I also have come to believe that there is a mental illness that afflicts these elitist controllers. Folks like the Clintons, the Bushes, the Rockefellers. How much money does anyone need? Why the constant grasping for control and power? The hatred for others to the degree that they desire to make slaves of them? Is it a deep seated insecurity or delusions of godhood? The run of the mill liberal I don't see as mentally ill as the real power grabbers. The liberal is simply pushing his religion while pretending that it is simply "reality" and not the state idolatry that it is. These feminazi "law professors" who spin a Constitutional basis for claiming state ownership of everyone have no faith in God. There is no hereafter in their view. The here and now is all, this life is all they have. So it is very important to them to create a perfect world. They believe that men are nothing but animals and this excuses their aggressions against other people that they commit in their utopia building. Members of the state class are divine and THEIR theft, murder, and lying is righteous. And all the while they do these things they claim a system of values that springs from consensus and force it on people as "right" even as they claim that no such thing as "right" exists. It is an illogical and inconsistent religion, but religion nonetheless.

I say bring it on. They are taking off their masks and coming out with it: they consider us and our kids state property for them to mold as they see fit…and WHO the HECK are THEY????

Ms Yuracko seeks to ram HER religion down our throats as she persecutes those of the (primarily) Christian faith.

>>>>This Essay explores the choice many traditionalist Christian parents (both fundamentalist and evangelical) make to leave public schools in order to teach their children at home, thus in most instances escaping meaningful oversight.<<<<

Presumes the state owns the children and the parents. Also presumes they are guilty of something without proof, less human than those who presume to “oversee“ them.

>>>> I am not primarily concerned here with the quality of academic achievement in the core curricular areas among homeschoolers, which has been the subject of much heated debate.<<<

No wonder. The “heated debate”, such as it was, has been long over. Her side lost because “schools” do not educate, they aren’t supposed to.

>>>> Instead, my comments focus on civic education in the broadest sense, which I define primarily as exposure to the constitutional norm of tolerance.<<<

“Constitutional norm”?? Gotta love the contortions these “legal scholars” go to to “interpret” the Constitution for us idiots, “educated” in her “schools”, who can’t read it. The Constitution LIMITS the state, or is supposed to. NOWHERE does it give the state the right to force children into government brainwashing, nor does it give ownership of the individual to the state.

>>>> I shall argue that the growing reliance on homeschooling comes into direct conflict with assuring that children are exposed to such constitutional values.2<<<

LOL!! Such concern for the transmission of “Constitutional values”!! The amount of instruction I received on the Constitution in government school could be written on an index card and it was nearly all false. Besides, NOWHERE does the Constitution give the state ownership of the individual or the right to forcibly brainwash and dumb down children.

>>>>>Listen to her again, later in the same article:
Many liberal political theorists argue, however, that there are limits to tolerance. In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations<<<<

Assumes that tolerance is a “norm”. If it is a “norm” it is a norm that was forced on people through laws forcing association and demonizing those who wish to associate among those THEY choose. Besides, since WHEN are we ruled by “political theorists”???

>>>>, society need not and should not tolerate the inculcation of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference.<<<

THIS statement negates all her fancy legal theorizing and rationalizations for tyranny: THIS is an absolute statement promoting an absolutist idea. The idea that society should not tolerate families teaching certain religious beliefs in favor of HER religious beliefs is an absolute view itself. Can she be this stupid?

>>>>> Respect for difference should not be confused with approval for approaches that would splinter us into countless warring groups. Hence an argument that tolerance for diverse views and values is a foundational principle does not conflict with the notion that the state can and should limit the ability of intolerant homeschoolers to inculcate hostility to difference in their children—at least during the portion of the day they claim to devote to satisfying the compulsory schooling requirement.3<<<<<

Sooo, “tolerance” only goes one way, HER way is the only one that will be tolerated. Absolutely. And of course she has not a shred of legal or moral authority on which to claim this.

>>>>>Again, Professor Ross continues:
If a parent subscribes to an absolutist belief system premised on the notion that it was handed down by a creator, that it (like the Ten Commandments) is etched in stone and that all other systems are wrong, the essential lessons of a civic education (i.e., tolerance and mutual respect) often seem deeply challenging and suspect. If the core principle in a parent’s belief system is that there is only one immutable truth that cannot be questioned, many educational topics will be off limits. Such “private truths” have no place in the public arena, including the public schools.4<<<<<

But the opposite “private truth” of Ross and Yuracko IS immutable and and cannot be questioned.

>>>>>And, finally, Professor Ross tells us what she thinks should be done about us, in addition to imposing testing requirements and all manner of academic regulation.
I propose that we add to the civics education goals of the state, including lessons on mutual respect for diverse populations and viewpoints as a mandatory curricular requirement. As I observed above, some homeschoolers doubtless are committed to diversity, and this requirement would not conflict with their educational agenda, but this is not the group that concerns me.<<<<

LOL! Do tell! Which particular group don’t rear their children and teach them as YOU say they should, Ross?

>>>> Imposing curricular requirements about respect for diverse viewpoints will be seen as undermining the most authoritarian conservative homeschoolers—those who believe in an absolute truth which forms the basis of the education they provide their children. Unfortunately, the unavoidable counterpart of a belief in absolute truth is that other belief systems are mistaken at best, and at worst, evil.5<<<

Which is EXACTLY what she is saying about people who teach their kids that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

>>>>Professors Yuracko and Ross are far from alone in urging these positions.<<<

Oooooo, an argument from authority and numbers! I’m converted to HER absolute truth!

>>>>> Professor Martha Albertson Fineman, from the Emory University School of Law, wrote in 2009 of her fear of parents with “oppressive, hierarchical belief systems.”6<<<

Fear of the belief systems of others? Why? Why no “respect”??

>>>>She says,
Indeed, the long-term consequences for the child being home schooled or sent to a private school cannot be overstated. The total absence of regulation over what and how children are taught leaves the child vulnerable to gaining a sub-par or non-existent education from which they may never recover.<<<<

There was an almost total absence of regulation when I home schooled (we had to have a teacher evaluate us at year end for $25.) and my kid got into a fairly selective private school. My other one is considering college and got a scholarship toward it. I submit that the children of others are not this womans business, despite her irrational fears.

>>>> Moreover, the risk that parents or private schools unfairly impose hierarchical or oppressive beliefs on their children is magnified by the absence of state oversight or the application of any particular educational standards.7<<<

Yes! It is for the STATE to “impose oppressive beliefs” on kids, not parents or pastors!

>>>>>So what does she recommend should be done about all of us?
Private education should be banned. All of it. Private schools, religious schools, homeschools.<<<<

Such “tolerance”, such “respect” for the beliefs of others.

>>>>. . . he more appropriate suggestion for our current educational dilemma is that public education should be mandatory and universal.<<<<

The hilarious thing is that she is still passing off this brainwashing as “education”, even after mincing around and admitting that they “fear” homeschoolers don’t indoctrinate enough. I think what they FEAR is an EDUCATED population.

>>>> Parental expressive interest could supplement but never supplant the public institutions where the basic and fundamental lesson would be taught and experienced by all American children: we must struggle together to define ourselves both as a collective and as individuals.8<<<<<

No, we DO NOT “ALL” have to “struggle together” to define ourselves as a “collective” OR as individuals. And, as KIND as it is of her to allow parents to “supplement” state worship indoctrination of their children, she doesn’t have the right to do so.

The jig is up. We are onto them. We KNOW they want us stupid and compliant so they can pursue their atheistic utopian schemes as the elites get richer and richer off our enslavement. Useful idiots. Their arguments are as bogus as their religion.

Thanks for posting, Dave.