Statement of Faith?

[Lovedtodeath]

It is a mindset/personality that excludes.

 

And I think people who have that mindset/personality are drawn to a particular type of religion.

Good point.

[Parrothead]

Which religion would that be?

I don't think you can pin-point any one religion or denomination. It is more of a bit of cancer in the body of any given group. Off the top of my head I can't think of any one religious group that does not have its short-sighted legalistic mini-group. Unfortunatley sometimes the short-sighted legalistic people get put in charge or charm their way to the top or even force their way in.

[HRAAB]

It is a mindset/personality that excludes.

 

And I think people who have that mindset/personality are drawn to a particular type of religion.

 

I do agree with this.

 

And I thought this thread would be dead by this morning.

[unsinkable]

I don't think you can pin-point any one religion or denomination. It is more of a bit of cancer in the body of any given group. Off the top of my head I can't think of any one religious group that does not have its short-sighted legalistic mini-group. Unfortunatley sometimes the short-sighted legalistic people get put in charge or charm their way to the top or even force their way in.

 

Yeah, what she said.

 

My thought was kind of half-baked but Chucki really cranked the oven up...

[beansprouts]

I don't think you can pin-point any one religion or denomination. It is more of a bit of cancer in the body of any given group. Off the top of my head I can't think of any one religious group that does not have its short-sighted legalistic mini-group. Unfortunatley sometimes the short-sighted legalistic people get put in charge or charm their way to the top or even force their way in.

 

I can accept this. I have seen it also.

[Parrothead]

 

And I thought this thread would be dead by this morning.

I had hopes. I suppose to be fair the morning birds need to have their say.

[beansprouts]

I had hopes. I suppose to be fair the morning birds need to have their say.

 

I am surprised also. I think everything has been said. We're just going in circles now.

[Parrothead]

I am surprised also. I think everything has been said. We're just going in circles now.

I betcha someone really wants to be going in ovals.

 

 

Okay, that was bad. I'm going to shower and get dressed. I didn't even want to get into this topic again so soon after the last one. Let's wait at least 6 months before bringing up SOFs again.

[HRAAB]

So I'm thinking about why SOFs bother me so much. And this is what I think it is: First, it's not that they don't have the right. They absolutely have the right, and I would defend their right to do so. The problem for me is they use the word Christian, and I, very honestly, don't think it is Christian behavior - especially to exclude people who very honestly and sincerely identify themselves as Christian. There's no one standing at the door of our (or any church I've ever been to) that has asked me to sign a SOF before I come in. They'd never get any converts. And I just can't picture Jesus doing this. He would have no problem telling you that you're messing up, but there would always be room at the table for you. If you misbehaved or were rude, you might be asked to leave; otherwise, He would welcome you. Because, how else is He going to spread His word.

[Veritaserum]

So I'm thinking about why SOFs bother me so much. And this is what I think it is: First, it's not that they don't have the right. They absolutely have the right, and I would defend their right to do so. The problem for me is they use the word Christian, and I, very honestly, don't think it is Christian behavior - especially to exclude people who very honestly and sincerely identify themselves as Christian. There's no one standing at the door of our (or any church I've ever been to) that has asked me to sign a SOF before I come in. They'd never get any converts. And I just can't picture Jesus doing this. He would have no problem telling you that you're messing up, but there would always be room at the table for you. If you misbehaved or were rude, you might be asked to leave; otherwise, He would welcome you. Because, how else is He going to spread His word.

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

So I'm thinking about why SOFs bother me so much. And this is what I think it is: First, it's not that they don't have the right. They absolutely have the right, and I would defend their right to do so. The problem for me is they use the word Christian, and I, very honestly, don't think it is Christian behavior - especially to exclude people who very honestly and sincerely identify themselves as Christian. There's no one standing at the door of our (or any church I've ever been to) that has asked me to sign a SOF before I come in. They'd never get any converts. And I just can't picture Jesus doing this. He would have no problem telling you that you're messing up, but there would always be room at the table for you. If you misbehaved or were rude, you might be asked to leave; otherwise, He would welcome you. Because, how else is He going to spread His word.

I don't think the idea behind a SOF is to spread the Word. I think it is to keep "their" version of the His word uncontaminated by other versions of His word. There have been a couple people already in this thread who have said they don't want their children exposed to alternatives.

