Court orders Christian student to attend public school

[Johnv]

You have a habit of using obscure facts to support ideas that the former do not automatically lead to.

Amusing, coming from a person who has a habit of supporting ideas devoid of facts.

The issue is centered on her being home schooled, the government forced her into public school. That is the issue.

No, issue is centered around the father's wishes vs the mother's wishes.

 

[Revmitchell]

Amusing, coming from a person who has a habit of supporting ideas devoid of facts.

Oh well so much for being truthful

No, issue is centered around the father's wishes vs the mother's wishes.

Which is public school or homeschool.

 

[Johnv]

Oh well so much for being truthful

Pot, kettle.

Which is public school or homeschool.

Which does not make it a case of the government "forcing a child to attend public school".

 

[Revmitchell]

Which does not make it a case of the government "forcing a child to attend public school".

:laugh::laugh:

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

If the child was being home schooled at the time of the divorce, and was doing fine; why bring it up now and disrupt the 'family'?

It sounds to me like the father (in this case only) is trying to exact revenge upon the mother...irregardless of the child's welfare, or what the child and mother both want.

IMHO, the government had no place in this issue. A therapist or pastor would have been a better choice to settle this dispute, or perhaps a 'guardian ad lit-um' for the child.

 

[Johnv]

If the child was being home schooled at the time of the divorce, and was doing fine; why bring it up now and disrupt the 'family'?

Well, if the mother were truly worried about disruption, she would not have moved the child out of state. But the topic of such family disruptions in divorce could make for a whole separate thread.

It sounds to me like the father (in this case only) is trying to exact revenge upon the mother...irregardless of the child's welfare, or what the child and mother both want.

It's certainly a possibility that both parents here were thinking more about what they wanted for the child, rather than thinking about resolving it selflessly. This is one of the reasons God hates divorce. The parents rob the children of what they're entitled to.

IMHO, the government had no place in this issue.

The parents chose to bring it to court. That made it the government's business. If they didn't want the government involved, they should have resolved it between themselves, rather than take it to court.

A therapist or pastor would have been a better choice to settle this dispute, or perhaps a 'guardian ad lit-um' for the child.

Actually, that's what happenned. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who sided with the father over the mother.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Thanks for clarifying, John. I am just so tired of the government getting into people's lives and it's not going to get better anytime soon...

 

[Johnv]

Thanks for clarifying, John. I am just so tired of the government getting into people's lives and it's not going to get better anytime soon...

As am I. These parents should have lived up to their marital settlement agreement in the first place and not involved the courts. Better yet, these parents should have chosen a spouse more wisely in the first place.

 

[gb93433]

I am just so tired of the government getting into people's lives and it's not going to get better anytime soon...

There are times when I am glad they do. When I see a speeder in a neighborhood with children I am reminded of the need for a police officer. When I hear about the lady who was kidnapped form her parents 18 years ago I wished that the government had caught the criminals earlier.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

gb: I wasn't talking about crime. Of course, we need police officers at times. This thread has nothing to do with crime. Please stay on topic.

I am talking about my civil liberties and the freedoms my ancestors fought and died for, i.e. religious freedoms, etc.

I am talking about the right to choose my healthcare, the right to attend the school of my choice, the right to own a gun, the right to let my pastor preach against any sin he wants to, the seat belt law, the helmet law, etc., etc. Beleive it or not, we are slowly loosing these freedoms. Some we have already lost.

 

[gb93433]

I am talking about the right to choose my healthcare, the right to attend the school of my choice, the right to own a gun, the right to let my pastor preach against any sin he wants to, the seat belt law, the helmet law, etc., etc. Beleive it or not, we are slowly loosing these freedoms. Some we have already lost.

So you mean you want the right to choose what is convenient for you? What if farmers chose to demand a much higher price for their products and doctors chose to withhold care unless they received payment ahead of time and not accept insurance money? What if hospitals were only for profit and only the rich could get care? What if you were dying and would not be cared for unless you had insurance or money to pay for treatment? What if all roads were privately owned and you could not drive on them unless you paid the owner first? What is all airports were privately owned would you be willing to pay to use them? What is the government exercised no control and allowed monopolies to occur?

We have additional freedoms that we once did not have. There was a time when only the rich could go to college. The costs of food has gone down drastically in terms of the percentage of the cost of living. Flights have gone down in price. Cars have gone down in terms of cost per mile. A car once got 40,000 miles now they get over 200,000 miles easily.

 

[just-want-peace]

What if Chicken Little is correct?????


Sheesh!!

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

gb: I was not dealing with 'what ifs'. Everything I posted is a law imposed upon my private life or is a law that will be voted on soon...

Apples and oranges.

Please stick to the facts and stay on topic or start your own thread on 'what ifs'.