NationStates Jolt Archive

If you don't help your kids get saved you can't love them very much. Why would you want to see your kids burn in hell?

Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a science, or other system of belief (such as a philosophy or religion). The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual defines indoctrination as "the initial security instructions/briefing given a person prior to granting access to classified information." Set within the contexts of religion, this would serve perfectly as a definition of the preparation for receiving esoteric knowledge not generally available to the world-at-large, a preparation that is a prerequisite for initiation into a mystery religion. Compare entries for Gnosticism or Mormons or Catechism. Noam Chomsky has been quoted saying, I got in one little fight and my mom got scared, and said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, The license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cat was rare, But I thought "Nah forget it, Yo home to Bel Air." I pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo homes, smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

Im going to indoctrinate my child into thinking that God is actually Satan and vice versa. Satan is a cunning guy. Maybe, disguised as God, he told his followers to kill a bunch of people and hate gays, and they do. Oh, and dont eat pork....tasty....delicious...pork....

well, if you expose your child to the religion, ie. attending worship services, and teaching them religious laws and what not, then thats fine, but the parents shouldn't be imposing it onto their children. the child would eventually make a decision if he/she wishes to continue in that faith.

Im going to indoctrinate my child into thinking that God is actually Satan and vice versa.

Too simple. Can't sell it. We need a twist. How about the OT Lucifer is the NT God, and the OT God is Satan?

Personally, if/when I have kids, I'm not going ot teach them crap about religion. Sure, I'll teach them soem sort of spirtuality and basic moral (my own sense) and ettique...but if they want religion, they need to do it for themselves. Something so...personal as religion should not be forced upon by parents. So, if they want some sort of religion, they do it themselves. That way they fullay appreciate it for what it is, and know exactly what they'are getting into.

This is one of the many reasons I don't like this sort of forum for discussion. It is difficult enough to try to have a reasoned debate with someone like Dempublicents1 with a lack of tone of voice and body language to assist me in reading my opponent's meaning, not to mention the long drawn out explanations just to try to get some small point across. Having to respond to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to bandy about insults to assuage his wounded pride, or whatever, just gets old. I have a busy schedule and a family for which I must care. My lovely wife only just tonight, as I was preparing to go to bed, let me know that there were responses to what I had posted in her name, so to speak.
I actually asked my wife to do a little digging to find some of the facts we had unearthed before to use in the discussion here. She did so because she is a sweet and devoted creature that I do not deserve. I do not intend to post any of said research tonight as it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 12:30am and I have not compiled it into any sort of useful format. I will try to prepare and present the information in a reasonably timely manner, but I'm not working on your timetable. If your little dig was designed to infuriate, congrats, it worked. If it was supposed to be an actual declaration of victory in the face of a somewhat prolonged silence, so sorry, I'm back to let you know that I have not forfieted the field and you will actually have to respond to my arguments before you can smugly gloat over how brilliant you are.
Oh, as long as we're on the subject of research, or the lack thereof, I do believe your suggestion was that we both return with some research to support our views. So, to be truly churlish in my retort, I'll show you mine if you show me yours...


Still waiting...
As for a long drawn out explanation to get your point across, if its as ludicrous as abolishing public education, yeah that will take some time.
It seems to me that you said you had this information at your disposal, you have access to the web site that you wanted people to sign, don’t tell me that’s not enough? If you have to search this long for information to support your view is that a sign of sorts? I have my research ready and waiting, looking forward to debating this further. My most important question still remains unanswered. Why, if there are options available (which you already implement) do you feel the need to abolish public education for everyone?
When have I insulted you?

Still waiting...
As for a long drawn out explanation to get your point across, if its as ludicrous as abolishing public education, yeah that will take some time.
It seems to me that you said you had this information at your disposal, you have access to the web site that you wanted people to sign, don’t tell me that’s not enough? If you have to search this long for information to support your view is that a sign of sorts? I have my research ready and waiting, looking forward to debating this further. My most important question still remains unanswered. Why, if there are options available (which you already implement) do you feel the need to abolish public education for everyone?
When have I insulted you?

As my husband is quite busy, I put this together myself for you.