[beansprouts]

BTW Chucki it is wicked cold where I am also. I think we may be in the same part of the country ;)

[Parrothead]

BTW Chucki it is wicked cold where I am also. I think we may be in the same part of the country ;)

I'll pm you.

[OnTheBrink]

I find it interesting how offended some are by the "exclusionary" mindset. YES, I'm exclusive. Absolutely. It's because I'm selective on what I allow to influence my child. I'm selective on who I allow to influence her. Having been raised by a mother who allowed any and everything into our home, I see the harm in not being discerning. I don't automatically assume that because someone self-identifies with a specific group that they're good for my family to be around or associate with.

 

It has nothing to do with being "better" than anyone else. It has nothing to do with hating (frankly, I don't have the energy for hating) anyone or any group. It has nothing to do with keeping my dd in the dark about people who are different, have different values or beliefs. It has everything to do with the huge responsibility to raise a child according to my faith and beliefs.

[HRAAB]

I don't think the idea behind a SOF is to spread the Word. I think it is to keep "their" version of the His word uncontaminated by other versions of His word. There have been a couple people already in this thread who have said they don't want their children exposed to alternatives.

 

Okay, I can see that. I guess it's not how I see things, though. And like I said, they have every right to meet with those people they choose. My heart is more with the people left out.

[Barry Goldwater]

So I'm thinking about why SOFs bother me so much. And this is what I think it is: First, it's not that they don't have the right. They absolutely have the right, and I would defend their right to do so. The problem for me is they use the word Christian, and I, very honestly, don't think it is Christian behavior - especially to exclude people who very honestly and sincerely identify themselves as Christian. There's no one standing at the door of our (or any church I've ever been to) that has asked me to sign a SOF before I come in. They'd never get any converts. And I just can't picture Jesus doing this. He would have no problem telling you that you're messing up, but there would always be room at the table for you. If you misbehaved or were rude, you might be asked to leave; otherwise, He would welcome you. Because, how else is He going to spread His word.

 

First, I'd like to say, that as a Christian, I have no standing in righteousness of my own. I'm just a sinner, redeemed solely by the finished work of Christ.

 

I do see a difference in the desire to raise our children with like-minded believers and fortifying their faith as part of their training, contrasted with an open, inviting church congregation that is desiring to serve, worship and win the lost. Since you brought up Jesus, he did not invite all his followers to the Last Supper. He invited his closest confidants and friends. He desired a closed, intimate meeting time with them for a particular purpose. He DID have some occasions to 'be exclusive.' I think some Christians feel that the training of their children is also a time to be 'exclusive' for a particular purpose...I don't think that being exclusive is ALWAYS a scary word.

 

FWIW, I got a chuckle out of a local church that had on its sign outside "Premillenial, Fundamental, non-instrumental" :tongue_smilie: Well, there you go...you know what to expect there!

 

OP sorry for your troubles...I'd encourage you to just keep looking. Life is short...

[HRAAB]

First, I'd like to say, that as a Christian, I have no standing in righteousness of my own. I'm just a sinner, redeemed solely by the finished work of Christ.

 

I do see a difference in the desire to raise our children with like-minded believers and fortifying their faith as part of their training, contrasted with an open, inviting church congregation that is desiring to serve, worship and win the lost. Since you brought up Jesus, he did not invite all his followers to the Last Supper. He invited his closest confidants and friends. He desired a closed, intimate meeting time with them for a particular purpose. He DID have some occasions to 'be exclusive.' I think some Christians feel that the training of their children is also a time to be 'exclusive' for a particular purpose...I don't think that being exclusive is ALWAYS a scary word.

 

FWIW, I got a chuckle out of a local church that had on its sign outside "Premillenial, Fundamental, non-instrumental" :tongue_smilie: Well, there you go...you know what to expect there!

 

OP sorry for your troubles...I'd encourage you to just keep looking. Life is short...

 

I attend what many people think is an exclusive church so I certainly don't think 'exclusive' is always a bad word, either. I just can't quite equate the Last Supper to a field trip to the zoo. Anyway, I would like to see a little more inclusiveness in the larger Christian homeschooling community in general, especially when it comes to field trips and play dates.

