Here in California we have a proposition on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This issue has already been the subject of a state-wide vote in California and in 2000 Prop 22 passed with a 61%-38% margin. But four members of the California Supreme Court decided they knew better than the voters and declared Prop 22 unconstitutional, (and who says you can’t legislate from the bench?). Thus we now have Prop 8.
Prior to voting on this very important issue it might not be a bad idea to examine what has happened in Massachusetts since gay marriage was legalized there.
There is an article is posted on the website of a group called Mass Resistance, a self-described “pro-family action group” in Massachusetts. It is a sobering read. Do not be naive, this issue is about MUCH more than simply being able to marry the one you love.
PLEASE take the time to read, “What same-sex marriage has done to Massachusetts”. Then vote “yes” on Proposition 8.
October 25th, 2008 8:14 pm
Holy Cow
October 26th, 2008 12:49 pm
Let me first respond by saying that any information with an agenda can be twisted or even fabricated.
Example: “Since homosexual marriage became “legal†the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.”
Facts: http://www.aidsaction.org/communications/publications/statefactsheets/pdfs/2005/massachussetts_2005L.pdf
While I was unable to find any information on the numbers the past three years, this shows that the number of reported cases actually decreased the year after gay marriage was made legal (2003), and that the number’s increase the next year was less significant than the increase from either 2001-2002 or 2002-2003. Also, here is another telling fact sheet:
http://www.avert.org/usastats.htm
This shows that, at the end of 2006, Massachusetts had a significantly lower rate per 100,000 population of AIDS cases than the national average, and in fact had 22 states, including Alabama and Arkansas, with higher rates of AIDS. None of the states with numbers lower than Boston have a city close to the population of Boston (usually a telling number with AIDS-related statistics).
Furthermore, I hope no one objects to the rise in funding for AIDS prevention; I’m sure that a survey of that increased funding would prove to be a large number across the United States – not just Massachusetts.
When one part of any article is proven to be falsely slanted, one must begin questioning the validity of the rest of the article, as well. While most of these arguments cannot be debated because they are claims about specific instances (many possibly with no media coverage), I am not in a position to refute most of these claims, but I would question to what extent they have been emotionalized or made to be more extreme than is reality.
Now, with that said, if some of the things in this article are indeed true, it is quite sad that a few individuals have let a decision go far enough to take some of the actions that have been taken. There is something to be said about common sense in relation to what some children are ready for.
However, I do not think it is wrong that children are being taught tolerance in school. If anything, I hope that Christian kids in the public school system are taught to love the homosexual community (especially if their parents teach them the opposite, as many evangelicals tend towards).
As a parent, then, it becomes your moral responsibility to teach your children what you believe the Bible teaches. Trust me: if you count on American society to give your children a sense of moral responsibility, your hope is incredibly misplaced. The education system and the rest of American culture has never been nor should ever be the vehicle for moral teachings. Moral teachings should come from the church and from scripture. If you’re worried about unbelieving children being taught a different moral system, I would ask, “why?” Is anyone beyond redemption? Are we so worried that children might actually embrace people regardless of their sexual orientation that we have to teach them that the behavior is wrong? This goes back to an issue that we have discussed before, and my opinion has not changed. Unbelievers are held to a different standard; I don’t think it’s bad that they should be taught tolerance.
Furthermore, when and if I ever become a parent, I hope I will not be so concerned about protecting my children from the realities of what might be called ‘our sinful nature’ or our depravity. They are very real things and millions of children have to see the results daily, whether it be prostitution, drugs, war or any number of other heinous things. Why shelter our children so that they grow up to be the same ignorant, privileged Americans that my generation has become?
In conclusion, I submit that we should be putting our trust and our hope in something higher than a “Yes on prop 8” vote.
October 26th, 2008 3:45 pm
So Caleb, just to test your intellectual honesty, you said: “When one part of any article is proven to be falsely slanted, one must begin questioning the validity of the rest of the article, as well.”
Do you REALLY apply this standard? If so, then do I take it that you ignore everything in the major media about Obama? Because I have yet to see a single article or news report in the major media about Obama that does not have parts which are “falsely slanted”. Just curious….
October 26th, 2008 3:48 pm
Caleb, what is being taught, and what will be taught, is so far beyond mere “tolerance” as to be laughable. You need to read the actual plans of the gay marriage supporting organizations. Have you? Are you aware of the lawsuits they intend to bring? The plans they have to penetrate the schools? They are not shy about it… it’s in their own documents. Read up, my friend.