I am quite certain I have already answered that question, but in case you misunderstood I will lay it out carefully. The government, by implementing taxpayer-funded, compulsory education, compels me to pay for the education of all children in this nation. This puts me in the position of financing ideas I do not agree with. This is the same concept as requiring you to financially support my church. It is wrong, it goes against everything this country (US) once stood for. Not only that, it encourages parents to abdicate their most important responsibility - their children. Do you really think the government knows best how to raise your children? Even homeschoolers have had to fight for the right to take control of their own children’s education, and in many areas are still fighting.
Under the current system, wealthier families in poor quality schools are able to remove their children to better schools. The poor you are so concerned about are trapped where they sit. More funding will not change that. Funding issues already cause resentment among the different groups. No one has a right to someone else's money. If we remove government from the equation, people will have actual options. Even the poor will be able to receive a better education than they do now. Without compulsory funding, charitable people will find it easier to donate to education. The kind they truly support. Far from creating a new class system, this would free the poor, and everyone else, to truly reach for their own happiness. And, don't forget, education does not have to happen in a classroom. Without government schools, we will be free to seek wisdom from many sources. Parents will, of course, have to take back responsibility for their own children. You never know, maybe behavior problems will decrease as well.
In colonial America, literacy was near 100 percent. This was because PARENTS understood the need for reading. There was no "public education" then, there were several other options. Often, children were taught to read by their mothers. These people weren't reading comic books either, they were reading things like "The Federalist Papers" and understanding them, enough to form their own opinions.* I would much rather have a nation of thinking people than one full of people who are incapable of forming their own thought. Do you want a citizenry capable only of following blindly whatever whim the government has set out? Or, one willing and able to keep the government in check?
You seem concerned that we would have a drastic drop in literacy rates. First of all, the government is doing a poor job of this right now, it would take an effort to make it worse. Plus, reading is easy. All that is required, barring a true learning disability, is someone who knows how and a book. Children used to be taught to read with the Bible. Our schools are convinced that all children should learn by six. Some aren't ready. Those children are labeled stupid by their peers, themselves, and sometimes even the teachers. They no longer try, what once seemed like the key to open all doors is now an unattainable goal. The only way to keep self-respect is to pretend that they don't want to. If, instead, the teachers were able to set aside those lessons until the student was ready, learning would be a joy and truly would open all doors. Regrettably, this is not an option in most cases. One size fits all schooling doesn't allow for it. And placing these kids in special education classrooms would just compound the problem.
Government-run taxpayer-funded education is a failure in all ways but one. It is great at turning out mind-numbed citizens ready to follow the government leaders down any path. That is not what I want. It is not just about my children, it is about the future of this country.





*This information was obtained from here http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/educationhomeschoolingorchildren/colonialamerica.shtml

The results of colonial America's free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. The educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of articulate Americans who could grapple with the complex problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are seldom read or understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by the common man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.
The poorest labourer upon the shore of Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiments in matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentleman or scholar.... Such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind, that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing sentence, right or wrong, upon the various publications that come in his way, puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors.


and also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

In New England, the literacy rate was over 50 percent during the first half of the 17th century, and it rose to 70 percent by 1710. By the time of the American Revolution, it was around 90 percent.

I am guessing that your lack of response is indicative of your research.

Hello, I'm back, if briefly. My wife did such a wonderful job of responding with the oft aforementioned research and a clear consolidated synopsis of our argument that I feel no need to respond to that. However, somewhere back in the posts you asked when you had insulted me.

So, I quoted it again for you.

While I can understand a desire for a timely response and even a need to query the responder, what you posted was not in the spirit of a civil debate between two people who disagree and wish to argue their ideas. Such would have sounded like this perhaps; "You have not responded with the research we had discussed earlier. Here's what I have to support my argument:

Xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x xxxxxxxxx. Xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xx xxxx. X xxxx, etc.


I am still looking forward to seeing what you have come up with."

What you posted suggested, with no actual basis in fact, that, because we had not responded up to that point, we had no response. It is exactly that sort of fallacy in argument that makes so much of what you hear in the public forum crap. It becomes necessary to wade through all of the false arguing (illogical, contradictory, etc.) just to find the true argument behind it....and then debate that. As my wife and I have both made clear, I have a full schedule and do not have the time to review this thread on a regular basis. Therefore, I didn't get back to you right away. Only one of many possible good reasons why I had not responded. Yet, you chose to approach the lack of retort with a maliciously rude response of your own.