 

You're absolutely right that life is short. We all need to do what we feel is best for our children in the short amount of time we have them, and I'm pretty confident that parents here do exactly that. And, life is too short to get too worked up over these little differences. I hope the OP can find a place where she feels welcome.

[Barry Goldwater]

I attend what many people think is an exclusive church so I certainly don't think 'exclusive' is always a bad word, either. I just can't quite equate the Last Supper to a field trip to the zoo. Anyway, I would like to see a little more inclusiveness in the larger Christian homeschooling community in general, especially when it comes to field trips and play dates.

 

<As I said, it was not a strong argument...just in the overall scope of training/raising your child, it was meant to make a point, I guess>

 

You're absolutely right that life is short. We all need to do what we feel is best for our children in the short amount of time we have them, and I'm pretty confident that parents here do exactly that. And, life is too short to get too worked up over these little differences. I hope the OP can find a place where she feels welcome.

<AMEN. I hope we are all in agreement about that>

 

 

 

.:)

[CAMom]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

[Parrothead]

I find it interesting how offended some are by the "exclusionary" mindset. YES, I'm exclusive. Absolutely. It's because I'm selective on what I allow to influence my child. I'm selective on who I allow to influence her. Having been raised by a mother who allowed any and everything into our home, I see the harm in not being discerning. I don't automatically assume that because someone self-identifies with a specific group that they're good for my family to be around or associate with.

 

It has nothing to do with being "better" than anyone else. It has nothing to do with hating (frankly, I don't have the energy for hating) anyone or any group. It has nothing to do with keeping my dd in the dark about people who are different, have different values or beliefs. It has everything to do with the huge responsibility to raise a child according to my faith and beliefs.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not offended so much as confounded. I can agree with everything you said here, and do feel as if I've a responsibility to protect my child from bad influences and associates. I'm more liberal when it comes to religious influences.

 

Okay, I can see that. I guess it's not how I see things, though. And like I said, they have every right to meet with those people they choose. My heart is more with the people left out.

Having been the wrong type of Christian I see where there is much more to protect my kid from than people with different religious beliefs.

[Parrothead]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

Is it a Charlotte Mason group or a homeschool group? Why would a BJU'er want to joint a CM group? Wouldn't a BJU'er more thank likely want to join a homeschooling group than a CM specific group?

[unsinkable]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

let me try to see if this works:

 

Let's say you are a CM homeschooler and you see YourTown's Charlotte Mason Homeschoolers. You ask to join and you get their statement of faith that you must sign in order to participate. And in the SOF, it stipulates that you are only eligible if you use only CM's original writings as your inspiration or you can't join. You can't join if say, Karen Andreola was your inspiration.

 

You think of yourself as a CM homeschooler but the group says you're not.

 

And there were no other homeschool groups in town. Or the county. Or anywhere nearby.

[Melinda in VT]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

I have no issues with the first, as long as would-be participants don't have to sign a statement of belief in Charlotte Mason in order to join.

 

The second bothers me, although I have no respect for Bob Jones. If the Bob Jones family wants to go on outings or explore nature with the Charlotte Mason group, I think it is unkind to exclude them based on their schooling choices. (I'm assuming here that they aren't badmouthing Charlotte Mason to the other kids on park days.)

 

Most statements of faith I've heard about don't relate to homeschooling. Unless you are teaching a class on religion, for example, the fact that Mormons don't believe in all points of the Nicene Creed is unlikely to come up. If what you are really looking for is someone who won't take God's name in vain and who reads the Bible and tries to follow its teachings, then Mormons will fit in great.

 

Now, I do think that if a group holds to a Creationist view or studies history with a focus on End Times or the role of God in shaping history, I think that should be stated right up front.

 

As a Mormon, those points would have excluded ME, but I know many other Mormons who agree with those views.

 

And I do think that all groups should be sensitive to those who are isolated from others and willing to welcome them. It's the Christian, and kind, thing to do.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Melinda in VT
Horrible punctuation typo

[Joanne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAMom

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

For me, it is the religious exclusionary aspect that is objectionable. I'll be more specific, though. My objection is when a Christian group writes a SOF specific to (their version of Christian) dogma. I believe that a person who self identifies as Christian should be welcome.