October 26th, 2008 4:10 pm
Caleb, Insofar as you and I are concerned here, context is everything. We have had previous discussions in which you asserted that, (to quote you) “denying the legal right to the political establishment of such {gay marriage} (including the right to call it a marriage as defined by the government), is meddling in a field in where the church should take no part.”
What I had hoped to call attention to, both for you and others, was the fact that while you may have personally separated “church” marriage and “political” marriage cleanly and clearly there are forces (powerful political forces – not “a few individuals”) at work who care nothing for your demarcations, they seek to not only silence the church but in fact to criminalize any discussion in any forum, on the biblical teachings of homosexuality. I fear your naivete and that of others at this very important moment in history will ultimately lead to a loss of first amendment and religious freedom that cannot possibly be imagined.
I submit to you it is precisely because I DO put my hope and trust in “something higher” that I see how important it is to defend the institution of marriage and to persuade as many as I can to vote “yes” on Prop 8.
October 26th, 2008 4:19 pm
Caleb
It would be different if everyone had the same boundary lines as the ones you live by. But it is not so and as far as “meddling” is concerned – well to coin an old phrase “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet”. And what will you do when they come to “meddle” with you and what you hold dear? What will you do when you are told you may no longer use the terms “sin” “depravity” and “henious” but instead are invited (forced?) to be re-educated and are required to have your elementary-aged children actually instructed in the techniques of gay sex?
October 27th, 2008 12:52 am
Shack –
As far as ‘testing my intellectual honesty’ and Obama are concerned, I am no disciple of Obama. Do I think he would lead this country in a better direction than McCain? Do I think that he has a better understanding of a personal life committed to the needs of others than McCain? The answer to both of these questions are ‘yes.’ Do I think both Obama and McCain are leading politically misleading campaigns in order to find their way into the White House? Yes. Do I think either of them is perfect or the Messiah? No. Do I think the election of either one is going to send America into a moral downfall? No. Am I hoping or do I think it’s possible that either one will save the world or America? No.
To be honest, I came very close to not voting at all because I don’t think it’s Christians job to transform culture through the political sphere. I do not think it’s possible to serve two masters when one tells you to love your enemies and the other tells you to kill them or when one tells you to sell all your possessions and follow him and the other tells you to accumulate as many possessions as you can and pledge allegiance to it.
I think you missed a whole paragraph in my response; I acknowledged that much of it goes beyond ‘tolerance’ and said that this is unfortunate. However, I am again asserting that this is of little consequence to me: a parent with a good relationship with their child has more influence over that child than does the education system. I again suggest that you put your hope in God for your influence and the church’s influence on your child than the government’s influence.
October 27th, 2008 1:20 am
Beatty –
Because I have separated the two, the demarcation or lack thereof is of little consequence to me. I am glad that your prophetic notion that the belief that homosexuality is sinful will soon be criminalized; I do not think, however, that I am the naive one in this respect.
I would assert that no one is teaching what the Bible really says about homosexuality, anyway. To come away with the conclusion that monogamous homosexual relationships, as we know them today, is a linear conclusion (or interpretation) based on the condemnation of homosexual practices in Biblical times, which must be looked at through a lens of the following:
1. There is no word, Greek or Hebrew, for the term ‘homosexual.’
2. All but two instances in the Bible where homosexual behavior is mentioned are closely linked with three things: idolatry, rape or pederasty.
3. The two instances in the Bible where this link is not directly made are in Leviticus (as part of the purity code, alongside verses about not mixing fabrics in your clothes or seeds in your fields), and 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the word literally means ‘sodomites.’
4. First, sodomy was generally rape. Furthermore, God says through the prophet Ezekiel that Sodom’s sin was a lack of social concern for the poor and for being bad hosts; he does not say that it was any sexual deviance.
5. These sorts of monogamous relationships are NEVER mentioned in the Bible.
Now, I am not saying that it is unreasonable to conclude that monogamous homosexual relationships are sinful in nature, but no churches are teaching exactly this: they simply say that all homosexual behavior is condemned in the Bible.
Furthermore, while I don’t believe that this issue will affect your religious freedom to begin with, I don’t know why religious freedom has become such a core value of Christianity; I don’t think God values it nearly as much as we do. Whatever happened to, “Blessed are those who are persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of God?”