That's not a reminder. That's not a query. That's not debate. What it is is an insult. Are we clear now?

Oh, hey, I just ran across the post in which you asked when you had insulted me (really us). The first sentence in that one is splendidly inflamatory as well: "As for a long drawn out explanation to get your point across, if its as ludicrous as abolishing public education, yeah that will take some time."

Hey, if ya haven't presented any facts to support your side be sure to suggest the other guy's an idiot. That'll get ya points!

One last note, despite your condescending attitude toward us for our slow response and your repeated claims to have your research at hand, not to mention actually sending a telegram to my wife's nation concerning your "still waiting" status, I have yet to see you post your facts. Any particular reason you have refused to accomplish the very thing you have so readily disparaged us for failing in?

Ultimately the choice has to be theirs, but feel free to teach them all about what you believe; it's probably what you're most equipped to tell them about anyway.

Personally I believe no it isn't right. They should make their own decisions in life. If they want to follow a religion then they can and if not then they don't have to. When/If I have children they will be taught about free will and what ever choices they make I won't stop them (unless its something serious as murder or something...)

Hello, I'm back, if briefly. My wife did such a wonderful job of responding with the oft aforementioned research and a clear consolidated synopsis of our argument that I feel no need to respond to that. However, somewhere back in the posts you asked when you had insulted me.

So, I quoted it again for you.

While I can understand a desire for a timely response and even a need to query the responder, what you posted was not in the spirit of a civil debate between two people who disagree and wish to argue their ideas. Such would have sounded like this perhaps; "You have not responded with the research we had discussed earlier. Here's what I have to support my argument:

Xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x xxxxxxxxx. Xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xx xxxx. X xxxx, etc.


I am still looking forward to seeing what you have come up with."

What you posted suggested, with no actual basis in fact, that, because we had not responded up to that point, we had no response. It is exactly that sort of fallacy in argument that makes so much of what you hear in the public forum crap. It becomes necessary to wade through all of the false arguing (illogical, contradictory, etc.) just to find the true argument behind it....and then debate that. As my wife and I have both made clear, I have a full schedule and do not have the time to review this thread on a regular basis. Therefore, I didn't get back to you right away. Only one of many possible good reasons why I had not responded. Yet, you chose to approach the lack of retort with a maliciously rude response of your own.

That's not a reminder. That's not a query. That's not debate. What it is is an insult. Are we clear now?

Oh, hey, I just ran across the post in which you asked when you had insulted me (really us). The first sentence in that one is splendidly inflamatory as well: "As for a long drawn out explanation to get your point across, if its as ludicrous as abolishing public education, yeah that will take some time."

Hey, if ya haven't presented any facts to support your side be sure to suggest the other guy's an idiot. That'll get ya points!

One last note, despite your condescending attitude toward us for our slow response and your repeated claims to have your research at hand, not to mention actually sending a telegram to my wife's nation concerning your "still waiting" status, I have yet to see you post your facts. Any particular reason you have refused to accomplish the very thing you have so readily disparaged us for failing in?

Sorry if I appear rude, my first response was ment to get you here to finish the discussion, I gave you several days before I posted. The second was an attack on your argument, not you; neither time did I insult you or your wife. Debate does include such digs, and I'm sorry you took them personally.
I will respond with my research to counter your argument today or tomorrow morning by the latest.
I respect your busy schedule, I have children myself and summer vacation has started, so my responsibility’s have tripled, I also work two jobs and go to school.
I admit it was rude of me to send a message to your personal state, for that I am sorry.

Alright, granted that the government does not, inherently, know best about educating anyone's kids. But is it safe to assume that parents do, simply because they're parents? Is there such a thing as a "perfect" parent, who always knows best for her kids? Can parents have the necessary emotional distance to teach kids, leaving out their own personal beliefs? If they can't, then that isn't education, it's indocrination. Given by the parents, or government, neither is best. With this i'm not saying that people shouldn't have the choice, but ending away with public education is just wrong. A lazy solution to a problem that isn't that big.

