OMG, I actually have the perfect answer for this! I cannot believe it! Rather than laws, Thomas Paine wrote about our need for government. He said, "... as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount their first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue." IOW, while we may be made innately good, originally, we inherit badness (original sin) and in our quest for knowledge move ever further from the innocence of goodness, towards the darkness of knowledge. Thus, we become sinful by our quest for knowledge. Then, while we strive to answer the goodness of our spirits, we eventually become lazy. The need for law is to protect us from reverting to our lower selves, the selves with knowledge, lacking innocence and rife with vice. :D

Wasn't the original purpose of these laws to protect the rights of fellow citizens? IOW, you have freedom of speech and laws against libel and slander. Freedom of the press and laws concerning plagerism (sorry sp). Laws are meant to protect our freedoms, not constrain them. How do laws protecting animals come into play? Are animals fellow citizens that deserve rights and protection?

The line is drawn. The US government cannot make laws infringing upon religion. Of course, they tread all over that, but it is only the Bill of Rights. The entire idea behind the separation of church and state was to protect and promote free thought, free ideas and a free exchange. Jefferson pointed out that "truth" does not need government backing, only lies. If people are allowed an open forum to exercise their religious beliefs, then that openess also allows us to discuss these beliefs. As for folks marrying children, as far as I know, Mass has the most disturbing laws where that is concerned. A child of 12 can be married, homosexual marraige is allowed, first cousins are allowed to wed. NAMBLA is probably opening up a commune there, if they haven't already. Now, is NAMBLA a religion? No, it's not. The true danger is not from religious people, they are only used to make the real freaks less apparent.

Vicks on their feet in socks, we do the same thing. That and peppermint tea.

Okay, I've put a lot of thought into this. Now, if you are married by a religious leader, without a license, then the state does not consider you married, right? Common law marraiges don't keep people from living together for extended periods of time, so I don't imagine you could be found a polygamist for living with a harem for a long time. So, what LAW is being violated if someone were to "marry" many people, without getting a license from the state? That's my argument for polygamy, lol. Simply that, as long as you don't get the license or attempt to claim spouses 2+ on your taxes, you aren't really violating any laws.

I have to say that I think polygamy should be legalized. Not that I would participate either ;) I have to say, though, that the idea that human sacrifice would become legalized is a bit of a stretch. Sure, some people consider humans and animals equal, but the vast majority place a higher value on human life. We already sacrifice people to science, though... And there's people that are sacrificed for war. Now that I think of it we sacrifice people all the time. Still, I don't see any human sacrifices for "religious" purposes any time soon.

The problem is that there are people that believe that skipping or delaying vaccines is abuse. There are people that believe that placing animal life higher than human life is abuse. There are people that believe that raising children by the bible is abuse. There are people that believe that homeschooling children is abuse. There are people that believe raising children to be patriotic is abuse. There are people that believe "indocrinating" your child into a religion is abuse. Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The USA has drawn the line at life threatening injuries. Should that line be redrawn, should it be more inclusive? Should the government decide what constitutes emotional abuse? Again, should the government get to make out a list of acceptable and unacceptable practices, including names, belief systems, punishments, educational systems?

We've become a lot closer. I look forward to cheaper family vacations. An easier schedule. More realistic system, at no other point does life mock the situations found in school. My children won't have the ageism issues (I hope) that nearly everyone I know has. Oh, and my son can move as fast as he wants or as slow as he needs too. In two weeks of homeschooling he has surged ahead of his friends in ps in math, handwriting and grammar. Our approach to science is so different that it's hard to say if he's gotton ahead or not, we take a more in-depth/hands-on approach. The same goes for history, he knows more about the Egyptians ;) , but we have not spent the past two weeks learning about George Washington...

I agree with everyone else. It's part of religious freedom and it's not necessarily unethical or cruel. Really, even those religions that do the bizarre things with chickens are waaaaaay kinder than the factories that tear them to pieces for food.

My whole family (cousins and everything) gets together for a Christmas Tea, in honor of our great-grandmother. We spend Christmas Eve at my mom's (just sibs, in-laws, niece and nephews) and have a themed Christmas Dinner, Mexican this year if anyone has tips or advice. The kids get to open their presents from extended family on Christmas Eve and Christmas day we get up before the sun to destroy anything wrapped. We have pinch bread for breakfast and whichever of our neighbors that can't get home for Christmas, along with my parents, come and have dinner with us. It can get crowded (our house is tiny), but that just makes the whole thing seem warmer ;)

If he liked the Dark Tower Series, then he should like 'The Talisman' and 'Black House.' The two go together and they are fantastic. Scary, but also full of fantasy, a lot like the Dark Tower Series. Also, 'In the Eyes of the Dragon' (it may be Eye, not sure), is a very good book.

I finally had Andrew write the definition of contradict, three times. Since then, when he decides he knows more than I do, he has to look up the answer himself, and write it down. It's all I could think to do. See my sig, Andrew, arguer of semantics.