 

I find the imposition of scripted spirituality anathema and abhorant. I have always felt this way. 20 years ago, when I was early in recovery from alcoholism, I attended an AA meeting in which the leader was using a Bible (this is thoroughly agains the traditions, btw). I was a Christian and yet I left the meeting because of the intensity with which I protect individual spirituality.

 

The curriculum "exclusions" seem trivial to me. Not that educational orientations are trivial but that a person's spirituality is (or, at least, can be) so highly formative, foundational, and primary. I would have a much less visceral reaction to exclusion based on educational style.

[ocelotmom]

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

I'd find it a little odd for a homeschooling group based on a particular methodology to reject anyone who was interested in being a part of the group, as long as the person was respectful of the group's purpose and not promoting their own agenda. I can better understand an exclusionary faith-based group than that.

[dangermom]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

Is the group hanging out at the park, doing field trips to the zoo, or what? Why couldn't a BJU person go to the zoo with CM people? If they're teaching co-op classes, why not say "You're welcome to join us, but please understand that our classes usually come from the CM perspective"?

 

There's a classical group a couple hours away from me that I thought about joining until I saw their SoF. :glare: I see no real reason why an unschooler couldn't join a classical group with the understanding that co-op classes are mostly going to be about Latin. Perhaps the unschooler could teach an interesting class, and learn Latin, and everyone would benefit.

[HRAAB]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

This example probably has some serious flaws, but think of this. Say you consider yourself a Charlotte Mason homeschooler, you've read all her books, you've been to conferences, etc. There's a CM homeschool group you want to join, but they have a ...statement of adherence to CM principles.... and you find out that since you have used a spelling workbook instead of nothing but copywork/dictation, you can't sign it. But other than that, you have much in common.

 

In my instance, there is a large Christian homeschool group in my area. They call themselves Christian Homeschoolers of ..... They have play dates, field trips, Valentine's Day parties, etc., and they 'the group' that offers standardized testing for the area. To join in any of these activities, you have to belong to the group. I'm a Christian, attend a Christian church. But there's the SOF, and it's worded so that a very few Christian denominations couldn't sign it. Honestly, it was worded to exclude Catholics and Orthodox. It was later I realized that LDS and most likely Jehovah Witnesses couldn't sign it either. Almost everything on the SOF I could agree with except this one thing. I could have fudged it some and still signed it, but that wasn't honest.

 

This was when my oldest children were little, and since then I've found other outlets. But there was a time when my girls would hear about a field trip to the Capitol from mutual friends, and guess what? We couldn't go. It's not all that easy to just go out and start another group especially with only a couple of families. Thankfully over the last 15 years homeschooling has grown in my area, so it's not the problem that it was. However, in less populated areas, it is a real issue for those who are excluded because of a SOF.

 

We've had three Orthodox families and several Anglican families in our group over the years. We don't have a SOF; out name pretty well says it. Catholic Homeschoolers of.... So if someone inquires, they know, but they don't have to sign anything. My 2nd oldest dd was very good friends with a Jewish girl, and she joined us for field trips and Latin class for several years. Honestly, on field trips and play dates, religion just doesn't come up that often. Curriculum, cooking, meal planning are usually the main topics.

 

This isn't an issue for me anymore, but it was in the past. And obviously it still is for many people who don't have other groups to choose from.

[CAMom]

Thanks for the answers! I see your points. I really do.

 

I guess for me, it just doesn't bother me when a group wants to define itself. If there was a "Christian Homeschoolers" group in my area that had a clause in their statement of faith or code of conduct that you had to wear denim jumpers and head coverings, I might find it odd but it wouldn't upset me not to be able to join.

 

It wouldn't even bother me if they thought I was less of a Christian than them for that. I might find that sad or ill informed but it wouldn't offend me. If that's the identity they want for that group then that's their choice. It just wouldn't be the group for me.

 

Defining a group where one spends part of their time doesn't necessarily mean that one isolates oneself from diversity in all areas of life. I may want a group where I can just really let my hair down while still embracing diversity everywhere else. (Not that I necessarily do. I'd likely be comfortable in any manner of group.)

 

I sympathize with those who have very few options in their area.:grouphug:

[HRAAB]

Reading this thread (before the posts got deleted) has been like watching a train wreck -- where 8 different Christian trains slam into each other over and over and over again. I honestly don't get it. Why do you to that to each other? Is it that important for your train to be the only one left on the tracks? The one or two voices who were trying to be compassionate and understanding have been completely drowned out by the squeal of the other wheels spinning madly.