Regarding the OP, well, it's as "ok" as anyone trying to decide if it's "ok". As long as the parents are moderate, any indocrination will eventually be tested by their offspring, as they begin to question, and will make it, ultimately, the "child's" choice, which beliefs will he hold true. Excessive indocrination and "Made in Heaven" propaganda will just create mindless fundamentalist drones. Yes, yes, Islam doesn't have the monopoly on them.

I'll raise my children in a mostly agnostic way. If, after hanging around with religious friends, they come home and ask who god is, I'll tell them that some people believe there is a big man in the sky who made us and watches to make sure we're following his rules. I'm secretly hoping they'll become atheists, but I can't really control that, I guess.

I don't think "ok" is the right word for the question here. I would say that it is mandatory to indoctrinate your children with your religious beliefs, provided you have religious beliefs that are of any value. If one would not feel comfortable indoctrinating their children with their religious beliefs, I would ask if their beliefs had any value at all.

Now, as far as indoctrinating someone else's children, that's another matter.

Alright, granted that the government does not, inherently, know best about educating anyone's kids. But is it safe to assume that parents do, simply because they're parents? Is there such a thing as a "perfect" parent, who always knows best for her kids? Can parents have the necessary emotional distance to teach kids, leaving out their own personal beliefs? If they can't, then that isn't education, it's indocrination. Given by the parents, or government, neither is best. With this i'm not saying that people shouldn't have the choice, but ending away with public education is just wrong. A lazy solution to a problem that isn't that big.

Regarding the OP, well, it's as "ok" as anyone trying to decide if it's "ok". As long as the parents are moderate, any indocrination will eventually be tested by their offspring, as they begin to question, and will make it, ultimately, the "child's" choice, which beliefs will he hold true. Excessive indocrination and "Made in Heaven" propaganda will just create mindless fundamentalist drones. Yes, yes, Islam doesn't have the monopoly on them.


It is a parent's job to pass on their personal beliefs. You don't need "emotional distance" to teach your children. Raising kids is not a joint endeavor between me and my government. Of course, no parent is perfect. We are all human. But, you don't take away parental rights for all "just in case". And don't say, "If you don't like it get out". Because that is not currently an option. Yes, I can remove my child from the environment, but I still have to prove to the government that he is being taught. And, I still have to financially support the very system I so disagree with. The government schools have succeeded, over the past several generations, in creating a citizenry that is fully dependent on the government. We have been brainwashed into believing that "they" can care for our every need. So we are more than happy to turn over our money and our rights and give up our freedoms in exchange for their protection. And, we are also happy to send our children off for another round of brainwashing. We are abdicating our responsibilities as parents. Often, with great joy and "they-are-finally-off-to-school" parties. We are letting the government raise our kids and then we are surprised when they don't turn out right. So, what do we do? Ask the government for help. They lengthen school hours and add more years to compulsory education and subsidize preschool. It is all backwards. It is not just your right as a parent to raise your children it is your responsibility. Government schools are not going to teach kids how to be responsible citizens and keep the government from seizing too much power. No, they are going to teach your kids to be government dependent.

According to your mini-profile, you are in Portugal. If I have my facts straight, please correct me if I am wrong, homeschooling is fully illegal there. This says to me that the government is afraid you might teach your children that the rulers are not always right.

You can't leave your personal beliefs out of education. All education is inherently religious. It cannot be neutral. It will reflect the religious leanings of the system, which in our government schools seems to be humanism.

This solution is far from lazy. Lazy is sending the government your money and your children and saying, "here, see what you can do". Lazy is having a book banned from the school library and thinking you have done your parental duty. And the problem is not small. The school system is inherently flawed. Unless your goal is government drones. Then, of course, it is succeeding marvelously. If we ever want our children to be able to think for themselves, we need to break them out of this institution. Easy? Changing an entrenched system is never easy, especially a self-perpetuating one. Worth it? Absolutely.