And my assertion is that you are relying on the modes of culture to transform itself, which was it was never intended to do, nor will it ever happen. Thus, you are putting your hope into our political system to ‘save marriage.’ I counter that this is the one of the very reasons Christ came: to provide an alternative to the ways of the kingdoms of this world.
Now, in response to your second post, I never used the word ‘heinous’ to describe homosexuality; rather, I used it to describe prostitution (but not the prostitutes; the majority of the time, they’re sold into it), drugs and war. My use of the terms ‘sinful’ and ‘depravity’ are only in the context of the belief that you hold that homosexuality is part of the human depraved nature (used more hypothetically than as a condemnation). No one can force you to believe anything; if I believed everything I was taught morally by my school, teachers and classmates, I would be in pretty bad shape. But frankly, again, if they do try to make me unbelieve anything, fine. I don’t take that much stock in my government mandated freedom; only the freedom given to me in Christ. I will continue to seek the truth of scripture through the revelation of Christ.
And no one is teaching elementary-aged kids how to have gay sex; most schools don’t even teach sex education until 8th grade (some teach it in 5th, though not graphically). By that time, I think it becomes sort of common sense. To keep it G-rated, I think the lack of certain parts lead to some logical conclusions.
October 27th, 2008 7:07 am
Heh. Yup – two guys getting married is really going to destroy the institution of marriage.
Who knew that another marriage will cause my marriage to fall apart?
October 27th, 2008 8:01 am
Caleb
You said: “a parent with a good relationship with their child has more influence over that child than does the education system.”
Frankly your underestimation of the leftist social architects is more than a little disconcerting. For there are those you patently disagree with this statement and actively seek to change it. You can believe that or don’t. You can ignore it or not. You can try to keep it from happening or not. But it is true. “It Takes A Village” is just a mere hint of things to come.
You said: “Furthermore, while I don’t believe that this issue will affect your religious freedom to begin with, I don’t know why religious freedom has become such a core value of Christianity; I don’t think God values it nearly as much as we do. Whatever happened to, “Blessed are those who are persecuted, for theirs is the kingdom of God?â€
I think you are dead wrong with respect to the future and religious freedom. Time will tell. Are you advocating an increase in religious persecution in order to secure God’s blessing for those who are persecuted? Do we stand by while the odds of persecution continue to rise when we have opportunities to help stem the tide? The very freedom that you seem to find so over-rated has made it possible for many others in this world, some suffering under terrible persecution, to have hope, to find Christ, and to find their way to a new life in that freedom. Jesus did not say to embrace persecution or to welcome it in order to secure a blessing.
Your biblical hermeneutics are creative, I’ll give you that. Especially your trivialization of the clear condemnation of male homosexual practice in Leviticus simply because of other subjects discussed in close proximity. And your distinction of sodomite as primarily rapist is interesting, where did that come from?
It seems to me that the commandment “Don’t lie with another man as you would lie with a woman” can be restated as “don’t commit sodomy”. A sodomite is one who commits sodomy. So the distinction you draw is lost on me so far.
Your out of hand dismissal of the Massachusetts article is fine, though you hardly made the case for refuting it. Again time will tell and you will be witness to whether or not there is any truth to my warnings. I agree with Shack – you should read up on this subject, then make an informed decision.
Your youth and particular brand of idealism, your unique interpretations and constructs of faith living are certainly foreign to me in many ways and are a part of your generation. But please give me a little credit for having taken more than twice as many laps around the sun as you have and for trying to understand a little about my perspective based on having witnessed the gradual erosion of personal liberties and increasing hostility toward those who are followers of Christ over a period of time longer than your life.
October 27th, 2008 8:03 am
Dave
I think you missed the whole point. I will repeat the point. This is about much more than 2 guys marrying. And it is just one salvo in a war against what we call marriage.
October 27th, 2008 9:14 am
“government-mandated freedom”
LOL – great oxymoron!
October 27th, 2008 3:19 pm
“I do not think it’s possible to serve two masters when one tells you to love your enemies and the other tells you to kill them or when one tells you to sell all your possessions and follow him and the other tells you to accumulate as many possessions as you can and pledge allegiance to it.”
“And my assertion is that you are relying on the modes of culture to transform itself, which was it was never intended to do, nor will it ever happen. Thus, you are putting your hope into our political system to ’save marriage.’ I counter that this is the one of the very reasons Christ came: to provide an alternative to the ways of the kingdoms of this world.”