 

I never could see it when I was completely on the inside. It has actually been fighting these battles inside the homeschooling community that has put me on the outside looking in, and from that perspective, your description is pretty accurate. But I understand that for those on the inside, being that last train on the track is all that matters in the end - because it's their salvation and that of their children.

 

Some days I think if it weren't for my children and the fact that I made a promise to raise them on the inside, I'd just walk away from the whole shebang and be done with it.

[Mrs Mungo]

My objection to a SOF very specifically said non-co-op groups. I understand why co-op groups might have a SOF, especially if they are teaching science and history. My objection to a SOF is for groups that go to the zoo, have park days, etc. It does give the impression that everyone else is an undesirable.

[silliness7]

Exactly. No one is saying that you don't have a right to form exclusive groups. Of course you do. But that doesn't make it necessarily the most gracious thing to do, or the best thing to do.

 

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. I'm going to do what is best for the education of my children.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a good and worthy goal to form clubs that enhance the community of such and such town. I'm not saying that a particular homeschool group might also enhance the community of such and such town. But that is a byproduct. It is NOT the reason the homeschool group exists. It is formed for the benefit of the founder's children and it is joined by other's for the benefit of their children.

 

I only buy curriculum that benefits my children. I don't buy curriculum because it would enhance someone else's business or ministry.

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

[Mrs Mungo]

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. <snip>

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

 

Again, I understand the co-op thing. I don't understand why one can't hang out at the park or go to the Capitol with a Mormon, an atheist, a Catholic, etc.

 

Although, I will add that in my experience a family's culture regarding discipline, behavior and academics is more important to a successful co-op group than religion.

[Parrothead]

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. I'm going to do what is best for the education of my children.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a good and worthy goal to form clubs that enhance the community of such and such town. I'm not saying that a particular homeschool group might also enhance the community of such and such town. But that is a byproduct. It is NOT the reason the homeschool group exists. It is formed for the benefit of the founder's children and it is joined by other's for the benefit of their children.

 

I only buy curriculum that benefits my children. I don't buy curriculum because it would enhance someone else's business or ministry.

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

I have to disagree with the bolded. Not all homeschool groups are formed for the benefit of the founder's children. Many times a group is put together for the benefit of the parents(s). And many times it is for the benefit of the homeschool community at large.

[beansprouts]

deleted

Edited February 12, 2011 by beansprouts
repentance

[Stacy in NJ]

:eek::eek::smilielol5:

Check again.

[OnTheBrink]

Does someone have to belong to a group to do field trips or have play dates? Because this is the first year I've been part of a co-op (which, btw, has no statement of faith, but rather a code of conduct) and I've never had a problem calling up another hs friend or two and saying, "Hey, let's take the kids to the park Friday."

 

I moderate a yahoo group of homeschoolers in our area and there are many field trips and play dates arranged via the loop. We have no SOF; it's just a group of HSers. You can choose who to build a relationship with there.

 

OP, have you thought about starting something like a yahoo group? It would be a good way to share info about local events, etc, as well as a way to meet other HSers without the SOF issue getting in the way.

[Melinda in VT]

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. I'm going to do what is best for the education of my children.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a good and worthy goal to form clubs that enhance the community of such and such town. I'm not saying that a particular homeschool group might also enhance the community of such and such town. But that is a byproduct. It is NOT the reason the homeschool group exists. It is formed for the benefit of the founder's children and it is joined by other's for the benefit of their children.

 

I only buy curriculum that benefits my children. I don't buy curriculum because it would enhance someone else's business or ministry.

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

 

Different values or different beliefs?

 

What values are included in the typical statement of faith? (I'm not being snarky here. I'm trying to understand.)

 

Personally, I have found that the values transcend religious beliefs, and that we have more in common with each other than we sometimes think.

 

That's not to say that our individual values don't stem from our religious beliefs; they often do. But a Jew, a Christian, and an atheist can end up with the same value (honestly, for example, or kindness) even though they each point to their religion or life philosophy as the root of that value in their lives.

[lovemyboys]

Does someone have to belong to a group to do field trips or have play dates? Because this is the first year I've been part of a co-op (which, btw, has no statement of faith, but rather a code of conduct) and I've never had a problem calling up another hs friend or two and saying, "Hey, let's take the kids to the park Friday."

