Posted on 10/09/2008 5:22:05 AM PDT by kindred
A federal court decision approving mandatory public school instruction for children as young as kindergarten in how to be homosexual is being allowed to stand, drawing a description of "despicable" from the parent who unsuccessfully challenged his school district's "gay" advocacy agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination.
The case on which WND has reported previously involves Massachusetts father David Parker, who with his wife now have withdrawn their children from public schools, for which they continue to pay taxes, and are homeschooling.
The decision by the Supreme Court leaves standing the ruling from the appeals court for Massachusetts, where Judge Sandra Lynch said those who are concerned over such civil rights violations "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."
Earlier District Judge Mark Wolf had ordered that school officials' work to undermine Christian beliefs and teach homosexuality is needed to prepare children for citizenship, and if parents don't like it they can elect a different school committee or homeschool their children.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
So the Massachusetts court is saying “keep paying your taxes, shut up, and either let us indoctrinate your kid, or put him in private school/homeschool.” ( Jen B)
Ransom!
Unless a parent ransoms their child the government will imprison their child in their government indoctrination centers ( misnamed "schools"). If the parents resist the government school brown shirts these parents face armed police and court action. Government schools are **serious** business in the life of all parents.
Thankfully we still have the option to ransom our children by paying extra ( in addition to supporting and establishing the religion of atheistic Secular Humanism in government indoctrination camps.
There is far more reason than merely government schools. This ruling is merely a symptom of a far larger ( and irresolvable) problem. We are facing a worldview that has infected every bureaucracy, our government, culture, and nearly all educational institutions.
New York City already has Harvey Milk High School. It gets around anti-discrimination ordinances by being “open to everyone.” The same is true of the various “Afro-Centric” schools in some urban areas.
This is endemic. We must pray for revival. There is no political solution for this disease.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are absolutely correct. There is no political solution.
“Yes, some children will need to be institutionalized for their schooling. Their parents are too poor, too stupid, too ill, too mentally unbalanced, too ill-educated by their own government education, too illiterate, too stressed,..or...these parents just may not like their kids.”
Hey, I resemble a couple of those remarks! Heh heh!!
~wink~
Seriously though...with determination, even an abjectly ignorant person can perhaps not teach but at least orchestrate a home education.
The fundamental problem that no court has ever addressed is the underlying conflict between government schooling, the First Amendment, and freedom of conscience.
**No** school can be religiously neutral. **ALL** schools establish a religious wordview. This includes **all** government schools!
Besides this, **all** government schools must violate free speech, press, assembly, and expression of religion. It is unavoidable, **all** schools must do this.
So....I can see the reluctance of the Supreme Court to take on this issue. Ultimately, the court ( if it were honest) would need to rule that **every** government school in this nation is a First Amendment abomination and must be closed.
I doubt the Supremes have back bones stiff enough to do that.
The kids would be home schooled. They wouldn’t have S.S. numbers or known addresses so would not exist as far as the gov knows.We as legal registered Americans would have to play by the rules and go down with the ship. As the country disintegrates around us, we would assist and educate and support the unregistered young who don’t have to play by the rules. For example, I tag a car in my name for an unregistered. They get pulled over for speeding with no license or ID, they don’t show up for the court date. Much like the illegal aliens get by now. The problem would be, how could they own a house or land? Anyway lots to work out to make it work, but it would be a good way to revolt in a non violent way. It’s never been about gun control, It’s people control.
I think SCOTUS was correct in not taking this case. This is purely a case of State law. I don't see any Constituional or Federal issue at stake here.
You only need 4 Justices to agree to take up a case on appeal. It seems that at least one of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas agree with me that this is not an appropriate issue for SCOTUS to decide.
The unregistered folks would have to utilize the monetary system we have now until the cashless system is mandatory. It would be up to us to make sure that never happened. If enough people started with this non violent form of revolution, eventually, maybe a couple of generations, there would be hundreds of thousands of them, all well educated in what caused this once great nation to fail after so long. In the mean time, the old tax base (us), would have died off bankrupting the old socialist system.
What does that tell you? Maybe there simply is no Constitutional issue here, other than in your own mind.
If you, or other likeminded people, think there is a Constitutional argument to be made here, then, by all means, file a lawsuit. Until then, your whining on this issue is tiresome.
Be careful for what you wish for.
I do like states’ rights. Good point. But what about the other three justices? Were they all wrong?
Why do freepers hate WND? It’s right about tons of stuff!
(wagglebee - will you let me do a bit of pinging in a while? My fingers are itching...!)
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I think the problem is that when WND is "wrong" they are REALLY WRONG.
However, Bob Unruh wrote this piece and he is great. He used a lot of stuff from FReepers to right an expose about Lauren Richardson, a woman from Delaware whose mother was trying to kill Terri Schiavo-style. Ultimately, Lauren's parents agreed to take her home and let her live and Bob Unruh deserves credit for that. WND was also talking about Terri Schiavo long before everyone else in the world knew who she was.
We don't know if any justices voted to hear this case. The vote is not made public when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take a case.
Maybe 3 conservative justices voted to hear this case, but we'll never know.
This, ultimately, will be happening in every state homosexual marriage is allowed. If homosexual marriage is legal, schools can and will force the idea upon children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.