Excellent points. So what do you think the church SHOULD be doing in regard to homosexual marriage? What is the alternative?
October 27th, 2008 3:31 pm
Caleb, you said:
You made a fairly sweeping condemnation of a source of information because you thought you detected a “slant”. I asked if you applied that same standard to your sources of information on Obama. You seem to think you know something about him, and about McCain, for that matter. And I suggest to you that if your main source of information is the “main stream media”, virtually all of which is in the tank for Obama, then you are hopelessly misinformed, which has implications for how your opinions are formed.
That’s if you’re equally condemning of slanted sources from the Left, of course, which was the real intent of my question.
What NON-MAIN STREAM MEDIA sources have you used to inform yourself? You sound like you think you’re pretty well informed… so I’m curious.
October 27th, 2008 3:33 pm
Caleb, what are you talking about here?
I just have no idea who might be the players to whom you refer.
October 27th, 2008 3:42 pm
Caleb, you said:
It is WAY more than merely “unfortunate”, it is disastrous. Consider: the schools have 6-8 hours per day to socialize your child, 5 days per week. How many of your hours with your child are you supposing parents should have to spend to undo that programming and indoctrination? Caleb, forgive me: but I’m going to claim superior experience again, having raised kids, and observing what goes in public schools, private schools, home schools, etc., both from inside and out.
You may not believe it now, but if you have children, you will believe it someday: The more negative training your child gets from outside the home, the harder your job as parent is.
Simple thought experiment: What if public schools were passing along virulent anti-gay hatred? What if public schools were teaching racism? (Actually, some are… but that’s another story.) What if public schools were teaching hatred of the poor? I think you would not be so sanguine about the effect on your child, and your ability to repair the damage merely by “having a good relationship with your child”.
Surely you can think of things your child could be taught in public school that you would find utterly unacceptable, and utterly immoral for your child to be taught.
If you cannot, I’m sorry for you. It means you either have a failure of imagination, or no moral sense whatsoever. But if you can, than what we really have is a disagreement about what things are most damaging to be taught. In that case, you don’t get to take the “parents need to have a good relationship” dodge, and instead must deal directly with why you don’t think THIS particular matter is important enough to resist.
October 29th, 2008 4:23 pm
Beatty –
First, there is little I can say more to the issue of religious freedom if you continue to twist words and find more in them than is obviously intended. I was not arguing that we should seek religious persecution, and if you read that statement in context with any of the statements of mine that you have previously read, you would understand that the last thing I think Christians should be after is securing ‘blessings.’ This is primarily why I don’t think we should value religious freedom so much. It may make it easier for us, but who ever said being a Christian is supposed to be easy? I would argue that if the church stood for what Christ stood for, we would continue to be persecuted as the early church was persecuted; it wasn’t until the church got into bed with the empire that persecution stopped. This is not in order to ‘secure some blessing;’ this is in order to fulfill the call of the church.
You forget that you’re reading a translation, Beatty. Translations are not perfect; in fact, the verse you are referring to probably originally did mean “do not commit sodomy,” and some translator along the way interpreted it to mean “do not lie with another man.” I think your understanding of historical sexual practices is very limited; you are applying your understanding of what they are today to what they were in Sodom and Gomorrah. While you may be unaware, modern thought in that day (and in some cultures today) was that the act of giving in homosexual sex was not wrong; only the act of receiving was degrading.
This is a much better argument that you could use to support your case and stems from a better understanding of culture: http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
Your continual assertion that I am ignorant of the issue is somewhat flabbergasting considering that I argued your side for several years before I came to the conclusion that I am now at. As far as your years, I do not mean to disregard them, but trying to understand those things does not imply that you have come to that understanding. It’s sort of like the guy who spent years and years and years trying to solve pi only to realize he made a mistake at the beginning. Does it diminish his efforts? No. Does it make him any less wrong? No.
I tend to think, too, that sometimes a fresh perspective is more healthy than one that his been jaded by years of human depravity and brokenness. I grew increasingly cynical for the first 19 years of my life, and it was not until very recently that I began to learn to reverse that process. Jesus doesn’t call us to be cynics – he calls us to put our hope and our trust in Him.
October 29th, 2008 4:31 pm
“Excellent points. So what do you think the church SHOULD be doing in regard to homosexual marriage? What is the alternative?”