Ok. See and this is where the issue of should they be allowed to discriminate if it is someone's name. I just imagine these poor kids attempting to be normal at some point in their lives and being shucked aside. On a lighter note, the local trailer dealer (that's trailer park trailer ;) ), is named Richard Hogg. His personalized plates say, "RichHog." He prefers to go by Dick, but the DMV asked him to reconsider. His business cards all say, "Dick Hogg, I can get you in a new mobile home today!" Yeah, good old Dick Hogg. His parents should've been stopped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/us/17adam.html?hp

Okay, so this may sound rediculous, but bear with me. My dad's dad committed suicide when he was about five. My dad has had a long time to develop his feelings that God is indeed real, Christ sure is his son, and they're both cruel beings sitting far, far away with no cares. Then, my sister's pastor had a talk with my dad. He asked if my dad's dad's suicide was an attempt to save his family from his alcoholism, of course, my dad does not know, but assumes it was. The pastor then pointed out that Christ knew he was going to die, knew he was going to be crucified and went anyway. He went because it was better to die so we could live. Incredibly, my dad stopped hating God. He's still not on really friendly terms, but he is not as viscous in his opinions. This same pastor comforted me when a friend was killed in a car accident. He pointed out that we all face judgement at our death. He then asked, who, in the presence of God, could deny him? It was really an incredible idea, to me anyway. That we face God and that belief could not be denied at that point. It gave me hope for my friend, the grandfather that I never knew, and many friends I have lost as the years have passed. God is not intent upon our destruction. He WANTS us to succeed, to be with Him. He wants us to live forever, He loves us. God is just. God is love. God does not judge rashly or harshly. :grouphug:

Happy, happy, happy. The Adam Walsh case is being called closed and solved. What an incredible blessing for his parents, what a wonderful thing for two people that have done so much for our country, our safety, and our awareness. Just thought I would share.

Okay, so those stores do have offensive cake writing policies. Then they would have the right to deny anyone a cake with offensive writing on it. Whether or not Adolf Hitler is an offensive NAME is most definitely a matter of opinion. I'm sure there are people that find the name 'Christian' offensive. Whenever we draw lines, my beliefs and oddities are okay, but yours are just wrong, we make it possible to end up on the other side of that line. Someone earlier posted Barrack Hussein Obama's name as an example. Should a store be allowed to deny him his middle name on a cake because someone may consider it offensive? Granted, private enterprise, it is their right to deny service, period. Should the state, or an government agency, have the power to decide what's in a name? Should children named after perfumes, cars, and web sites be removed because of a name? Don't we teach our kids, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet? Don't we teach them not to judge a book by its cover? Should the government have the power to dictate names? :iagree: See above. They did not ask for Mein Kampf (sorry spelling police). They did not ask for a swastika, they did not ask for the Nazi manifesto. They asked for a NAME. Their child's name. It's not even as though they requested a cake to celebrate the birthday of the Adolf Hitler, they wanted a cake for their kid. The fall-out these kids will experience will also be the result of people telling their kids it is OKAY to treat them different or blame them for a name they did not get to choose. The fall-out will also be on the hands of those that treat these kids according to their names, rather than their character. Again, free enterprise, if the store reserves the write to refuse messages on any grounds, then fine. However, putting so much into the name of a child, allowing the folly of the parents to dictate the treatment of the children, is wrong. And, giving the government or any government agency the right to decide what names are good enough and what names are bad or constitute abuse is, imo, opening the door for the government to tread all over our rights, as USA citizens.

I've been wondering the same thing. Do you use the same book and everything? Also, I thought it was three rotations (grammar, logic, rhetoric).

Does the store have a policy regarding offensive messages on cakes? If not, then they should have written the message. I mean, really, we can't write "Happy Birthday Adolf" on a cake? If the cake was black and red and the tone was sarcastic, would they have written the message? The parents are ignorant, but those kids are stuck with those names and it stinks to think they may face a future where they cannot have a loving supermarket make their cake, complete with their name in big bold writing. I know a Regan, Damien Christian, Rosemary, and many other kids named after questionable characters, I also know a couple of guys named Jesus. Names are.... sometimes I wonder if parents should be allowed to permanently name thier children, or if the kids should have the final say (at eighteen). That would save a lot of grief.

:iagree:

I handwrite it, but I make sure he can read it. I use my best penmanship, big print, as close to perfect as possible. He can read my print, so that's no problem for us, of course, he's still learning to speak slowly so poor old mom has time to write it all down. Oh, and since we're 'behind' in history, we've been talking about going year round. I am sorely disappointed at my son's grammar as well. We've had to start with grade 1 stuff (First Language Lessons). He reads at the JH level, but does not know the first thing about grammar. I'm thinking we'll go three weeks on, one week off, or something similar.

I don't know about that. A millionaire steals $30 in food, a poor woman steals $30 in food. Really, unless we're talking about a third world country, extenuating circumstances are hard to come by. I could almost see medication... at the same time, don't do the crime unless you are willing to face the consequences. I have much more respect for people that break the law knowingly and face the consequences stoically, than those that break the law and demand exceptions because their case is "special".

I couldn't figure out why my dad was doing the same thing, until I was over there one day when someone called for Mom. Dad looked around, from his chair, didn't see her and told them she was out. Mom was in the back room. Lol, I wouldn't worry too much, just try to be over there once when your sister calls.

We do the review questions from the teacher's manual first, that gives him idea of what to narrate. Since we've only started, we're still in Ancient Egypt ;) , but I've been pleased by Andrew's narrations so far. I only make him copy one sentence (of a four sentence narration) and I write the rest for him.

What about history? That's where Andrew does most of his narrating, he also narrates a page for his reading work. It looks very similar to what we're doing.