 

I moderate a yahoo group of homeschoolers in our area and there are many field trips and play dates arranged via the loop. We have no SOF; it's just a group of HSers. You can choose who to build a relationship with there.

 

OP, have you thought about starting something like a yahoo group? It would be a good way to share info about local events, etc, as well as a way to meet other HSers without the SOF issue getting in the way.

 

This is a great idea.

 

We live in an area now that has a number of groups of all description. Our last home had far fewer actual groups but a number of yahoo groups. It was a great way to gather up people by posting a meet-up at a particular park, museum, beach, and sometimes people who lived a fair distance would go just to meet each other IRL. These get-togethers often spawned a regular park-day or science group ... good way to get started. You can often "advertise" with a state group/convention to get the word out.

[simka2]

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. I'm going to do what is best for the education of my children.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a good and worthy goal to form clubs that enhance the community of such and such town. I'm not saying that a particular homeschool group might also enhance the community of such and such town. But that is a byproduct. It is NOT the reason the homeschool group exists. It is formed for the benefit of the founder's children and it is joined by other's for the benefit of their children.

 

I only buy curriculum that benefits my children. I don't buy curriculum because it would enhance someone else's business or ministry.

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

 

This post made me feel sad :confused:. Have we really compartmentalized being a Christian this much?

[lovemyboys]

I think it goes back to "rights" vs "ethics." Everything is permissable, but not everything is benefical (for the community as a whole.)

 

The other issue is calling a group "Christian", and then saying, "but only certain Christians.

 

At the risk of lobbing in an incendiary post, perhaps it would help to think of this wrt another religion like Islam. Would you expect that Shi'a Muslims would want to study and socialize along with Sunni Muslims or another branch/sect? All are under the same umbrella of a religion and share the same name, but the beliefs and practices are different. Would you decry their reluctance to have their children influenced or taught another form of their religion? Or tell them that they aren't being inclusive enough when they create an SOF that outlines what their group is and asks that all members agree to it.

 

Fwiw, I don't particularly care for the signed-SOF style groups. If a group wants to define who they are so that others are aware and agree to abide by such if they join, so be it. Iow, don't read the SOF and then work to change the parts of the group that you don't like even though you were aware of them when you joined. IMO, that should be enough.

 

But if a group goes with the signed-SOF, that's their choice. It can be my choice not to join. I suspect that some go this route after they've had the experience with people trying to change things as I mentioned in the previous para.

 

The number one reason people form these groups is for to benefit their children. It is NOT to benefit the community as a whole. I think that fact is getting lost in the shuffle here. I'm going to do what is best for the education of my children.

 

I'm not saying that it is not a good and worthy goal to form clubs that enhance the community of such and such town. I'm not saying that a particular homeschool group might also enhance the community of such and such town. But that is a byproduct. It is NOT the reason the homeschool group exists. It is formed for the benefit of the founder's children and it is joined by other's for the benefit of their children.

 

I only buy curriculum that benefits my children. I don't buy curriculum because it would enhance someone else's business or ministry.

 

So yes, it is both right AND ethical for me to do what is in the best interest of my children if that happens to mean that a family with different values doesn't get to discuss literature or science with us. And I'm sorry they don't have anyone else to discuss these things with. I am not obligated to discuss with them just because they also happen to school at home and not many other people in the town do.

 

Well said, though I would add that the people who form a group often do so for the moms (most often schooling) as well as the kids. With our groups, we moms enjoy our time of discussion, wrestling over curricula and child-rearing as much as the kids enjoy their time together.

 

The irony here is that what you've said above is basically why many of us homeschool. If we were terribly concerned about benefitting the community at large, perhaps we should have our brilliant students enrolled in the public schools. :001_huh:

 

But again, :grouphug: to OP in her frustration. Hope she finds (or creates ;) )a good fit before long.

[Parrothead]

Does someone have to belong to a group to do field trips or have play dates? Because this is the first year I've been part of a co-op (which, btw, has no statement of faith, but rather a code of conduct) and I've never had a problem calling up another hs friend or two and saying, "Hey, let's take the kids to the park Friday."

 

I moderate a yahoo group of homeschoolers in our area and there are many field trips and play dates arranged via the loop. We have no SOF; it's just a group of HSers. You can choose who to build a relationship with there.

 

OP, have you thought about starting something like a yahoo group? It would be a good way to share info about local events, etc, as well as a way to meet other HSers without the SOF issue getting in the way.

No, one does not need to belong to a group to have a park day. But many homeschoolers start out not knowing anyone else in town that homeschools. Joining the local homeschool group is one of the easiest ways to meet other homeschoolers. Also while one can go to the closest museum as a family, tours of the post office or the fire department are usually "official" field trips. And no, one's child won't suffer unduly if he doesn't get to the post office tour.

 

Others don't attempt to join for the childrens activities they want to connect with other homeschooling parents for support.

[simka2]

At the risk of lobbing in an incendiary post, perhaps it would help to think of this wrt another religion like Islam. Would you expect that Shi'a Muslims would want to study and socialize along with Sunni Muslims or another branch/sect? All are under the same umbrella of a religion and share the same name, but the beliefs and practices are different. Would you decry their reluctance to have their children influenced or taught another form of their religion? Or tell them that they aren't being inclusive enough when they create an SOF that outlines what their group is and asks that all members agree to it.

 

But we are not talking about someone teaching, we are talking about someone attending. Those are 2 different issues. I would never expect someone who believed differently to be given a platform to teach. So, in the above example...yes. If a Shi'a Muslim forms a "Muslim" group, I think other "Muslims" (even Sunni) should be allowed to attend.

 

 

Fwiw, I don't particularly care for the signed-SOF style groups. If a group wants to define who they are so that others are aware and agree to abide by such if they join, so be it. Iow, don't read the SOF and then work to change the parts of the group that you don't like even though you were aware of them when you joined. IMO, that should be enough.

 

But if a group goes with the signed-SOF, that's their choice. It can be my choice not to join. I suspect that some go this route after they've had the experience with people trying to change things as I mentioned in the previous para.

 

 

 

.

 

:D

[ocelotmom]

This is a great idea.

 

We live in an area now that has a number of groups of all description. Our last home had far fewer actual groups but a number of yahoo groups. It was a great way to gather up people by posting a meet-up at a particular park, museum, beach, and sometimes people who lived a fair distance would go just to meet each other IRL. These get-togethers often spawned a regular park-day or science group ... good way to get started. You can often "advertise" with a state group/convention to get the word out.

This is what a friend and I are doing. She started the yahoogroup, then I came along when I found it while searching when we moved. 6 months later, we're up to a whole 6 members :) I plan to make paper fliers soon and put them up in likely places, as this town doesn't seem particularly internet-savvy.

[TravelingChris]

I have been homeschooling for more than 15 years. In a few years, I will be a retired homeschooling Mom. In a few months, I will be moving and once again choosing co-ops, support groups, activity groups, etc. for my last remaining child. First of all, let me say that in practical terms, we are not exclusive- we have been involved in activities like Boy Scouts, 4h, swim and dive, community wide choral and theater groups, and summer programs which all had no statements of faith. We have been in groups with signed SOF, not signed but available SOFs and no SOFs. The two groups we were with which had no SOFs were very different/ One was a homeschool activity group and no issues arose. Another was a general support group with various activities and field trips associated. In that one, I did hear negative comments about religions (specifically Christian religion but not others) and my d's really weren't welcomed all that well probably because they were too conventional (dress and style). In our group here, we have a SOF but you don't have to agree to it. I don't since it references YE and also only adult baptism. I guess if I was writing an SOF, I would be okay with traditional Christians (including EO and Catholics) and also Jewish as long as they didn't mind being in a Christian group. Could I belong to a group with JW and Mormons? Maybe, it depends on what we were doing. I know we have been in groups with Mormons at least because overseas, the Scouts are all in one group. But as a mother of teenagers, for social activities too, I prefer Christian groups. Why? Because I don't want my girls to be marrying people I don't consider traditional Christians. It would be heartbreaking for me to have one of my d's marry outside the faith.

[lovemyboys]

But we are not talking about someone teaching, we are talking about someone attending. Those are 2 different issues. I would never expect someone who believed differently to be given a platform to teach. So, in the above example...yes. If a Shi'a Muslim forms a "Muslim" group, I think other "Muslims" (even Sunni) should be allowed to attend.

 

:D

 

Teaching and learning happen all the time. :001_smile: We're in a group now that doesn't completely line up with our beliefs on every issue. I've had a talk with dc about the issues and how to behave respectfully, they're old enough to understand. And we wouldn't be signing them up for apologetics or similar classes that would make the distinctions more of an issue.

 

I bowed out of the park day I mentioned elsewhere when I saw other moms and classical education in general being soundly and (sometimes) rudely denounced. Not everything's a fit.

 

But like someone here has said, this statement-of-faith topic gets batted around and beaten up every few months. So I'll head off to something else ....

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So, is it only SOFs that people find exclusionary and objectionable? Should a homeschool group accept any and every homeschooler or is it OK to exclude based on other criteria?

 

For example: Would it be acceptable for a group to say they are a Charlotte Mason group? Would they be unethical to not accept someone who uses straight Bob Jones in their homeschool?

 

Again why not a statement of expected behaviors and ground rules such as not debating religion or evolution. In the co-op we were in, it was Christian oriented but no statement of faith and instead and statement of rules/expectations. It worked very well. They also chose not to teach evolution or go there with evolution or religion specifically. I was fine with that. They did say a prayer here and there and no problem:)

 

 

Some other posters mentioned wanting to be with others who have the same values and to be discerning. Again I think a statement of expectations/rules would work for this as well. Also, it is shocking to me that some would think that other Christians and religions may not have many of the same values such as hard work, honesty, good manners, etc. They may not believe exactly the same thing but I bet they have many values in common. It sort of like when I hear some in the media suggest that liberals have no values:confused: When I hear this, it upsets me since as a liberal I have many values such as hard work, honesty, integrity, frugality, good manners, and caring for others. I do realize that some people (and they are not necessarily liberal or conservative or in between) in our society seem to have no values and are out of control but again a statement of rules would fix that;)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So I'm thinking about why SOFs bother me so much. And this is what I think it is: First, it's not that they don't have the right. They absolutely have the right, and I would defend their right to do so. The problem for me is they use the word Christian, and I, very honestly, don't think it is Christian behavior - especially to exclude people who very honestly and sincerely identify themselves as Christian. There's no one standing at the door of our (or any church I've ever been to) that has asked me to sign a SOF before I come in. They'd never get any converts. And I just can't picture Jesus doing this. He would have no problem telling you that you're messing up, but there would always be room at the table for you. If you misbehaved or were rude, you might be asked to leave; otherwise, He would welcome you. Because, how else is He going to spread His word.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I also see no problem with a group identifying as Christian or some other religion but without the SOF;)

 

Personally I prefer an inclusive group with rules:D

[pqr]

Again why not a statement of expected behaviors and ground rules such as not debating religion or evolution.

 

...because the founders of a particular group did not want to....simple as that.

 

If you don't like the rules, found your own group.

 

What is so hard about accepting that some people's values are different from others and that they want to associate with like minded people?

 

Why should a Catholic group not have a SOF referencing the Pope? As to not debating religion, that is up to them but perhaps they are TEACHING religion and want to do so. At that point a SOF is perfectly valid as it defines the group.

 

This debate has gone in circles but despite all the gnashing of teeth and complaining about the decisions of others no one has yet been able to make a balanced argument about why an independent group should bend to the will of those who would join but do not want to play by the rules. Such an argument needs to be based on logic not emotion. It need be more than "But we ARE all Christians" or "It is hurtful to exclude people and makes us feel like second class believers"

Edited February 12, 2011 by pqr

[HRAAB]

...because the founders of a particular group did not want to....simple as that.

 

If you don't like the rules, found your own group.

 

What is so hard about accepting that some people's values are different from others and that they want to associate with like minded people?

 

Why should a Catholic group not have a SOF referencing the Pope? As to not debating religion, that is up to them but perhaps they are TEACHING religion and want to do so. At that point a SOF is perfectly valid as it defines the group.

 

This debate has gone in circles but despite all the gnashing of teeth and complaining about the decisions of others no one has yet been able to make a balanced argument about why an independent group should bend to the will of those who would join but do not want to play by the rules. Such an argument needs to be based on logic not emotion.

 

 

Logically, you're correct. But being a woman, I prefer to mix a little emotion with my logic. Can't help myself.