I honestly don’t know, and I don’t know why alternatives have become necessary to understanding that a system is flawed; that is to say, I don’t know why the church has become so ready to embrace the lesser of two evils. The fact is that we have been given a way out of that, and that way is the way of Christ.
If one maintains the understanding that monogamous homosexual relationships are indeed sinful after doing a thorough study of what the Bible actually says about the issue, it obviously demands some action. For some, I suppose it could mean not voting at all on this issue and beginning to form relationships (gasp!) with those in the homosexual community. But I don’t think that the solution is going to be simple; I don’t think the solution is going to be black and white. That is not to say that truth is relative; it is only to say that people handle things in different ways and that God is a diverse God who is not incapable of solving things in any number of ways.
October 29th, 2008 5:22 pm
Shack –
I don’t know why Obama came into this discussion at all. This issue has nothing to do with Obama, and trust me, I am well aware that the media favors him. You say I sound like I think I’m pretty well-informed, but I am unaware of what you could be using as a guide here. I have seen much more media coverage from the right supporting ‘Yes on Prop 8.’ I get sent all kinds of crap from evangelical publications and get all kinds of propaganda from churches, professors, co-workers and now, even chapel. Your question is completely unfounded and irrelevant in regards to this discussion. I have seen a tendency in your posts to start going off on completely unrelated rants (the increase of Islam in Europe, for example) that does little to validate your arguments.
I think it’s pretty obvious who the ‘players’ are if you listen to our politicians and read your Bible. Jesus says to love your enemies; Barack Obama, George Bush and John McCain are all set on killing them. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all his possessions and give to the poor; capitalist economies tell you to make as much money as you possibly can no matter the consequences or ethics.
If schools were to do that, I’d pull my kids out of school. Again, American parents have the option to homeschool their children or put them in private school. Fortunately, they are not spreading hate. I would find it utterly unacceptable to teach hate; I do not find it utterly unacceptable to teach love – you are correct. Shame on me for adhering to the teachings of the Gospels.
October 29th, 2008 7:18 pm
Well, Caleb…
A thorough response is probably called for but perhaps beyond the purview of this blog, then again, perhaps not. The genesis of my thought was to provoke further consideration of Prop 8. And I did indeed use an article with an obvious and stated slant, but with facts nevertheless. Irrespective of your scriptural interpretation of homosexuality, the role of the church, etc, my point is that Prop 8 is about much more than the right to marry the one you love. If you wish to debunk what is presented in the article as suspect because of it’s slant or a statistic you found that appears to refute one presented in the article, be my guest.
But you do indeed show either naivete or hypocrisy when at the same time you link an article from a United Methodist Seminary publication – a decidedly liberal and left-leaning denomination. A different slant but a slant nonetheless.
On a lighter note you may have just revealed the origin of the phrase “it is better to give than to receive” 🙂
I shall respond further as time permits. Many blessings on you!
October 29th, 2008 8:33 pm
Caleb, I mentioned Obama because you seemed to reject sources you deem slanted. Since virtually ALL coverage of Obama is slanted, I questioned whether you rejected IT, too.
Clear? I was questioning your consistency in rejecting slanted sources from either side.
more to follow in a bit… having trouble with my browser
October 31st, 2008 12:35 am
Caleb. All human systems are flawed. All humans are flawed. Do you therefore infer that we as Christians are to refrain from participation in human systems because they are flawed? Also, to portray a promotion of monogamous heterosexual marriage within the context of the laws of the nation state of which we are a part, as “the lesser of two evils” reveals what some might call a rather extremist viewpoint. In this case I am reminded of the biblical record concerning the life of Paul. He not only did not remove himself from the human governmental system that was Rome but used his Roman citizenship to affect changes of outcome to his advantage.
There was another man who once claimed knowledge of scriptural truth through revelation. His name was Joseph Smith. Furthermore by your rejoinder to me about translations, coupled with your willingness to accept revelation as a means of understanding scripture virtually guarantees that truth will only be in the eye of the beholder. This does indeed lead us to a conversational dead-end.
October 31st, 2008 9:17 am
Caleb, here is that comment I promised before:
I assume you know that, generally speaking, 2000 years of Christian tradition treats homosexual acts (not mere homosexual feelings) as serious sin. If you wish to disagree with that, you’re taking the position of a tiny minority of world Christians, and historically speaking, an infinitesimal minority.
