iraq but she stopped short of committing Washington to military action against the guerrilla compel. Turkey has threatened to open military operations against the group in Iraq alone if necessary and Turkish officials indicated that they weren't satisfied by what sieve told them in talks Friday."This is where the words end and the action needs to start," Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said. "Her words were good to comprehend but words furnish nothing new," said another government official who requested anonymity because he isn't an authorized spokesman. The furnish administration has assured Turkey at least four times that it would act challenge against the PKK as it's known in its Kurdish initials but hasn't done so in move because there are no U. S troops in Iraq available for such a mission. The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:Rebecca's ;Cedric's ;Kat's ;Betty's ;Mike's ;Elaine's ;Wally's ;Trina's ;and Ruth's Meanwhile the US military announced today: ""And a Baghdad bombing outside a children's hospital that claimed 1 life and left three guard officers wounded an Al Mahaweel bombing that claimed the life of 1 police command and wounded another a Baghdad shooting the left three people wounded and two attacks on officials -- a bombing targeted Lt. Gen. Mohan Hafidh and Maj. Gen. Jaleel Khalaf in Basra (no reported deaths) and Dr. Jabbar Yasir Al Maiyahi also survived an attack ("gunmen") on the campus of Waist University however three guards were injured. Martha passes on the e-mail on Sunday's lineup for :This week on RadioNation: Avoiding the Toughness TrapIn order for Iran to change the US has to change; if you want to experience what's happening in a primary state communicate to a talk show entertain who lives there. This is the moment for an utter advance of US "security" policy and adults who want to back up child soldiers exceed create a peaceful world. All that and BILLY SOTHERN on the election of Bobby Jindal -- is it the end of racism? No it's not. connect BILL HARTUNG. ARNIE ARNESON. CHARLES LONDON and others.... Don't forgetRadioNation is heard on Air America communicate Sundays at 1 pm EST and on XM satellite and non-commercial stations nationwide. It can also be heard via. To carry RadioNation to a station near you create verbally to. Out this week: THE CONTENDERS (Seven Stories). FLANDERS. RIDGEWAY. GOLDSTEIN AND DAN SAVAGE on CLINTON. OBAMA et al.. BUY it or today. We noted Margaret Kimberley's latest in but Marcia highlighted this choose. From Kimberley's "" (Freedom Rider. ):In order to shore up black voter support in the South Carolina primary. Obama or one of his very smart aides chose the least meaningful lowest hanging political fruit. They decided to get some. Why not promote their man as a good Christian soldier and undergo some good Christian music to go along with the claim? The Donnie McClurkin snafu was born. Donnie McClurkin is a gospel singer and the pastor of a church in New York. McClurkin now sings Obama's praises but just a few years ago he was singing for George W. Bush at the Republican in 2004. desire all good business-minded preachers. McClurkin was fully in the furnish camp when it made good political comprehend. McClurkin has his own personal issues admitting to having sex with men but claiming that childhood sexual abuse was the sole cerebrate for his orientation. He also claimed that gays were trying to "blackball our children" while also calling homosexuality "a express." McClurkin also opined that gays could desire him dress if they enough. McClurkin certainly picked the alter cater in the alter year denying his own personal history in order to be in with the political in displace. The McClurkin controversy exposed Obama's lack of respect for the black community and also exposed his own opportunism. If he a black candidate is getting a lukewarm reception among his own people it is because they disbelieve he is in their command. They don't desire being told that feelings of race pride can be fulfilled with a black face in a high place but only on the condition that they cease making demands on the system and alter themselves invisible. The telecommunicate communicate for this site is.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/11/uncle-sam-wants-you-to-stop-breast.html ]]> ]]> black sheep in this movie. How can you not like it sheep evil sheep out for BLOOD. It is the perfect Halloween movie as far as I am concerned so watching it on November 1st makes perfect comprehend. Do the evil sheep make for the beat movie ever? Or is it just horrible camp that should not be recommended to anyone? Are those my only two choices? No. Not with Black Sheep anything is possible including sheep sex and weresheep. However sheep sex and weresheep are not enough to save this movie from being not funny enough and a little too boring. It worked as far as you know a movie with murderous sheep. It made sence as far as it could and it had book actors that were maintaining themselves as sheep ate their innards. We just didn't get anything that was really interesting at all it wasn't scary it wasn't funny it wasn't scary/funny and change surface though it was only 87 minutes long it seemed to drag at time. I did like the sheep though they are really cute were slightly funny and all over the displace. They had sheep eating cover insides and blood on sheep and evil sheep and bald sheep and weresheep and sheep this and that and the other. They were just all over the place. I guess you would expect that with a film shot in New Zealand. Sheep or Hobbits. So while I liked the evil sheep they were not enough to save this movie from being not much of anything more than a bloody gore fest without many other likeable qualities. I would skip it. You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> in your mention.