Alright, granted that the government does not, inherently, know best about educating anyone's kids. But is it safe to assume that parents do, simply because they're parents? Is there such a thing as a "perfect" parent, who always knows best for her kids? Can parents have the necessary emotional distance to teach kids, leaving out their own personal beliefs? If they can't, then that isn't education, it's indocrination. Given by the parents, or government, neither is best. With this i'm not saying that people shouldn't have the choice, but ending away with public education is just wrong. A lazy solution to a problem that isn't that big.

Regarding the OP, well, it's as "ok" as anyone trying to decide if it's "ok". As long as the parents are moderate, any indocrination will eventually be tested by their offspring, as they begin to question, and will make it, ultimately, the "child's" choice, which beliefs will he hold true. Excessive indocrination and "Made in Heaven" propaganda will just create mindless fundamentalist drones. Yes, yes, Islam doesn't have the monopoly on them.

It's the husband again. Okay, my wife did a fine job of dealing with most of what's said above, so I will only address one issue, which I think she went a little light on.

Trying to put an end to government run public education is a lazy solution?!

We are attempting to put an end to an entrenched system perpetuated by the federal government. The system itself is self-perpetuating. The longer it is in place the fewer people will find anything wrong with it and the less influence such people will have. The alternatives to it all require parents to have a deeper interest and a stronger influence concerning their children's education and to make decisions in the face of a plethora of choices. Even people who think there is something wrong with public education have myriad opinions about a solution. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....

How is abolishing this system a lazy solution?

Oh, one more note; you also say the problem isn't that big....?! Please take any of the letters written between any of the major figures during the Civil War and ask 10 people on the street to read them, not explain or understand, just read. Then tell me how the decline of education in the U.S. is not a big problem.

I don't think "ok" is the right word for the question here. I would say that it is mandatory to indoctrinate your children with your religious beliefs, provided you have religious beliefs that are of any value. If one would not feel comfortable indoctrinating their children with their religious beliefs, I would ask if their beliefs had any value at all.

I would say exactly the opposite. If someone felt the need to indoctrinate their children into their beliefs, I would question the value of those beliefs and the strength of the parents' faith in them. If you truly feel that your beliefs are the correct ones, you should trust that your children will also come to them - and will come to them with their own faith. Indoctrinating them keeps them from coming to that conclusion based on experience and evidence, and instead suggests that they should have faith in you. Sounds a lot like people who need to go to war to prove to themselves that their religion is correct: "God is on our side, so we will definately win...."

Well, my wife and I aren't religious, which we've explained to our children, but we've no objection to them being so inclined. It provides a social and behavioural model not dissimilar to our own, and they can make their own minds up when they're older.

Now, the schools round here have a generalised assumption of Christianity and both my wife and I come from very religious families, so, presumably as a consequence, the kids are predisposed to believe in God. But it's quite fascinating to watch the process of rationalisation that our daughter (aged nine) is going through.

Originally, she was scared of death, so she went for believing in reincarnation, because that would be the fairest solution. Then she hit on Pascal's wager, and went with that for a year or two. Next she thought of the feminist objections to the formulation of Christianity, and decided to go for a pseudo-pagan reinterpretation instead, which lasted for another year or so. But earlier today, out of the blue, she decided to explain to me how there must be free will, thus a non-corporeal spirit, which implies life after death, which implies reincarnation followed by heaven (or hell).

I mean, I know she's still got quite a way to go, but it seems to me that she's working her own way through the rational process pretty well with only minimal input from ourselves.

How is abolishing this system a lazy solution?


Well, pardon me, for thinking trying to improve/fix the system is more worthy of a goal than just doing away with it. Hmm, let me see, shall we do away with Justice and Health, for example? "Lazy" as in "easy". Why? Because it's easier to get "parents together" to do away with that system, than to get them to educate their children themselves afterwards. It's entrenched alright, but it's entrenched because of those who benefit from it (as in: parents?).

The alternatives to it all require parents to have a deeper interest and a stronger influence concerning their children's education and to make decisions in the face of a plethora of choices.

Great, never disagreed with you there. Parents definately should take a more active part in their children's education. But teaching themselves? I believe you said you were homeschooling your kid(s) some posts back. Nothing wrong with that, and by what i've seen, i could say you have every chance of doing a good job at it. But no way in hell i'll say that every other parent out there is capable of the same. So what then? The son of a farmer becomes a farmer? The son of a factory worker learns about being a factory worker? Not everyone is able to educate their kids on their own, and it's not always because of lack of interest, but lack of time, of money...i could go on forever.


