There's nothing intrinsically wrong with government running a health care program; it's a practical matter of whether this is the best way to provide health care to all.
On the other hand, there is a very real problem with government preventing parents from educating their children. The right to an education means that government must guarantee access to education for all, not that government has the right to indoctrinate kids against the will of competent and caring parents.
UPDATE: Amy points out that, since this case involves a divorced couple in dispute, it probably is not the best example. However, I stand by the principle that education is first and foremost the right and responsibility of parents, not government.
28 August 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comboxers:
Since I homeschool, I should absolutely be the first to agree with you.
But...this is divorce case. A guardian ad litem is a process that determines what's best for the child in heavily disputed divorce cases, where parents are disputing both custody and each other's competency as parents.
In other words, this is custody issue, where the father has not consented to homeschooling. I'm guessing, however, that the mother has had close to full custody and the only way the father could have a say is to drag everyone through guardian ad litem.
Again, I'm aware that's speculation - I don't think the article does a particularly good job discussing or highlighting the divorce. There's too much we don't know.
So no, the government should not be able to drag children away to state run schools when both parents consent to homeschooling. Divorce cases are much trickier. :( It certainly is an argument for treating marriage as a for life proposition.
That's a good point, Amy. I'll update the post.
Post a Comment