Re: 2219 Death from Religion
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
on 8/9/02 2:26 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:
Julie asks:
Julie, you get my vote.
Recently there have been tallies made about how many people have been killed
by their own governments. I'll try to find the numbers. (Hope this isn't OT,
but no one has objected to this thread yet) The numbers are as astronomical
as the ones for religions killing people, and for racial murdering, or
simple plunder and other reasons. The government killings include, of
course, Gallileo, Socretes, and Jesus. Then there are the 24 Salem
"witches"...
It takes government to make a war.
Does anybody know the penalties for homeschooling a child in the countries
in Europe in which it is prohibited?
In Massachusetts, there is a homeschooling family whose children are under
the jurisdiction of the state dept of something, not for abuse or neglect of
any kind -- it has never been about inadequate parenting -- but for not
submitting a curriculum to the local school district.
Ned Vare
www.borntoexplore.org/unschool
[email protected] wrote:
Julie asks:
> How many people do you figure Christianity has killed? We've got theNed butts in:
> Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Converting of Celts, Native Americans,
> Africans, etc...
Julie, you get my vote.
Recently there have been tallies made about how many people have been killed
by their own governments. I'll try to find the numbers. (Hope this isn't OT,
but no one has objected to this thread yet) The numbers are as astronomical
as the ones for religions killing people, and for racial murdering, or
simple plunder and other reasons. The government killings include, of
course, Gallileo, Socretes, and Jesus. Then there are the 24 Salem
"witches"...
It takes government to make a war.
Does anybody know the penalties for homeschooling a child in the countries
in Europe in which it is prohibited?
In Massachusetts, there is a homeschooling family whose children are under
the jurisdiction of the state dept of something, not for abuse or neglect of
any kind -- it has never been about inadequate parenting -- but for not
submitting a curriculum to the local school district.
Ned Vare
www.borntoexplore.org/unschool
Fetteroll
on 8/9/02 8:00 PM, Luz Shosie and Ned Vare at nedvare@... wrote:
suggests a picture of parents blindsided by the system because of missed
paperwork.
The Bryants fully realized what they were doing when they refused to submit
an education plan. They claimed that the school committee's process of
approval runs counter to their unschooling appraoch.
(The paperwork is not at all burdensome. I use Carol Narigon's letter of
intent and send in a list of subjects and a sentence or two on each for
evaluation. Some towns ask for more but the case law says the method of
assessment must be approved by the parents.)
The committee had no objection to the Bryants homeschooling or even
unschooling. They just wanted their paperwork. They had 2 years to work it
out. This was a stand on a principle -- Kim Bryant claimed the
"Massachusetts Constitution protects her from needing to comply with the
state's home education regulations." (quote from Nicky Hardenbergh of MHLA,
the state HS group) (Kim Bryant discussed her position at *very* great
length -- so great it split the state list in 2 -- on the MAHomeschoolers
group on Yahoo.)
They lost.
The decision is at http://mhla.org/ivandecision.htm
Joyce
> In Massachusetts, there is a homeschooling family whose children are underThis would be a sensationalist misrepresentation of what happened. It
> the jurisdiction of the state dept of something, not for abuse or neglect of
> any kind -- it has never been about inadequate parenting -- but for not
> submitting a curriculum to the local school district.
suggests a picture of parents blindsided by the system because of missed
paperwork.
The Bryants fully realized what they were doing when they refused to submit
an education plan. They claimed that the school committee's process of
approval runs counter to their unschooling appraoch.
(The paperwork is not at all burdensome. I use Carol Narigon's letter of
intent and send in a list of subjects and a sentence or two on each for
evaluation. Some towns ask for more but the case law says the method of
assessment must be approved by the parents.)
The committee had no objection to the Bryants homeschooling or even
unschooling. They just wanted their paperwork. They had 2 years to work it
out. This was a stand on a principle -- Kim Bryant claimed the
"Massachusetts Constitution protects her from needing to comply with the
state's home education regulations." (quote from Nicky Hardenbergh of MHLA,
the state HS group) (Kim Bryant discussed her position at *very* great
length -- so great it split the state list in 2 -- on the MAHomeschoolers
group on Yahoo.)
They lost.
