When I worked at a large home school co-op in Texas, I took a lot of phone calls asking about homeschooling. I was stone cold shocked at how many parents were being told by the school system that they should home school their child, or even told that they HAD to home school their child. Sometimes it was because a child's needs were not being met and a teacher or guidance counselor really thought the parent could do a better job at home. But a lot of these parents were clearly being told to home school because their child was a problem for the school and they wanted them out. This was obviously much easier for the school than having to kick them out (if they could even do that). So, if those kids do not do well homeschooling, who is going to get blamed? And what would the point be in having the school system regulate them? :glare:

Our audience was also lively. They laughed out loud at the trailer for the next Twilight movie, the part where Bella is stalking the deer in the forest. That was not the response they were looking for, I'm sure. :D We had a ball. Good fun.

What a beautiful explanation from your own experience! Sometimes one has to see how these things work in reality to grasp them. The Catholic Church can be obnoxious in how boldly it steps out there and defines things. To define is to post a flag in the earth, and that is bound to draw fire from all sides. But glossing over it and just doing the same thing by "feeling" has risks as well. Tough roads to walk, either way.

We had a military parish, and our RCIA leader was very good, but he may have been not so good from the perspective of a newcomer... we had been considering our move to the Catholic Church for a decade! It is very hard for RCIA leaders, I guess, to know how to approach the variety of people they serve. I could not go by myself, and that is why it took 10 years. We had to watch the Episcopal Church swirl down the drain of relativity, lacking a coherent authority, in order to see where all that led. What a painful, painful process. But when we all were received together, it felt right. Still, knowing what I know now, I do not know I if I would do it the same way again. Very tough stuff. Either way you will have to have faith. It helped me to know that the Church is a patient mother. Many things happen in "Church" time that are far, far slower than I often want to see. Your journey can be like that. Take your time. Some very dear friends of ours, who were with us on part of that journey, will be received into the Church this Easter. I am so blessed by that. Patience in these things pays. :001_smile:

Similar experience for my ds and dd, so I can relate. :bigear:

Religion is the poised cobra or you are the poised cobra? Very ambiguous the way you wrote it. Interesting, to say the least. Myself, I likely would have died in a gas chamber in times not so past. I'm sorry, mammaduck, I really am. That was definitely not my intention. You can see clearly in my posts that my intention was pretty much to make a singular point. But if you want to make peace, by all means, do so. I will not take it any further.

Lol. It is THIS world you were born into. This one. And the particular attributes of This World include religion. And philosophy. In legion. And you practice them in your own way, just as every human has since he/she became human, whether you believe you do or not. You need not study them or hold a personal interest, but having respect for their influence (real, empirical influence that could be found, not your pet hypothesis), is required of anyone with a science credential if science has any hope of not evolving away all together, because science doesn't exist apart from a basic belief in the existence of an objective truth, and a kind of brutal integrity (gifts given in the West from a deeply religious tradition). Again, this really cuts to the heart of my points in this thread. As to the lethal brew, politics, although it is unavoidable and can be used wisely, is nothing more than a broadened term for the structures in place to serve people in meeting their often very selfish aims, and it will combine with religion or science in a similarly dangerous manner. We can observe this in history, have to be blind not to see it, so your preference for blaming religion for all evils done historically is really just that. Your preference. Again, if insults and humiliation are all that can be said (and what better humiliation is there than calling theists irrational and if that doesn't work, telling them they are irrelevant - a kind of shunning), then I guess this thread is dead.

Thanks for popping back in here and responding. Sorry if it seems like "gobbledy-gook" to you. I don't really think your comment was a statement of fact because there really were people who provided a testimony in the Gospels; whereas, the Potter characters are fictional, so that is not really a statement of any kind of fact that I comprehend. I did consider that you might believe in God, so my comments were more generally directed. The point is more that as a culture we are moving in a direction that uses nonsensical arguments to say that believers are irrational. It is so common that they even get picked up by believers. I guess I am the only theist that is tired of being called irrational, especially in irrational ways. :confused:

