|VOL. 10, NO. 3||Mar. 25, 2008|
|UPDATE: On February 28, a three-judge California appellate court ruled that under California law, "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." It has just been announced that the California court has agreed to rehear the case. The court rehearing comes on the heels of a massive outcry and movement against the decision. This move means that the original Rachel L. decision will not go into effect right now. For more details, go to Worldnetdaily.com and Pacificjustice.org.
NOTE: Court Watch thanks all of you who have already responded so positively to our recent dispatch on this outrageous situation. Your support is invaluable, and we deeply appreciate your continued prayers and encouragement.
Homeschooling, the Culture War, and the 2008 Elections
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
On February 28, a three-judge California appellate court ruled that under California law, "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." This judicial war on homeschooling in California is a particularly egregious example of the threat posed by judges to the Judeo-Christian worldview on which the Constitution and American culture were founded and from which we have grown to greatness.
The In re RACHEL L. et al. decision is rooted deeply in Humanism's diabolical desire to take over America, and to seize the education system as a major weapon against the rest of the culture. Humanists have been infiltrating the public schools for decades, and have openly admitted their goals. "Education is thus the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism." This assertion is not from a 2008 publication by the American Humanist Association. Rather, the statement appears in a 1930 publication, entitled Humanism: a New Religion, by Charles Francis Potter.
Humanistic successes in capturing California public education are evidenced by California's state Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394. WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh has closely followed this crisis. On February 29, 2008 (just one day after the California Court of Appeals reported its decision), Unruh described these bills as embodying "plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices." Although this plan still faces a court challenge and possible referendum vote, such measures as these are recognized as reasons why many parents are moving their children into a homeschool setting.
With Humanists now training their guns on homeschooling, the opinion by the Troublesome Trio on the California appellate court in the Long case warrants close scrutiny. This examination reveals several glaring errors. Consider the following.
The significance of the California educational battle cannot be overlooked in this election year. The Long case raises vital cultural and legal questions which should be asked of candidates, including the following:
In the early Twentieth Century, the U. S. Supreme Court answered fundamental questions regarding parents and their children (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923 and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). The Pierce Court, quoting from Meyer, forcefully stated this proposition regarding both the rights and responsibilities of "parents and guardians":
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction of public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations [emphasis added].
A major challenge facing homeschooling parents is to provide their children with an education that is of the very highest academic quality possible. A major challenge facing all other Americans is to protect the right of homeschooling parents to exercise this responsibility.