The decision is at http://mhla.org/ivandecision.htm
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/10/02 4:08:58 AM Central Daylight Time, cen46624@...
writes:
(online or directly from the Kansas Board of Education) a form of intent. You
fill out the name of your *home* school, your name, address, phone # (not
required) and the name of your *keeper of records* (usually you) address,
phone # (not required) That is it. You don't have to give your children's
ages or names. You do this one time, unless you have an address change. I
don't think they (KBOE) actually use this information for anything except to
compile a mailing list that is sold to various private, independent, and
charter schools. Who in turn send out colorful pamphlets and letters telling
hsers why they feel their idea of education is so like yours, so why don't
you send your dollars and children to their institution. I have read the law,
it tells me I am a non-accredited private school. Technically, I could school
others children as well. If I were so inclined, I could apply for and go
through the rigorous accreditation process. Why should I? There are many
non-accredited private schools in the state of Kansas. The Catholic schools
in the area are just now going through this process at the behest of the
Kansas City Arch Diocese. (The two neighborhood parishes are in their third
or fourth year of the five year long process) The local Catholic High School
has been issuing diplomas for years, many of the students graduated from the
school have gone on to college. This tells me that my homemade diploma (if I
choose to make and give one to Moly and Jack) will be accepted as well as
theirs. My point in all this rambling? Well, its like this. IF Kansas
required me to do as little as submit an education plan, I would do so. Why?
Because submitting an education plan doesn't, IMHO, go against my unschooling
values. Would I kowtow to the *establishment*? Yes, Plain and simple, my
children are the most important people in the world to me. Could I live in a
state like Pennsylvania, with their regulations? Probably not. And not
because the requirements are against my ideals, (because I know Unschoolers
exist and thrive in Pennsylvania) but because I am too lazy to have to go
through all those hoops. <g> This said, I just don't understand any ideal or
moral code that would allow me to be so antiestablishment as to go as far as
having Moly and Jack removed from my home. (I am antiestablishment enough) I
respect the Bryant's stand on how they feel best to raise their children. I
raise my kids that way too. What I don't understand is allowing my personal
opinion to be so rigid that a matter so small, would result in me not having
Moly asleep on the couch beside me right now. The Bryant's have made the
proverbial mountain out of a mole hill.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
>We have it easy. Here in Kansas, when a child reaches the age of 7, you get
> /So putting it all together/:
>
>
> We will destroy your family if you attempt to unschool.
> We do assure however:
>
> _*the committee*__* had no objection to the "parents using this method
> *__*of education,*_"
> _**_
>
> _**_
>
>
> It does strike as being a little more involved than the reading that Luz
> Shosie and Ned Vare gave it.
> It is pretty indicative of the current reguard the various governments
> hold to residents, and
> more and more so the other way around.
>
>
> Bill
>
(online or directly from the Kansas Board of Education) a form of intent. You
fill out the name of your *home* school, your name, address, phone # (not
required) and the name of your *keeper of records* (usually you) address,
phone # (not required) That is it. You don't have to give your children's
ages or names. You do this one time, unless you have an address change. I
don't think they (KBOE) actually use this information for anything except to
compile a mailing list that is sold to various private, independent, and
charter schools. Who in turn send out colorful pamphlets and letters telling
hsers why they feel their idea of education is so like yours, so why don't
you send your dollars and children to their institution. I have read the law,
it tells me I am a non-accredited private school. Technically, I could school
others children as well. If I were so inclined, I could apply for and go
through the rigorous accreditation process. Why should I? There are many
non-accredited private schools in the state of Kansas. The Catholic schools
in the area are just now going through this process at the behest of the
Kansas City Arch Diocese. (The two neighborhood parishes are in their third
or fourth year of the five year long process) The local Catholic High School
has been issuing diplomas for years, many of the students graduated from the
school have gone on to college. This tells me that my homemade diploma (if I
choose to make and give one to Moly and Jack) will be accepted as well as
theirs. My point in all this rambling? Well, its like this. IF Kansas
required me to do as little as submit an education plan, I would do so. Why?