It was a joke; how dumb do you think I am? :D No, this is called back peddling. Your comments have powerful implications, and I could mine similar ones from this board and from comments on articles all. day. long. You could have used any number of ways to make the point you are claiming to make and not used the crazy person suggesting. Perhaps you should start working on moving away from the poisonous rhetoric. Every time someone openly and aggressively mocks and shames a believer suggesting that they are not thinking rationally, the implication that they are not qualified to do science is being put forth. If you do not want to participate in that process, then don't do it. Okay, now here we may have common ground, if you could muster the will to have some common ground with a theist. I know well that pseudoscience practiced in the name of religion does not do religion any favors, but I have seen it practiced by atheists, too, just for the record. It is equally ugly, and sometimes it is for less cheery reasons. But make no mistake, there is an issue in the scientific community, and it does not want to sort out all these subtleties. There are many, you may be one, that do not want any believers to practice science. There are many that do not want them to exists. As a Catholic, I have to cope with the reality that there are Catholics that do bad things. I have to take responsibility for that. I have to own them and try to manage them, the best I can. I think the scientific community should be expected to vet itself, too. But don't read more into that than I intend. All I am saying is that I can clearly see a vicious bias in science that has the potential to be very destructive, and it is not at all scientific but is part of human nature. I have blathered on enough, and I have to go to bed. Work comes early. Thank you for the discussion and being a good sport. I do appreciate it! And you can have the last word. Feel free to say I have nice rhetoric, or maybe good use of emoticons, or something nice about me, you know, just saying I am not insane would be nice. (Says she from the asylum! :lol:)

Then perhaps we should close the courts, because what testimony will really ever be able to fully take its place? Even scientific information has to come from people? They lie and get confused, too? Even in groups. There is no believing anything if honesty is not a value that is deeply cherished. Even worshiped. Again I say, sand is a terrible foundation. We are trying very hard to build on it in our current culture, and you can do so for a while. But it won't last forever.

What is anyone claiming to be true that this is the reverse of? :confused: The trend toward atheism is very obvious. It is the reasons that matter, and you don't want to ponder those very deeply, I see. But there are other issues to consider, and given that the best scientific minds in history did come from inside the Church, in fact, the scientific method came into being within the context of a deeply religious world, suggesting that being religious and being scientific is some kind of impossibility is rather... unscientific. Here is my point again. Which you will likely ignore again. Atheists do not own the scientific method, and keeping theist out of science circles is a growing threat because more and more atheists are resorting to fear, intimidation, and shame (which you can clearly see in this and every similar thread) as a way of influencing the beliefs of up and coming scientists and the population. This method of influence is nothing new, and it always ends BADLY.

Thank you for describing my comments as "rhetoric." That truly is the nicest comment I have ever had on this board. God bless you for that. :D You can then note what part, exactly, was it that was "empty," in your view, because you did not respond to any of it except the one part I already conceded. I have no doubt that many of the stats will come up with increasing atheism. It is the sect taught in public schools and in higher education, so it is perfectly logical that it would be the school of thought that is growing. Personally, I know a number of budding scientists who will definitely be keeping their beliefs to themselves. The growing number of closet theists will probably go unnumbered. What you really need to answer to, however, about your post, is the slander of calling people who are believers "crazy," or otherwise implying as much. Scientists, if they are going to hold an atheist philosophy, must defend it in the arena of ideas without resorting to fear, intimidation, and shame as means of gaining believers. It is a poor method of convincing people of anything. How do I know that? Because the Catholic Church has been there, done that, and evolved. ;)

More proof of the NEED for unbelievers to rely on shame to make headway. Do you have proof that religiosity is on the decline among scientists? And if it is, can you say why? Perhaps fear, shame, intimidation? See, we would have to be very, very honest to look at it empirically, wouldn't we? We could not harbor a hatred for religion and look honestly, now, could we? Arguments from zero authority are not very compelling either, and scientists are making less and less headway in being believable due to their declining ethical underpinnings. Sand is not a good foundation.

I can't think of the author, but someone said something to the effect that the average comprehension of written history today is not very good. Most people really do believe we know more about and understand pre-historic man better than people living in the time of Christ. Hey, are you subscribed to the Catholic Laboratory on facebook? Great stuff! The scientific history of the Church is overwhelming and very interesting. And it ain't over by any means! ;)

I'm sure the real people that gave testimony would be amused at being considered fictional characters. Perhaps we had better shut down the courts if we cannot tell the difference, and if the testimony of humans is of zero value when it does not line up with someone's predetermined beliefs. This really is nothing more than purposeful obfuscation. I see it all the time coming from non-believers who don't want to work very hard, comments referring to a "spaghetti monster" and nonsense like that. As if the greatest minds in history are dumber than they are because they entertained the idea of a God. Simple and complete propaganda with no other purpose than to un-inform the already un-informed to their point of view by demeaning and shaming believers. In a culture that is rapidly not very intellectual adept, this method of influence truly is very powerful. But it is what it is. Nonsense.