As far as I know, you are not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, nor an expert in ancient cultures, and probably not an expert in ancient sexual practices and mores, with sufficient credentials to challenge the reigning paradigm among scholars who DO possess such credentials, and more.
So, a simple question: how and why did you decide to cast your lot with that tiny minority? Did you review their scholarship, compare it to the majority, and find it persuasive? When did you develop the skills that would allow you to do that?
Having said all of that, I feel compelled to say a couple of things, just to clear the air a bit.
1) I have homosexual friends. Good ones, whom I would take considerable risk to protect from any bigots floating around. I know that Mr. Beatty agrees.
2) Practicing homosexuality is simply another form of sex outside marriage. It is no worse, and no better. And sex outside of marriage is clearly not biblically endorsed, to put it mildly.
3) While you may cavil about the biblical stance toward homosexuality, I hope you don’t believe the Bible leaves any wiggle room whatsoever about marriage. It involves men and women, period, although in ancient times polygamy was permitted. There is no suggestion that the wives were considered to be married to each other (in any sexual sense) as well as the husband.
4) I go to a conservative Southern Baptist church. In our church, we would accept gays who attended, gay couples, whatever. They are welcome to worship with us. But our pastor would not perform a marriage ceremony for them. By the way, we have a hetero couple attending our church who are unmarried, but have lived together for a few years, with children from earlier marriages of each, etc. We hope they will marry someday. But scripturally speaking, their current decisions are no better, and no worse, than a gay couple living together. They feel accepted by us, they occasionally sing in the choir, and no one tries to make them feel personally uncomfortable, although of course the church upholds marriage as the standard. We think we have struck a balance between affirming morality while loving the people.
5) I have other friends (sadly, some of them students) who seem to live a “sexually free†life compared to traditional marriage, who believe that “sex is no worse than any other sin, and we all sin in some way or otherâ€, and so use that rationalization to do what they want while otherwise claiming to be Christian. I pray for them, and hope for the best, but I don’t think that is a biblically defensible position to take, and I pray for the Spirit to enlighten them.
Again, I am well aware of “the human conditionâ€. Few have lived perfect lives. But that does not make the standard for life and faith any different.
I am not sanguine about the effect that has been produced by the schools teaching a more or less guilt-free approach to sex out of marriage. The increase in STDs, abortions, out of wedlock birth and fatherless children, all reflect negative trends. There was a time when the schools reinforced the values of parents. Those days are over.
BTW, another Obama/Left connection. You suggest that since home-schooling is available, parents always have an option to take kids out of public school. But Obama, the Left, and the teachers unions, as well as the educational systems in many states, all hope to put an end to home schooling. It’s just a fact. There is a national organization of home schooling families (http://www.hslda.com) that is nothing BUT a union to pool resources to pay for legal help to fight such attempts. As the country tilts Left, and as it seems more and more necessary to pull kids out of public school, the law will also make it harder and harder to do so.
Eventually, if the Left and Obama have their way, we will be like Germany (who purely LOVE Obama), where home-schooling is just plain illegal, period, because the state reserves the right to indoctrinate your child, and plainly says so, despite being putatively a “democracyâ€.
October 31st, 2008 10:10 am
A fact, eh? Can you point out where Obama has said that he wants to put an end to home schooling?
October 31st, 2008 10:16 am
Obama supports the teachers unions. He supports the Left. He supports Democrats.
All of the groups he supports want to do away with home schooling.
So Obama supports the same. I don’t know if there are specific comments he’s made about it, pro or con, but it doesn’t matter, because all the groups he supports are for it, and he will sign it if he gets the chance.
Do you think he wouldn’t, in some great stand of conscience against his Lefty tribe?
October 31st, 2008 10:35 am
No… you said “its just a fact.” I want to see where Obama has opposed home schooling.
Well… Obama also supports charter schools and merit pay for teachers. And he has done so very publicly and very strongly.
You are blatantly lying here, and you know it.
October 31st, 2008 10:48 am
You may want to tell these homeschoolers that Barack Obama will ban them from homeschooling.
You may also want to explain why Barack Obama wrote this in Audacity of Hope:
But you can go ahead and say “its just a fact” and people may believe you, even though you are lying through your teeth (or, I guess, your fingers).
October 31st, 2008 11:27 am
DAve, see the new post I put up.