Please take any of the letters written between any of the major figures during the Civil War and ask 10 people on the street to read them, not explain or understand, just read. Then tell me how the decline of education in the U.S. is not a big problem.

Your claim that education in the U.S is..well, bad, may very well be true. Well then, improve it. How? Well, as you probably noticed, i don't even live in the U.S, and am not aware of the specific problems of your public education system. I'm adressing them assuming a similarity with those of our own (read: in Portugal). I've noticed that both here and there, there is a haste in blaming the system. Well then, kids, generally speaking, are lazy, arrogant, self-centered and short-sighted. Normally, those who don't fall to these faults (or, at least, not as much) are the ones who are successfull, despite being in public schools. In the end, it's all about the kids, and their ability to face and overcome adversity. Just like life. Because society doesn't have to adapt to them, they have to adapt to society.

All that said, i'm not here ranting about how "Public education rulzzz". I'm saying that, while far from perfect, is open to improvement, and should improve.

According to your mini-profile, you are in Portugal. If I have my facts straight, please correct me if I am wrong, homeschooling is fully illegal there. This says to me that the government is afraid you might teach your children that the rulers are not always right.

Homeschooling is not "fully" illegal in here. Parents posing as teachers are. Parents are free to choose a teacher or teachers for their kids, and they can be taught at home by those teachers, if it fits them. However, for it to be recognized by the state as a "valid" education, kids have to take exams. If they pass, they have the equivalence of the 9th grade, which is where compulsory education ends. After that, they're free to enroll in High School, or repeat the same method, taking exams, to receive equivalence of the 12th. A degree doesn't allow the same options. You either get it from a state university, or a private one. And without a degree, you ain't nuthin.
About the government being afraid....i could dissert for hours about things in this bloddy country, but i won't, the post is long enough, and i'm sure i screwed up somewhere. What i can tell you is that NO ONE EVER thinks the rulers are right in this country. Whatever happens, it's their fault. Some are forgiving, some are not, some have short memory, others don't. But the government always take the blame. As long as it's "them" and not "us".
My country is always a bad example, whatever is being discussed. I'm sorry if it was confusing, too long, or whatever other faults people might point at it.

Well, pardon me, for thinking trying to improve/fix the system is more worthy of a goal than just doing away with it. Hmm, let me see, shall we do away with Justice and Health, for example? "Lazy" as in "easy". Why? Because it's easier to get "parents together" to do away with that system, than to get them to educate their children themselves afterwards. It's entrenched alright, but it's entrenched because of those who benefit from it (as in: parents?).



Great, never disagreed with you there. Parents definately should take a more active part in their children's education. But teaching themselves? I believe you said you were homeschooling your kid(s) some posts back. Nothing wrong with that, and by what i've seen, i could say you have every chance of doing a good job at it. But no way in hell i'll say that every other parent out there is capable of the same. So what then? The son of a farmer becomes a farmer? The son of a factory worker learns about being a factory worker? Not everyone is able to educate their kids on their own, and it's not always because of lack of interest, but lack of time, of money...i could go on forever.




Your claim that education in the U.S is..well, bad, may very well be true. Well then, improve it. How? Well, as you probably noticed, i don't even live in the U.S, and am not aware of the specific problems of your public education system. I'm adressing them assuming a similarity with those of our own (read: in Portugal). I've noticed that both here and there, there is a haste in blaming the system. Well then, kids, generally speaking, are lazy, arrogant, self-centered and short-sighted. Normally, those who don't fall to these faults (or, at least, not as much) are the ones who are successfull, despite being in public schools. In the end, it's all about the kids, and their ability to face and overcome adversity. Just like life. Because society doesn't have to adapt to them, they have to adapt to society.

All that said, i'm not here ranting about how "Public education rulzzz". I'm saying that, while far from perfect, is open to improvement, and should improve.