I don't think you are a doof, and I think you make a very good point. Did you read the post above? I think it comes from a perspective of respect for other cultural values and is quite the opposite of the attitude you seem to project on all Christians by way of the few that might be that way. It should be a good thing for people to learn about how powerfully we are influenced by culture, yes, even if we learn that from reading the Old Testament. However, do you think secular culture, Islam or other cultures should be given a pass on truly evil things for no other reason than to spite Christians? Because your post gives me that impression. This forum has become a place where many of you seem to vent against the type of Christians who might be like this, even though there really aren't any on this forum. So many folks won't even come here anymore because of it. I think there is a TON of consideration and compassion from most Christians toward other cultures, and there has been a slowing evolving amount for centuries, which is largely why there has been so much progress on things that would have been viewed so very differently 2000 years ago. This is predictive from the underlying Christian message of healing brought by Christ. You don't want to see it that way, and that is fine. But hypocrisy is the norm for people; figuring out how to mature beyond the hypocrisy that we ALL have is breaking out of that norm. Everyone struggles with it, and being a non-believer does not give you the magic bullet defense against hypocrisy. Nothing does. It is a character battle every day for everyone. There is hypocrisy in complaining that the explanation about the Old Testament is too complex when you would also complain if it was overly simple. We all argue it in our minds to fit our paradigm. Only individually can we determine if we have really kept an open mind in looking at it, and only then if we are honest with ourselves. We can't see that about others.

In the past month I have been to Walmart twice. The first time I got home and realized that I had been charged twice for a large rug that I purchased. I had to go back to get it removed from my credit card. The second time I got home from the store and realized that one of the bags did not make it into the shopping cart. It had two, very small items which should have been put in one of the other bags rather than put in a separate bag and never put in the cart. I had to go back again to get the items, which had been returned to the shelves. No, they did not take the items off my credit card when they gave them back to themselves, although they certainly have the technology to do that. I thought stealing was characterized by intention and is not just an error. It never occurred to me to call the police, but if this is how it is played, then maybe it should have! :mad:

:iagree: Well put! So my response would probably be, "Because I want them to have a better understanding of logic than you have just demonstrated." Or how about, "Um, maybe you should leave reasoning to professionals. Clearly you are not qualified." Or, "Now that you mention it, if public schools were being taught by brains surgeons, I might use them." Or how about, "Speaking of brain surgeons, if you really think like that, maybe you should have your head examined." :lol: Not really. I wouldn't say that. But here is what I would really say, "What, exactly, do you think public school teachers and administrators are 'experts' in? Because I think that teachers as human beings are awesome, but public education's actual purpose on the large scale has little to do with educating my children."

Thanks, I appreciate that very much! I am quite perplexed by the response I have gotten on this thread, but oh well! Sometimes you are the dog and sometime the fire hydrant. Not that I ever want to be a dog. Well, hopefully you know what I meant, but I am not feeling like I should take that for granted here today! :D Anyway, I gotta run. Real life is calling me! :auto:

I'm talking about the general rhetoric from people who I think are fringe, like the blogger on this thread, but as someone else noted, there are definitely some outspoken atheists who are quite openly antagonistic toward religious people, especially Christians. I hope it is not widespread, but some of the comments on various articles in the news clearly show a certain degree of hatred, and I do not use that word lightly. You can ignore it if you want. People who are against those things have little consideration for the Constitution, IMHO, but I agree with you. That was EXACTLY the point I made in every single post, and I was talking about those extremist atheists. The bolded part in your post was shorthand from my other posts, talking about the atheists in that post. I had already made it very clear I was not talking about all atheists. You can see this post was in response to someone else regarding that post.

The public park is what was being discussed. The entire point is that atheists expect religion to only be behind closed doors, in private only. The woman in that blog wanted gays kept behind closed doors, too. Gays are not going for that, and neither should religious folks. It does present problems, but diversity does present problems. We need to either learn how to deal with them or stop pretending we support diversity when we really only support our brand of diversity. I did not defend one and censure the other. I criticized both. How can you get that I defended that woman from my posts??? What? Did you even read it? I confessed that I was too horrified to even read her blog. I am deeply troubled by that sort of thing regardless of who is dishing it out. If anything, I defended the gays at the park and added an indirect defense of the Christians against similar attacks from atheists (say, with their nativity scenes in public places). Please listen to me; don't assume you know what I think and simply must disagree with every element no matter what. :confused: What comments do you perceive that I am defending? I am lost on that. Yes it does beg the question! Defending everyone's interest, at least in free thought if not all perceived rights, is exactly the challenge, isn't it? Defending freedom is always challenging. We try to do it by letting her have her rant but respectfully disagreeing. We understand and accept that not everyone is going to embrace our POV, and we are not being "hated" just because of that. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with something and outright hating someone. We all probably have to get a thicker skin. Anyway, I do not wish to derail the discussion with the atheist issues, it was really just an example and a reminder that other people/groups want to hide people from the public square, not just this rather troubled woman.

