“Correct. And who gets to decide the difference between a ‘directed’ vs. ‘misdirected’ education? Not the parents, obviously. If they're going to be ‘held accountable,’ it is the state that will do it.”
No, not the state. The state has no right, no legitimate interest, no business at all in holding parents accountable for misdirected education. I already said that in my last post. It's none of the state's damned business, the same state that once taught through segregation that blacks were inferior, the same state that today teaches children how to put condoms on bananas, the state may NOT legitimately direct the education of children against the wishes of their parents or judge the direction by parents of their children's education.
For parents, God is judge. That's it.
“But some evils can and must be addressed by the state.”
This ain't one of them, and anyone who thinks it is is an authoritarian statist.
“...which is why Jefferson (among others) was so adamant on the need for an educated populace.”
Don't care much for the musings of Thomas Jefferson, a man who cut up the Bible and put it back together according to his own prejudices and biases.
“And, at the very least, it is incumbent upon the state to demand and ensure that all children be held to certain educational standards.”
Perhaps they should start with the “education” they provide to children in the public schools.
But I don't accept what you're saying anyway. The state is intrinsically incompetent to “demand and ensure that all children be held to certain educational standards.” See: No Child Left Behind Act for an example.
sitetest
Yes, it is. The state has a legitimate and obvious interest in ensuring that its citizenry be well-educated. Thomas Jefferson was an early and effective advocate of the proposition.
.... the same state that once taught through segregation that blacks were inferior, the same state that today teaches children how to put condoms on bananas, the state may NOT legitimately direct the education of children against the wishes of their parents or judge the direction by parents of their children's education.
You're trying to change the subject, I see. One can certainly object to the examples you cite, without having to surrender the main point, which is that the state has a definite and legitimate interest in ensuring an educated populace.
Don't care much for the musings of Thomas Jefferson, a man who cut up the Bible and put it back together according to his own prejudices and biases.
And wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights, and so on. Really ... you seem bound and determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater, don't you?
This ain't one of them, and anyone who thinks it is is an authoritarian statist.
OK, I've had it with you. You seemed reasonable at first, but now you're spiraling down into whackadoodlery. Have a nice day.