Oh really? Citation please, or is that just your personal opinion?
When I enrolled my child in public school I voluntarily agreed to see to it she attended a certain number of days, much in the same way my parents did when they enrolled me in Catholic school, many moons ago.
Your choice of homeschooling shows your claim of unconstitutionality to be the fallacy it is.
Stop the attacks on homeschoolers. This is FR, not Democrap Underground.
christianhomeschoolmommaof3, I stand with you as a fellow homeschool parent.
Stop the attacks on homeschoolers. This is FR, not Democrap Underground.
christianhomeschoolmommaof3, I stand with you as a fellow homeschool parent.
(Post formatting corrected)
“Your choice of homeschooling shows your claim of unconstitutionality to be the fallacy it is.”
In fact it is quite the opposite. I have the right as a parent to direct the upbringing and education of my children. The state has no right to compel me to put my children into public school (even though they will if I don’t provide instruction).
If you have voluntarily entered into an agreement to send your child to school for a certain amount of days, then that is your choice.
How does my choice to homeschool prove my assertion a fallacy? Just because something is law doesn’t make it constitutional(think abortion).
The Constitution protects us from the intrusion of government in our daily lives and clearly lays out the role of government. If you would care to show me where the Constitution ALLOWS government to FORCE parents to place their children in a institution I would be happy to reopen the debate. Obviously since, compulsory attendance is the “law of the land”, this would be considered my opinion. Just as I consider it a judges opinion that homosexual marriage and abortion are rights.
Compulsory is not voluntary, except in the “1984” Big Brother world of compulsory, prison-like schooling. What is this an attempt at “New-Speak”?
Regarding the First Amendment and compulsory socialist K-12 schooling:
Why are socialist K-12 schools unconstitutional? Answer: Because of the plain meaning of the words of the First Amendment !
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Free assembly: Children can not freely assemble with the people of their parent's choice if they are **compelled** ( that means police threat) to be in their prison-like socialist school! Only in the Orwellian world of government schooling can Free Assembly be made to mean “Compelled” assembly.
Establishment of religion: It is impossible to have a religiously neutral school. At the moment the government schools establish the religion of godless secular humanism. It is NOT religiously neutral to force a child to think and reason godlessly any more than it is to force them to think in a God-centered manner.
Free exercise of religion: For most of their socialist school day, the children are under police threat not to speak, and their movements, and free assembly with others, are strictly controlled. Well! **That** puts a damper on free exercise of religion.
Free speech and press and definitely abridged in any socialist K-12 school.
The above can not be fixed because “free” can never mean “government compulsion”. Only in the world of “new-speak” can this be so. The only possible solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.