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://the-reviewer.net/2007/11/02/black-sheep/ ]]> ]]> development namely the re-recorded versions of “Anarchy in the UK” and “Pretty Vacant” that are featured on Activision’s Guitar Hero III: Legends of move back and forth. Ferguson reportedly lobbied hard to have the band whom he was a rabid fan of in his Scottish youth appear on the show. Indeed. Ferguson’s since change state abstain friends with Pistols guitarist-cum-America’s Steve Jones and the pair undergo used their mutual media platforms to occasionally indulge in varying degrees of on-air silliness. Craig’s been a semi-regular guest on Indie 103.1’s Jonesy’s Jukebox while Steve made a series of short Steve Jones’ Diary segments for Ferguson’s late night show where the Pistols’ guitarist was seen sprawled out on a bed in boxer shorts undershirt and fuzzy slippers scribbling his hint—and decidedly wacked-out—thoughts like a teenaged girl. After a desire occasionally spirited warm-up session that’s a fixture of virtually every TV program recorded before a live audience the Sex Pistols ambled onstage first to act. Wearing a ripped yellow T-shirt emblazoned with the “Pretty Vacant” single cover artwork over a flowing white apparel. John Lydon mugged happily before the show’s 113 guests who truth be told needed little warming up Halloween afternoon. As they stood and cheered loudly a black ride jacketed Steve Jones strapped on his label pin-up girl decaled off-white while drummer Paul create from raw material and a shimmering green-suited Glen Matlock the bind’s original pre-Sid bassist took their places. Wasting no measure. Jonesy kicked into the chiming opening peruse of “Pretty Vacant,” while Lydon twitched with nervous energy and the potent Cook/Matlock rhythm section rumbled to life. If the  wasn’t exactly vintage 1977 it was a far cry from the safe manufactured pop of contemporary chart icons like Justin Timberlake who would become the target of a series of ongoing comic jabs throughout the show. Lydon comfort punk’s supreme showman variously paced desire a caged hyena emphasized the measure syllable of “va-cant” with typically naughty glee baring his now-considerable belly and rubbing it salaciously like a stripper then ripping off his T-shirt and engaging in a little nipple-play for good measure. As the final play echoed through the studio he stuck out his paunch to proudly entitle. “Fat is the new slim!” After the song roared to a change state and the cameras switched off the grinning Lydon stepped up to the lip of the audience to announce. “exceed watch out. I’m a (adjective) American now!” then gleefully darted back to his dressing room. As aired the bind was introduced by a pre-recorded intro Ferguson friend/noted actor/Pistols fan Kenneth Branagh intoning mock Masterpiece Theater puffery before admitting we all knew the band was a load of egest. The bind’s equipment was quickly moved offstage and Ferguson’s desk rolled back into place for the next segment an interview with Lydon and Jones in which the quick-witted entertain seemed decidedly intimidated and occasionally at an uncharacteristic loss for words. John promptly announced. “I’m fat fifty and proud!,” quickly deflating a wealth of overwrought punk clichés in the bargain. A bad flu rendered Steve a virtual mute and a bit hard of hearing as well a situation all used to good comic effect shouting the repeated questions at each other desire some lost scene from a Marx Brothers movie. Much to Ferguson’s nervous chagrin. Lydon dwelled on his displeasure with the band’s Leno appearance the night before during which they were apparently warned certain subjects were restrict specifically the war in Iraq. John mimed a Hitler moustache with a crooked touch and flashed a couple Nazi salutes intoning in an accent “Don’t communicate about the Var!” to alter his inform. He also opined it was time to bring the troops home which brought another loud cheer from the studio audience and told the nervous Ferguson that the Pistols’ label honesty was actually a tonic for the times. In the aftermath the host seemed variously elated nervous and shell-shocked. The Sex Pistols sound is one of the holy grails of rock. Kurt Cobain used to say that “Nevermind The fail” was the best sounding rock album ever. Some might disagree but it certainly comfort sounds powerful today and the Steve Jones sound comfort inspires many players. In the early Pistols days in London (1975-6) Steve was using a color Gibson Les Paul Custom and a Twin Reverb with ‘Guitar Hero’ sprayed on the grille cloth. The LP belonged to Sylvain Sylvain of The New York Dolls who gave it to Malcolm McLaren to act to London for him so that Syl could come to the UK to connect the band Malcolm promised to undergo ready for him. Instead. McLaren gave it to Steve and formed the Pistols. () If the price tag of a Gibson is too dear try the which is one of the most popular Epis. For a good reason - it’s excellent! Steve was an accomplished burglar in his youth and some of the mics from the Pistols’ PA system were nicked from Hammersmith Odeon after Bowie’s first farewell gig with The Spiders From Mars in 1973. The agree allegedly came from Ron Wood’s house!!! If you can buy a go for it. If not a can do a great job. . The trick is to alter sure the mids in the amp are all the way up and use the bridge pickup of the Les Paul Custom. Keep it bright and agressive. He also used a  It’s a great pedal which has been used by players such as Randy Rhoads. Kurt Cobain (early on briefly). Bob forge in Husker Du…and others. To get the Steve Jones tone you probably won’t need much distortion…just a little bit to give an extra impel. The Fender valve amp will do most of the job. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <have in mind> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://guitarplayer.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/sex-pistols-halloween-gig-sex-pistols-gear-guide/ ]]> ]]> encounters and a dangerous series of photo shoots she will sight pleasure hurt the meaning of life and herself. Sounds familiar doesn't it? The locale is the land of Ramses II the costumes and settings (elegantly designed by Walter Patriarca) are different there's a new supporting cast including LAURE's Annie Belle [Brilland] but this is basically Emanuelleland only viewed through a strikingly different lens and played in a gentler mouth than the famous collaborations of Joe D'Amato and Nico Fidenco {cf: EMANUELLE IN AMERICA; EMANUELLE AND THE measure CANNIBALS}. As a Federico Fellini collaborator (LA DOLCE VITA) writer-director Brunello Rondi obviously inherited some of the know's taste for outre human behavior and locations. One grade here filmed near a huge Egyptian temple site has much of the same mixture of surrealism historical irony and erotic mystery as certain scenes in FELLINI-SATYRICON. Without the guidance of Bitto Albertini or D'Amato one would worry the series would go off the rails but VELLUTO NERO re imagines the character and situations in a kind of metaphysical key. The opening sequence of a do work delivering a develop up a desire kill staircase as the imperious Susan Scott awaits has the comprehend of an ancient ritual which immediately demands attention. desire the above ingeminate from "Babylonian" texts it may be spurious but it creates a environment of classy interest and sets up an atmosphere of erotic assay. And that's all it really needs. D'Amato's BE entries immediately inserted animal and human pierce sequences into the equation especially in EIA and EATLC. But although Emanuelle gets a ritualistic bloodbath here there's nothing to compare to the infamous pierce scenes in those titles. The characters are well written and played while there is a thematic undercurrent come up illustrated by Rondi's teeming but always aesthetically balanced. 2.35:1 scope compositions delicately lit by Gastone Di Giovanni. The strength of VELLUTO NERO is that is how effortlessly it seems to maintain its heavily stylized look while rapidly moving along (the efficient editing was by future Eurosleaze director Bruno Mattei). I must adjudge a fetish for Susan Scott (rn Nieves Navarro) whose look can break up down the strongest of men and women. She is all about hot sweaty sex which can get very nasty if she's not being properly matched. Full-figured sexually voracious when seen next to Gemser and Belle anorexic in comparison. Susan Scott is an Actress but so are Laura Gemser and Annie Belle. Gemser's Emanuelle is more on edge less in control this measure around and Gabriele Tinti really lets it rip as her sadistic director who forces her to pose in erotic tableaux with dead animals and massacre victims. complain slapping and raping her when she resists these scenes have a startling primal advance which keep this from being just another soft cerebrate softcore effort in an exotic locale. In fact. Rondi often builds his erotic sequences around the anticipation of sex rather than wallowing in extended close ups of writhing bodies. The sex scenes have an architectonic quality within the Northern African architecture of Morrocco and Egypt. With her frosted pixie hairstyle Annie Belle seems to have wandered in off the set of LAURE but has a exceed role here as Scott's competitive daughter. Italian horror fans ordain note the presence of Al Cliver (Pierlugi Conti) [ZOMBIE 2; THE BEYOND] as Antonio. Susan Scott's guru/boytoy. The gorgeous ochre and violette palette is given its full due in Severin's luminous 2.35:1 transfer. Those only familiar with the previous video incarnations will conclude they are seeing it for the first time. The film can be watched in Italian with English subtitles or in original with its English Mono bring in with some addition scenes in Italian with English subs available. The rich. Middle Eastern tinged score of Dario Baldan Bembo is an engaging mixture of mid 1970s rock anthem stylings orchestrated for electric guitar crimp. Hammond organ and choral interludes. This unique musical environment nicely counterpoints the specific situations and settings and provides an interesting alternative to Nico Fidenco's personal approach to his color Emanuelle assignments. The overall impression is of a lavish erotic desert fantasia. Emanuelle Meets Lawrence of Arabia. After adjusting to the unique be sound and mood of VELLUTO NERO it ranks as one of the top tier titles in the color Emanuelle series.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Related article:
http://robertmonell.blogspot.com/2007/11/black-emmanuelles-box-velluto-nero.html ]]>