Because submitting an education plan doesn't, IMHO, go against my unschooling
values. Would I kowtow to the *establishment*? Yes, Plain and simple, my
children are the most important people in the world to me. Could I live in a
state like Pennsylvania, with their regulations? Probably not. And not
because the requirements are against my ideals, (because I know Unschoolers
exist and thrive in Pennsylvania) but because I am too lazy to have to go
through all those hoops. <g> This said, I just don't understand any ideal or
moral code that would allow me to be so antiestablishment as to go as far as
having Moly and Jack removed from my home. (I am antiestablishment enough) I
respect the Bryant's stand on how they feel best to raise their children. I
raise my kids that way too. What I don't understand is allowing my personal
opinion to be so rigid that a matter so small, would result in me not having
Moly asleep on the couch beside me right now. The Bryant's have made the
proverbial mountain out of a mole hill.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 8/10/02 5:44 AM, Dnowens@... at Dnowens@... wrote:
custody. They need to ask the state's permission (through DSS) to make any
changes in the care of their children (taking them out of state, moving for
example). But they are still homeschooling.
It ain't pretty, that's for sure. The repercussions were certainly far worse
than the crime. And i've never had any illusions of the state of MA being a
handsoff entity.
But it's also *not* an example of a poor innocent homeschooling family
dragged down by the oppressive state. It was mighty noble of the Bryants to
take a stand. But against what? It's not like the paperwork is a constant
thorn in the side. It's a fly the buzzes about at the end of the school year
until it's sent off. (Or buzzes about all summer in the case of some
procrastinators! ;-)
And this *really* isn't the forum to discuss it in because I'm *way*
underinformed for a discussion. (Besides being way too state specific to be
useful to unschoolers in general.) If anyone has questions the place to go
is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/
Joyce
> This said, I just don't understand any ideal orThe children weren't removed from the home. The Bryants have physical
> moral code that would allow me to be so antiestablishment as to go as far as
> having Moly and Jack removed from my home.
custody. They need to ask the state's permission (through DSS) to make any
changes in the care of their children (taking them out of state, moving for
example). But they are still homeschooling.
It ain't pretty, that's for sure. The repercussions were certainly far worse
than the crime. And i've never had any illusions of the state of MA being a
handsoff entity.
But it's also *not* an example of a poor innocent homeschooling family
dragged down by the oppressive state. It was mighty noble of the Bryants to
take a stand. But against what? It's not like the paperwork is a constant
thorn in the side. It's a fly the buzzes about at the end of the school year
until it's sent off. (Or buzzes about all summer in the case of some
procrastinators! ;-)
And this *really* isn't the forum to discuss it in because I'm *way*
underinformed for a discussion. (Besides being way too state specific to be
useful to unschoolers in general.) If anyone has questions the place to go
is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/9/02 7:40:46 PM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< This would be a sensationalist misrepresentation of what happened. >>
Is that what this list is for?
Do exaggerated claims for the purpose of agitating people help others
unschool?
Sandra
<< This would be a sensationalist misrepresentation of what happened. >>
Is that what this list is for?
Do exaggerated claims for the purpose of agitating people help others
unschool?
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/10/02 3:09:03 AM, cen46624@... writes:
<< We will destroy your family if you attempt to unschool. >>
That doesn't seem a fair assessment.
They could have described unschooling in educational terms, in open-classroom
terms.
Carol Narigon's curriculum has much light and little "curriculum." It's been
out in public in a few places and is probably in the archives of this list
and at www.unschooling.com somewhere, but it's also here:
http://sandradodd.com/unschoolingcurriculum
None of us lives off the earth. None of us transcends earthly realities
while we live.
If I go to prison for my beliefs, that will destroy my family. If I refuse
to submit a paper to the government when they press legal action on existing
law, I will be risking entanglement with social services folks. If I say "NO
paper, you will not get a piece of paper" and they impose oversight on my
family, I cannot act surprised.
Should we disband social services because once in a while a homeschoolien
family is pressured? Should social services be a free market situation too?
Domestic violence and child abuse (sexual abuse, burning as punishment,
broken limbs)--those are things I would like for the government to help
prevent.
So social services are part of what citizens and residents want. And we
won't exist in societies without laws.
Sandra
<< We will destroy your family if you attempt to unschool. >>
That doesn't seem a fair assessment.
They could have described unschooling in educational terms, in open-classroom
terms.