That is not what I said. It doesn't appear you read or thought about anything in my post. Or maybe you don't want to think about the incremental nature of change. IMHO. Some, rather aggressive and uncharitable atheists want to suppress religious expression in the same manner that the blogger wanted to suppress gays, as in, they do not want to be "exposed" to any religious expression in public. In order to further their agenda, they have taken a page from the GLBT groups in order to move forward. In other words, they use similar tactics, tactics that are arguably valid for gays, but they are stretching it for atheists, again, in IMHO. For example, I have seen quite a number of these individuals suggesting that because they are a minority, they are persecuted and oppressed by the majority, by the very presence of religious expression alone. I don't consider that comparable to gay claims, but then again I don't consider gay claims comparable to African American claims, but such comparisons are regularly made. Incrementally moving public opinion is the goal. I imagine some GLBT groups may overlap with such atheists groups, wanting Christians to just go away, but that is not the point. The point is that some people DO want other people out of their sight, and they can use these strategies to slowly make that happen unless we protect everyone's interests before liberties are lost, because once your liberty is taken away it is too late. I am not taking sides on the issues but rather pointing out how things change, how power is shifted, how rights get redefined and how different groups can end up being victimized. You need not be defensive about that, unless you don't like it being pointed out. Anyway, I think the stuff I brought up about not letting fanatics of any ideology get away with it was really more important, and the stuff about maligned homeschoolers, but never mind any of that I guess.

Well, I do think that there are some rather vocal and uncharitable atheist groups who are quite emboldened lately who want to do just that, pretty much. They may not have gotten very far, in fact a lot of people on this thread might very much LIKE the amount that they have gotten done, and that is fine; but they clearly have taken a page from the GLBT groups and are running with it, and we can't be sure exactly where some of them really wish to stop. These camps have learned the value of patience. They are more than happy to have the changes happen incrementally. And there are other, even more patient, groups waiting in the wings for their time to come. No telling who they will want to put in the closet or why. :glare: :iagree: And I have to confess, I did not read the blog. I can't. My heart hurts when I see too much stuff like that. Every time I make the mistake of reading comments after articles that is the stuff that I see. I see it from all groups, the extreme fringes who are filled with anger. The ones that really freak me out though, because I never saw it coming (I thought we were all teaching tolerance? :confused:), are the ones that are hateful toward homeschoolers. You see them commenting on education articles, and sometimes it is really venomous. My college age kids no longer volunteer the fact that they were homeschooled because reactions have often been very unkind. So they sometimes find themselves in groups where their peers bad mouth homeschoolers not knowing they are one! Look, if people can malign and hate (using that term a little loosely for my own taste, but that is how it is commonly used now) a group like homeschoolers, who are not even a group at all, okay, not a race, religion, ethnicity, political group, anything... then their capacity for bigotry and hate really knows know limits. It is sad and frightening. :confused: The thing that bothers me is that this behavior is pervasive through all ideologies and issues. I wish we could stop seeing the claim by some that it is only conservative Christians, or radical Islam, or atheists that do this (add in your favorite flavor of fanatic right here). Those people exists, but why can't reasonable people be consistent in calling that out where ever they see it, not just in their favorite group to notice?

In my state it is illegal for schools to have different expectations for home school students than for public school students. That means that the scores must be the same as expected from the other students. I believe it would be illegal for them to require higher scores from home school students. If a home school student does not have transcripts, however, then his application would be incomplete and THAT would be a reason to not admit him since transcripts are required for public school students. If the college has a policy that students who do not have other documents can be admitted if they have exceptional SAT scores alone (no transcripts), and that applied to all students, not just home school students, then that would be different, but I have never heard of that. It would make sense, however, if a school wanted to be sure to snag exceptional students regardless of their background, especially if they didn't have to offer them traditional, freshman, merit scholarships. They would have every reason in the world to want those students. In my experience, it is really critical for people to follow up on puzzling questions with colleges because many administrators and faculty have faulty information about home school students. You can be mislead by someone who means well but just doesn't have all the facts. If you keep records and make a transcript for your high school student, and you have some outside documentation such as strong test scores and/or some dual credit, you will be just fine, so don't worry! ;)

Nowhere have I said that all programs should be eliminated. I have seen no one suggest this. I have suggested they should be proven to be effective, which is just common sense, but it does not always happen with government programs. I don't think we should have to be at the whim and mercy of the government. See, this gets us nowhere, does it? Guilt trips do not take the place of honest evaluation of the effectiveness of programs. I was listening to NPR when they were talking about budget cuts, cuts on NPR. A caller called in and praised NPR generously, kindly, and then she said she was really sorry but that she thought it should be cut from the budget. She then admitted that if it was cut she would then donate. "I know I should be doing that anyway, but I really would if it no longer was funded by taxes." :glare: