Ham strikes again...this time he goes after SWB in earnest

[pdalley]

Really, Jean??? The vitriol I've seen in this thread and others against Ham is pretty numbing. It is part of what made me jump in to begin with.

 

Was he not compared to Westboro Baptist Church members in this thread?

 

Was his mental health called into question?

 

I could go on and on. To say ad hominum is not raging on this board against Ham is not accurate.

 

Lisa

 

 

It's been acknowledged that some of the accusations were out there and the moderator warned on that. I haven't seen one like that since.

 

Something I forgot to add - Freedom of Speech is not a freedom from consequences. Ham is reaping what he sowed. He accused two others of an 'attack on Christ'. People don't take kindly - IME - to being accused of being a lesser Christian because they chose differing interpretations of the Bible or certain curriculum providers. Did he say that directly? No. But its implied.

 

If he wants people to stop being angry with his words perhaps he should drop the subject. To some of us he's coming across as pompous and all knowing. And that's my opinion. Sorry if you think that's 'roasting' the man. I do not question his salvation nor would I. The state of his soul is none of my business - that's God's job. That's more than he did for Dr. Enns.

[Jean in Newcastle]

There are 202 posts on this thread at the time I am typing this. I went back and counted every ad hominum post I could find. I was very generous and counted some which were more disapproving of Ham but not vitriolic in my opinion and counted 11 posts. I agree that those kind of posts are wrong. So do the moderators of this board. Only 4 of the ones I counted were after the moderator spoke. That doesn't seem like a numbing amount to me. . .

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Might be good to go back to discussing the issue instead of each other.

 

SWB

[AvasMom]

I'm sort of shocked that people have forgotten about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Like it or not, KH can say anything he wants to say, short of libel. It sort of shocks me the need people have to roast another human being.

 

Unless he's being dragged off to jail no one has forgotten freedom of speech.

[Joy at Home]

There are 202 posts on this thread at the time I am typing this. I went back and counted every ad hominum post I could find. I was very generous and counted some which were more disapproving of Ham but not vitriolic in my opinion and counted 11 posts. I agree that those kind of posts are wrong. So do the moderators of this board. Only 4 of the ones I counted were after the moderator spoke. That doesn't seem like a numbing amount to me. . .

 

I am also referring to the previous megathreads on Ham.

[simka2]

Here's what I don't understand. Ken Ham went on the OFFENSE, he opened the door, he started the attacks. So, to compare what people say about him in response to his actions, as if they are somehow equal attacks, or equally as bad is ridiculous! It is one thing to rise up because someone choose to attack someone/something you believe in. That's called DEFENSE! It is entirely another when someone you believe in attacks someone else without provocation. If the latter is the case it is time to seriously question the MAN you believe in. Once, is a mistake or bad judgement call. More is a character issue!

[Holly IN]

I am also referring to the previous megathreads on Ham.

 

Also the ham and beans thread.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here's what I don't understand. Ken Ham went on the OFFENSE, he opened the door, he started the attacks. So, to compare what people say about him in response to his actions, as if they are somehow equal attacks, or equally as bad is ridiculous! It is one thing to rise up because someone choose to attack someone/something you believe in. That's called DEFENSE! It is entirely another when someone you believe in attacks someone else without provocation. If the latter is the case it is time to seriously question the MAN you believe in. Once, is a mistake or bad judgement call. More is a character issue!

 

:iagree:

[mlbuchina]

:glare:

 

 

It's times like these that make me very proud to be an atheist.

 

 

I don't like all this infighting. God's truth stands on its own. Irrigardless of what Mr. Ham says or Mr. Enns says, God's words still have the power to save the so called "educated" or the "lay" person, or the simpleton. Period. What Jesus did, by coming, living, dieing (the death on a cross!), rising on the third day, this is what is important. Why did He do that? So people don't have to spend forever in Hell and apart from God. THAT is what is important.

 

All this squabbling only produces posts like from the poster above. That breaks my heart.

[Joanne]

Really, Jean??? The vitriol I've seen in this thread and others against Ham is pretty numbing. It is part of what made me jump in to begin with.

 

Was he not compared to Westboro Baptist Church members in this thread?

 

Was his mental health called into question?

 

I could go on and on. To say ad hominum is not raging on this board against Ham is not accurate.

 

Lisa

 

 

I don't have a boat in this race. I used a WTM approach for years, and used SOTW (which, incidentally, was the student favorite second to Beautiful Feet's History of Science when I was homeschooling.)

 

However, I don't take kindly to someone telling others how Christian they are (or not) and how to be a Christian according to their (not theologically trained) understanding.

 

I am particularly :glare: at personalities who tell me *how* to think. Another male curriculum provider did similar discourse to the degree where I would think many times before giving him my money.

 

I find that when homeschooling wars emerge, they are particularly disturbing. If your curriculum is superior, or more accurate, sell IT. Putting down another homeschool entity, questioning their spirituality? Bad business.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Here's what I don't understand. Ken Ham went on the OFFENSE, he opened the door, he started the attacks. So, to compare what people say about him in response to his actions, as if they are somehow equal attacks, or equally as bad is ridiculous! It is one thing to rise up because someone choose to attack someone/something you believe in. That's called DEFENSE! It is entirely another when someone you believe in attacks someone else without provocation. If the latter is the case it is time to seriously question the MAN you believe in. Once, is a mistake or bad judgement call. More is a character issue!

 

:iagree:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I don't understand why it is "okay" for him to trash other's theology/intentions/reputations, but it is somehow wrong for others to point out that he is being hypocritical and, perhaps only doing this to direct sales to HIS new books that are in competition with what he is attacking. :confused:

 

How is that vitriol to point out that glaring fact? :glare:

[KnitWit]

At least we are hearing from *both* points of view here. I have watched just about every post in favor of SWB/PHP/Enns/OBB get deleted from Ken Ham's FB page.

 

I just don't get the shock that SWB is being defended in her *own yard* so to speak.

 

Anyway...I'm not influenced. I think for myself. :)

[AvasMom]

At least we are hearing from *both* points of view here. I have watched just about every post in favor of SWB/PHP/Enns/OBB get deleted from Ken Ham's FB page.

 

I just don't get the shock that SWB is being defended in her *own yard* so to speak.

 

Anyway...I'm not influenced. I think for myself. :)

 

:iagree:

[SailorMom]

Thankfully, I think Ms. Bauer can tell by what he has written that most people will dismiss him outright. I couldn't get past the "Bible on the Ark" stuff (no offense to anyone, but I won't claim to believe it). That is the type of person I refuse to engage out of principal.

[Farmgirl70]

Susan,

 

I just want you to know how much I appreciate your responses to this! Your character is shining through and I have a great amount of respect for the fact that you refuse to speak ill of others. May you be at peace through the process. You are an encouragement to me!

 

Lisa

[elegantlion]

What is sad is that it's not just Ham. There is another speaker who has posted about this past weekend being "the most controversial homeschool convention of the decade..." It's directly on Ham's facebook page.

 

As some have stated Ham's position is not new. SWBs positon is not new, especially if he's pulling up years old reviews. It's pot stirring on their side. Why not debate the reviews years ago when it was posted? Why NOW? Because Enns was a speaker at the same conference? Because until now he wasn't a "threat"? Because now, why? The timing is suspect to me.

 

They seem (seem, as in what I view from my perspective) to be gearing up for a war that only they want to fight.

 

Unfortunately they will probably use the Philly conference issue as a sign from God that they were right and GHC was wrong.

 

Thankfully I serve a God that is bigger than all this kerfluffle.

[KnitWit]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

It means war.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

Oh, no.

[elegantlion]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

....like I said in my above post it seems to be a war cry, when I don't think we need one. Beside I don't think homeschooling is a movement, it's an educational choice. Others may have differing opinions.

[KnitWit]

....like I said in my above post it seems to be a war cry, when I don't think we need one. Beside I don't think homeschooling is a movement, it's an educational choice. Others may have differing opinions.

 

I agree. I don't see it as a *movement*.

 

There will be no *war* if one side doesn't show up. I appeal right now for us all to walk away and leave them with their little toy soldiers. We have much to do under our own roof. There is nothing they can do/say that can keep me from doing what I'm doing and using what I'm using.

[AvasMom]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

From wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

 

"the rules of engagement (ROE) determine when, where, and how force shall be used."

[Jen500]

It means war.

 

:confused: Could you spell it our for me? Who is fighting who in this 'war'? Christian homeschool publishers amongst themselves?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree. I don't see it as a *movement*.

 

There will be no *war* if one side doesn't show up. I appeal right now for us all to walk away and leave them with their little toy soldiers. We have much to do under our own roof. There is nothing they can do/say that can keep me from doing what I'm doing and using what I'm using.

 

So far they seem to be doing just fine on their own.

[AvasMom]

:confused: Could you spell it our for me? Who is fighting who in this 'war'? Christian homeschool publishers amongst themselves?

 

I think the person to clarify that would be Phillips?

[pdalley]

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

Oh, my.... :001_huh:

Edited April 4, 2011 by pdalley

[ThatCyndiGirl]

War rhetoric has been popular in the Evangelical Fundie movement for at least the past 20 years, but it seems to be ramping up even more now, this kurfluffle notwithstanding. They use that sort of wording in regards to abortion, gay rights, xianity in government, etc. This is not really NEW, they are just taking it to a different arena, that of fighting their own. :glare:

[Jean in Newcastle]

:confused: Could you spell it our for me? Who is fighting who in this 'war'? Christian homeschool publishers amongst themselves?

 

I think it's more like "influential Christian leaders" within homeschooling who have a platform and people who listen to and follow them. This only works with platforms that are more paternalistic in nature, I think, because that's where you get the ground troops.

 

I'm not interested in this war. I don't follow any one platform though I do like to thoughtfully cull through what is out there.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Jean in Newcastle

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I agree. I don't see it as a *movement*.

 

There will be no *war* if one side doesn't show up. I appeal right now for us all to walk away and leave them with their little toy soldiers. We have much to do under our own roof. There is nothing they can do/say that can keep me from doing what I'm doing and using what I'm using.

 

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

We need these mini-conferences with Susan. We need secular AND inclusive homeschool conventions, organizations, etc. We need to support the Memoria Press convention, if possible.

 

I am not going to let these demigods mess up what I've got going. I'm not going to fight anyone, but I will take bigger and more obvious steps to distance myself from their ilk.

 

They are not the face of homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Dulcimeramy

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

We need these mini-conferences with Susan. We need secular AND inclusive homeschool conventions, organizations, etc. We need to support the Memoria Press convention, if possible.

 

I am not going to let these demigods mess up what I've got going. I'm not going to fight anyone, but I will take bigger and more obvious steps to distance myself from their ilk.

 

They are not homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

 

 

:thumbup1:

[nmoira]

....like I said in my above post it seems to be a war cry, when I don't think we need one. Beside I don't think homeschooling is a movement, it's an educational choice. Others may have differing opinions.

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

[AvasMom]

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

We need these mini-conferences with Susan. We need secular AND inclusive homeschool conventions, organizations, etc. We need to support the Memoria Press convention, if possible.

 

I am not going to let these demigods mess up what I've got going. I'm not going to fight anyone, but I will take bigger and more obvious steps to distance myself from their ilk.

 

They are not the face of homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[simka2]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

 

:iagree:I was thinking the exact thing yesterday!!!

[elegantlion]

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

We need these mini-conferences with Susan. We need secular AND inclusive homeschool conventions, organizations, etc. We need to support the Memoria Press convention, if possible.

 

I am not going to let these demigods mess up what I've got going. I'm not going to fight anyone, but I will take bigger and more obvious steps to distance myself from their ilk.

 

They are not the face of homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

 

:iagree:

 

It also brought this memorable speech to mind. One of my favorites. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechindependenceday.html

[Xuzi]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

Me too. Although my main reason for feeling worried about it is worry over what harm might be done to SWB and PHP if this thing really explodes. What if they get enough people to follow their "war cry" and PHP has to go out of business, or slow down their pace for putting out new curriculum?

 

I use a lot of PHP curriculum in my homeschool, and love it, and I'd hate to see such a wonderful company driven out of the market, or have to cut back significantly.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

 

 

Not to mention that, at some point, educators and others from the outside are going to point out the 'issues' in Ham's teaching materials:

 

http://ncse.com/taking-action/aig-creation-museum

 

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-current-signatories

 

:001_huh: He is not a credible source to real scientists or theologians or science teachers. I fear that they will think that he represents what home educators think of as "science home education" which is FAR from the truth! :glare:

[*Lulu*]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

 

The problem is that all of us who homeschool DO have a dog in this fight.

 

First, if the outside world sees this ugliness as the face of homeschooling we all lose credibility, and, quite possibly, public support.

 

Also, if financial damage can be done to those publishers who do not carry water for the vocal majority it is possible that we may see a less diverse offering of materials in the future.

[KnitWit]

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

We need these mini-conferences with Susan. We need secular AND inclusive homeschool conventions, organizations, etc. We need to support the Memoria Press convention, if possible.

 

I am not going to let these demigods mess up what I've got going. I'm not going to fight anyone, but I will take bigger and more obvious steps to distance myself from their ilk.

 

They are not the face of homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

 

Well...here's the thing...they *don't* represent me.

 

I TRULY don't understand *exclusivity*. I have my own beliefs/standards/convictions/choices/nuances/whatevers, but I *really* enjoy hearing from others, trying to understand their pov and gleaning what I can use from them as well, whether we will ever *perfectly* line up or not. I don't WANT to only be around people who will robotically say "I agree" with me on everything. I WANT to be challenged.

 

I would love to see homeschool conventions meet more academic needs than religious ones. And...I'm a Christian! ::faint::

[KnitWit]

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Can't take your eyes away, can't stop it, and you know it can't end well. I don't even have a dog in this fight and it still makes me feel sick.

 

This

[justamouse]

They are not the face of homeschooling. They do not define it. One group or ideology cannot own homeschooling. That's the drum I'm going to keep beating.

 

Amen.

 

I don't understand why it is "okay" for him to trash other's theology/intentions/reputations, but it is somehow wrong for others to point out that he is being hypocritical and, perhaps only doing this to direct sales to HIS new books that are in competition with what he is attacking. :confused:

 

How is that vitriol to point out that glaring fact? :glare:

 

Because it's not an exchange of ideas, he's drawing a line in the sand and telling everyone who is Christan and who is not.

 

Can someone from the VF camp please explain to me what this means? Doug Phillips posted this to Ken Ham's wall....

 

" Now that the convention has concluded, the time has come for a serous evaluation of what took place. This may be the one of the most important moments in the history of the modern home school movement, as parents and Christian home school leaders determine "the rules of engagement" concerning the future of this movement."

22 hours ago

 

"Rules of Engagement"?

 

oh crap.

 

And, as offensive as it may sound, I stand by my comparison to those people.

 

We all have tribes. And even within Christian tribes, we have our own lingo. (Which is normally the problem with all of the cross talk, but we do.) We speak Christainese. Within Christianese, this particular language has a subtext and so far this has been about instilling fear that people's salvation is based on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Not Christ, not His death on the cross, but the interpretation of a book of the bible. Ham is inciting fear and using lingo as "attackers of Christ". Who attacks Christ?...and this is how he leads into painting other brothers and sisters as Christ haters, which = Non Christians. Not against their own AIG/VF *brand* of Christianity, but Christ Himself.

 

How do you think these groups start? They start as painting another group as Christ haters and evil and therefore, a war now must be waged.

 

I could care less what Mr. Ham believes. I used to be YEC, and now I'm not but never have I thought a person's salvation hung on either particular doctrine. I really don't think that THAT particular belief of going to be on the test when I reach the Pearly Gates.

 

But, if you read the church fathers, let me tell you, they were *hard* on people that caused division in the church.

[pdalley]

Well...here's the thing...they *don't* represent me.

 

I TRULY don't understand *exclusivity*. I have my own beliefs/standards/convictions/choices/nuances/whatevers, but I *really* enjoy hearing from others, trying to understand their pov and gleaning what I can use from them as well, whether we will ever *perfectly* line up or not. I don't WANT to only be around people who will robotically say "I agree" with me on everything. I WANT to be challenged.

 

I would love to see homeschool conventions meet more academic needs than religious ones. And...I'm a Christian! ::faint::

 

:iagree:

 

I do worry about this - they've made Evangelicals as a whole look judgmental and clannish. I don't want that association extend to homeschoolers in general. Don't we have enough stereotypes to fight against?

[KnitWit]

I don't think for a MINUTE they can put SWB and PHP out of business!! Please! It only *sounds* like there are more of them. :lol: I think most of the people who keep PHP in business don't even know what is going on, they are busy about their business of *life*.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Don't let this plant seeds of fear. :grouphug:

[elegantlion]

I don't think for a MINUTE they can put SWB and PHP out of business!! Please! It only *sounds* like there are more of them. :lol: I think most of the people who keep PHP in business don't even know what is going on, they are busy about their business of *life*.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Don't let this plant seeds of fear. :grouphug:

 

You mean there are people who live outside of this forum? People who use PHP and don't camp out on the forum all day? :lol::lol::tongue_smilie:

[TCB]

I've read through this thread and also went and looked at Mr Ham's fb site and the comments on the FB site are, by and large, really quite horrible.

[KnitWit]

:iagree:

 

I do worry about this - they've made Evangelicals as a whole look judgmental and clannish. I don't want that association extend to homeschoolers in general. Don't we have enough stereotypes to fight against?

 

It *can't* extend to "homeschoolers in general" because, I would venture to say that the *majority* of homeschoolers are *not* evangelicals. They are just quiet and evangelicals are more vocal. ;)

 

I agree with what Dulcimeramy said about that.

 

The time has come to just be who *we* are and let others be who *they* are and quit thinking we all have to be exactly the same to have some cohesiveness. There is too much focus on trying to *change* people...in my opinion.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

When I say we need to stop them from representing us, I don't mean that they actually do represent us. I mean that the public is getting the impression that they represent all homeschoolers.

 

Case in point: Indiana had a Homeschool Day at the Capitol. Sponsored by IAHE, attended by lifestyle Christian homeschoolers. They sang hymns, prayed, and wore modest dresses (the females, at least).

 

The IAHE representative at June's convention is going to be talking about extreme right-wing political issues that are of great concern to homeschoolers. What homeschoolers? IAHE convention goers.

 

Homeschooling in Indiana has a face, and it is IAHE.

 

What about the rest of us? The Christians, like myself, who do not share HSLDA/IAHE/VF/AiG political views but do homeschool; the Muslims, the Jews, the atheists, the pagans, the Buddhists, the wiccans, and all who homeschool for reasons other than those suggested by Kevin Swanson...

 

Where do we stand? How do our legislators and our neighbors hear of us?

 

I don't think the "christian homeschooling movement" is about getting all Christians out of public schools, as they claim. I think it is about squeezing the rest of us out and owning homeschooling politically.

 

We have let this happen because we have ignored these people. It was reasonable for us to ignore them, because what did we have to do with them? Nothing! I can't blame anyone. I ignored them, too. I didn't start to understand the enormity of the situation until Vision Forum guys and friends wrote the "Homeschooling Manifesto" here in Indianapolis.

 

I started to realize that we might have a situation. They really did and do intend to speak for all of us.

 

The tide is turning. They've gone farther than we knew. I don't think we can keep ignoring this. They *are* speaking for us to the world. We have to speak up for ourselves.

 

So. How do we do that? I think Polly, SWB, Dr. Enns, and all are so correct that we must not engage them. Right now SWB has the moral high ground, and her friends must join her there.

 

How do we begin to speak up for ourselves while having nothing to do with this mess publicly?

[kalanamak]

Well, there is one thing they can do. They can so inflate the craziness in the eyes of the general public and legislators that we might soon see our rights begin to trickle away. If the face of homeschooling has a crazed look to it, we're all in trouble.

 

It would be best if we could somehow stop these people from representing us. We might need to get louder at representing ourselves while ignoring them.

 

 

:iagree: Don't forget calm, grammatically correct letters to the editor, online responses to news stories, and letters to the powers that be, when pertinent. I'm a quiet minority (well, not quiet here), but maybe I need to be less so. And minority does not mean "all alone" nor does it mean "invalid".

[*Lulu*]

I don't think for a MINUTE they can put SWB and PHP out of business!! Please! It only *sounds* like there are more of them. :lol: I think most of the people who keep PHP in business don't even know what is going on, they are busy about their business of *life*.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Don't let this plant seeds of fear. :grouphug:

 

 

I think you are right that most people do not know about what is going on. If, however, this small group of Ham's is determined to make a big fuss......

 

No matter the actual numbers, conservative christian homeschoolers have the vocal majority. I am not scared of this molehill, but am concerned it may develop into an actual mountain if pumped up with enough religiosity, hypocrisy, and outside attention. (i.e. Christianity Today)

Edited April 4, 2011 by BLA5

[Xuzi]

WHY do they want to own the homschooling movement?? :confused: That's what I don't get.