Comments on: THE BAPTIST COOKBOOK THEORY OF PARENTING http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/ E AHO LA'ULA Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:20:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Harry http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-121 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-121 OK, but consider the situation where the parents aren't doing much of anything noticeable. No religious involvement, little apparent "morals" education. Do you still adopt a laissez-faire stance? If you know the parents are at best passively hostile to church, do you invite the kids to attend your Bible School? OK, but consider the situation where the parents aren’t doing much of anything noticeable. No religious involvement, little apparent “morals” education. Do you still adopt a laissez-faire stance? If you know the parents are at best passively hostile to church, do you invite the kids to attend your Bible School?

]]> by: Mark Hasty http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-122 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-122 Of course. It isn't mandatory to attend Bible school, but the state says your kids must be educated somehow. Of course. It isn’t mandatory to attend Bible school, but the state says your kids must be educated somehow.

]]> by: Harry http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-123 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-123 "Bible School" was a semantic maneuver. But in this situation, are you intervening any more, or any less, in the parent's prerogative, than in the case of a parent who chooses to tell their child that the world is held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle, swimming in a sea of milk? At what point does the garden become inhabitated not by weeds, but by thorns and thistles? “Bible School” was a semantic maneuver. But in this situation, are you intervening any more, or any less, in the parent’s prerogative, than in the case of a parent who chooses to tell their child that the world is held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle, swimming in a sea of milk? At what point does the garden become inhabitated not by weeds, but by thorns and thistles?

]]> by: Mark Hasty http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-124 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-124 It's still up to the parents to choose whether they will or will not permit their child to be exposed to a particular influence. The mere act of inviting does not constitute interference, any more than sticking a cross on top of a church constitutes an attempt to impose a religion on all humanity. It’s still up to the parents to choose whether they will or will not permit their child to be exposed to a particular influence. The mere act of inviting does not constitute interference, any more than sticking a cross on top of a church constitutes an attempt to impose a religion on all humanity.

]]> by: bryan http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-125 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2003/12/31/the-baptist-cookbook-theory-of-parenting/#comment-125 Fascinating discussion. I just recently finished reading some early supreme court decisions that dealt with this very issue. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a case where Oregon had a law that said children had to be educated in public school, and Meyer v. Nebraska, where the state legislated that children could not be taught a foreign language before middle school. A couple of quotes: The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. The Ordinance of 1787 declares, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws. from Meyer and . The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. From the Society of Sisters case. Fascinating discussion. I just recently finished reading some early supreme court decisions that dealt with this very issue. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a case where Oregon had a law that said children had to be educated in public school, and Meyer v. Nebraska, where the state legislated that children could not be taught a foreign language before middle school.

A couple of quotes:

The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted.
The Ordinance of 1787 declares, “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws. from Meyer

and

. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

From the Society of Sisters case.

]]>