Carol Narigon's curriculum has much light and little "curriculum." It's been
out in public in a few places and is probably in the archives of this list
and at www.unschooling.com somewhere, but it's also here:
http://sandradodd.com/unschoolingcurriculum
None of us lives off the earth. None of us transcends earthly realities
while we live.
If I go to prison for my beliefs, that will destroy my family. If I refuse
to submit a paper to the government when they press legal action on existing
law, I will be risking entanglement with social services folks. If I say "NO
paper, you will not get a piece of paper" and they impose oversight on my
family, I cannot act surprised.
Should we disband social services because once in a while a homeschoolien
family is pressured? Should social services be a free market situation too?
Domestic violence and child abuse (sexual abuse, burning as punishment,
broken limbs)--those are things I would like for the government to help
prevent.
So social services are part of what citizens and residents want. And we
won't exist in societies without laws.
Sandra
Betsy
**If I go to prison for my beliefs, that will destroy my family. If I
refuse
to submit a paper to the government when they press legal action on
existing
law, I will be risking entanglement with social services folks. If I
say "NO
paper, you will not get a piece of paper" and they impose oversight on
my
family, I cannot act surprised.**
Has anyone seen the Barbara Hershey movie where she plays an activist in
S. Africa who is jailed for her political activities? I'm totally
blanking on the title.
Betsy
refuse
to submit a paper to the government when they press legal action on
existing
law, I will be risking entanglement with social services folks. If I
say "NO
paper, you will not get a piece of paper" and they impose oversight on
my
family, I cannot act surprised.**
Has anyone seen the Barbara Hershey movie where she plays an activist in
S. Africa who is jailed for her political activities? I'm totally
blanking on the title.
Betsy
Deb
> Should we disband social services because once in a while a homeschoolienGovernments don't PREVENT domestic violence or child abuse. How exactly
> family is pressured? Should social services be a free market situation too?
> Domestic violence and child abuse (sexual abuse, burning as punishment,
> broken limbs)--those are things I would like for the government to help
> prevent.
do you think a government would intervene before anything happened?
Court injunctions sometimes do it when it has gone to an extreme, but
the government never sees the inside of most households, and it should
stay that way!
My state, FLorida is notorious for its extremely ineffective social
services agency. THey keep changing the social service agency's name
(Dept. of Children and Families is what it is called now) so hopefully
people will forget the kids who were just murdered, neglected or hurt,
and keep funding them. On the other hand I have seen testimony by many,
many families whose lives were ruined by social service agencies who
tore them apart, ripped kids out of their parents home for no good
reason by their own opinions and put them into foster homes where they
were raped or abused and neglected.
BUt they change the name of their agency, rather than their
fundamentally flawed premise, that the government by intruding and
degrading the dignity and rights of its people can get them to "act
better". Do you advocate spanking and punishing your child and use
threats of that to increase their judgment? It's just that the
government finds it very difficult to control people in a positive way.
I think that is what you are asking for. Punishment (though it has its
place) does not control people - it smashes them. A better idea of WHAT
to do for people and how to define roles, and helping people help
themselves is what is needed. That is a slow hard way to go for it means
one-on-one communication and understanding and if you don't really have
any idea how to help someone, you don't conceive it is possible - but it
is.
Debbie
That
>--
> So social services are part of what citizens and residents want. And we
> won't exist in societies without laws.
>
> Sandra
>
Director, Live Oak Academy
Visit our website http://www.newhealth.net/liveoak/
~Flexible Alternative Schooling for Families~
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/10/02 11:01:31 AM, herbtea@... writes:
<< Governments don't PREVENT domestic violence or child abuse. How exactly
do you think a government would intervene before anything happened? >>
I know of cases when the violence stopped at two or three instances.
And I've known of cases when nobody reported it and the violence went on and
on and on.
What if there was nobody to report it TO?
Florida has screwed some stuff up badly. I don't think disbanding social
services in Florida is the answer.
Sandra
<< Governments don't PREVENT domestic violence or child abuse. How exactly
do you think a government would intervene before anything happened? >>
I know of cases when the violence stopped at two or three instances.
And I've known of cases when nobody reported it and the violence went on and
on and on.
What if there was nobody to report it TO?
Florida has screwed some stuff up badly. I don't think disbanding social
services in Florida is the answer.
Sandra