Homeschooling is not "fully" illegal in here. Parents posing as teachers are. Parents are free to choose a teacher or teachers for their kids, and they can be taught at home by those teachers, if it fits them. However, for it to be recognized by the state as a "valid" education, kids have to take exams. If they pass, they have the equivalence of the 9th grade, which is where compulsory education ends. After that, they're free to enroll in High School, or repeat the same method, taking exams, to receive equivalence of the 12th. A degree doesn't allow the same options. You either get it from a state university, or a private one. And without a degree, you ain't nuthin.
About the government being afraid....i could dissert for hours about things in this bloddy country, but i won't, the post is long enough, and i'm sure i screwed up somewhere. What i can tell you is that NO ONE EVER thinks the rulers are right in this country. Whatever happens, it's their fault. Some are forgiving, some are not, some have short memory, others don't. But the government always take the blame. As long as it's "them" and not "us".
My country is always a bad example, whatever is being discussed. I'm sorry if it was confusing, too long, or whatever other faults people might point at it.

Hi, it's the husband, again. First I want to clear up a small point; by homeschooling we mean parents (uncertified, unregistered, possibly even unschooled parents) teaching their children in the home or a home-like setting. I realize the denotation for homeschooling would probably resolve itself to be merely teaching in the home, but, for our purposes, that is known as tutoring when not done by the parents. From the sound of what you have said, given that definition, it is, indeed, illegal to homeschool in Portugal. In no way am I trying to pass judgment on that fact, specifically. I just want to establish that it is a fact. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, to the bigger issue I would like to address; many of the folks who have replied to us seem to have the impression that we think everyone should homeschool and that our belief in homeschooling's success versus the varied degrees of failure of the government run public education system is the reason we want to abolish said system.

So, let me further clarify our position. We do not believe that homeschooling is for everyone. There are certainly those whose teaching skills, or lack thereof, would preclude them using that method of instruction for their children. We believe, in a free enterprise system, without a compulsory federal "option", there would be many alternatives to homeschooling. Some already exist today, but are overpriced, or at least high priced, because they are competing for the children of those wealthy enough to choose a higher quality option in the face of the "free" one available to the general public. "Wal-Mart exists for those who haven't the money to shop at Tiffany's" is the basic concept we're looking for, here.

Many responses to our posts have also suggested that a large portion of the folks here think that the public school failures are the main reason we would like to see it abolished. This, too, is erroneous, or misleading, at best. The failures are a symptom of the underlying problem, not the core problem.

Therefore, let me state, as clearly as I can, why we would see taxpayer funded, government run education abolished. We believe that parents have the sole right and responsibility (whether you believe it God-given or not as we do) to educate their children. Period. This means they choose how and what their children will be taught. A compulsory educational system run by anyone else defeats this basic concept. Now, before you point out that we are homeschooling our own children, thus having freed them from the federal system, let me flip to the other side of this oh-so-thin coin. My taxes are used to fund this system...and to all those who have mentioned the amount of money as an issue, it is not, the principle is...thereby teaching somone else's thoughts, concepts and ideals on my dime. So, I am forced to pay for the indoctrination of children by someone other than the child's parent, in this case a someone (read: giant, unfeeling, power-hungry entity) I disagree with on many fundamental issues. If you choose to indoctrinate your own children in beliefs I disagree with that is your right...but don't ask me to pay for it. Considering the heated debates bouncing around this thread about whether or not a parent should be indoctrinating his own children I find it odd that everyone takes for granted that the government should be doing it, in many cases actually arguing for its right to do so and suggesting that it is the government that should be placing checks on the parent's influence over their children's education rather than the other way around.

If you do not believe that it is the parent, and no other, who should care for his child's education, directly or indirectly as he sees fit, then we have nothing to discuss; the difference between our views is just too disparate for anything meaningful to come out of further discussion. If you do think it should be the parent I can't imagine how you can support an independent entity usurping control even under the best of auspices, and the U.S. government certainly does not operate under such.

If you think someone other than yourself can better educate your children due to level of skill, fine, let them. That is, as long as you retain control over the content and method.

My family is "Catholic", i'm atheist. They, especially my mother always try to force me to share in thier beliefs and it annoys me so much! :mad: Anyway, I think that while it is okay to expose your offspring to your religion, you cannot say that only your religion is the 'right' one. This is just another area where young people shoud be allowed to express thier free will.