May 31st, 2009 8:55 pm
Hey Dave
Do you remember when you said this?
“Can you point out where Obama has said that he wants to put an end to home schooling?”
and this:
“Well… Obama also supports charter schools and merit pay for teachers. And he has done so very publicly and very strongly.” 10/31/08
Did you hear what happened to the school voucher system in Washington D.C.? Read this:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/williams_obama_dc/
Now, do you want to try and say Obama still supports charter schools, and home schooling, but not school vouchers?
In fact harmonicminer had it exactly right. Obama supports his financial and voting base, which includes teacher unions – period. And teacher unions don’t like voucher programs, or home-schooling for that matter. I don’t care what Obama wrote in his book. But I do care about what his administration is actually doing.
Maybe, just maybe you should start thinking a little longer and digging a little deeper before you come a-runnin’ with such a naive opinion of what Obama is and is not capable of. Also your multiple accusations about “blatantly lying” and “lying through your teeth” seem rather silly in retrospect, don’t you think?
June 1st, 2009 6:47 am
Huh? I have never said that Obama supported school vouchers. And nothing that in the DC story goes against what I said. At all.
You comment fails logic 101. You are basically saying this: Obama is opposed to vouchers. Therefore Obama is opposed to charter schools and homeschooling.
I still say that, despite your and shack’s ravings, Obama has never said that wants to put an end to home schooling. And that he also has supported charter schools. And you say you can what his administration is doing… what is his administration doing to end charter schools and home schooling? This should be fun, considering that Arne Duncan has been a HUGE proponent of charter schools in Chicago. Yet, somehow, you want to say that I am wrong because Obama is against a different issue?
Ah… when in doubt, resort to the personal attacks. Nice. I know very well what Obama is capable of. And I also know that vouchers are not the same as charter schools and homeschooling.
Not at all… in retrospect, his administration still hasn’t done anything to get rid of charter schools or homeschooling. But good try though!
June 1st, 2009 9:38 am
Dave, you persistently don’t read carefully. No one said that Obama is doing something specific, of his own immediate legislative agenda, to end home schooling by making a big push using his own personal political capital. So constantly challenging people to provide examples of a thing they did not assert in the first place is not particularly successful as rhetorical strategies go.
What we said is that Obama would sign any legislation reaching him limiting school choice, limiting home schooling, etc. He, and most of the LEFT, would LIKE to end home schooling, because he perceives, correctly, that it is one way people have of resisting the state’s indoctrination of their children. Do you deny that he would sign such legislation? Please don’t bother to reply without answering that specific question.
There is another way that his administration’s policy could more directly affect home schooling, outside of legislation. Here’s more about it: http://tinyurl.com/l3jmrg
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child could easily be used (as it has been elsewhere already) to challenge the right of parents to home school their children, and to do so by an end-run around the usual legislative process, by means of a treaty requiring only Senate ratification, and whose complexity is such that many people may not realize the dangers of it in time to effectively resist via public pressure on the Senate.
June 1st, 2009 10:45 am
Maybe you need to read your own writing more carefully.
This is what you said earlier on this post, several months ago:
You said very directly that Obama hopes to put an end to home schooling, and that Obama’s way would be “where home-schooling is just plain illegal.” You made a VERY clear assertion of fact that Obama believes a specific thing, and you refuse to back it up. And when I call you on it, you claim that I don’t read carefully? Nice.
No… that simply is not what you said, as I just demonstrated above.
Prove it. You continue to say what Obama hopes, wants, and likes, and you refuse to support it with anything, because, frankly, there is no evidence to support your claims.
I honestly do not know if he would sign such a piece of legislation. I have not seen anything from him saying that he would sign such legislation. Nor have I seen him say one negative work about home schooling. I also don’t see such legislation ever being on Obama’s desk.
I know… we have already talked about it.
Once again, back to the point… I need to point out that amuzikman is using an administration policy on vouchers to claim that Obama is opposed to home schooling and charter schools. And he is breaking the basic rules of logic to attack me.
Do you even realize how strong of a proponent of charter schools that Secretary Duncan is?
June 1st, 2009 12:53 pm
Dave
My point is this. Obama will ultimately support whatever the teacher’s unions want him to support. He must – they are a strong part of his base. In my opinion it does not matter what he may have said about the issue. Obama said many things during the campaign, many of which he has refuted by his actions since taking office. It is much better to observe what does rather than what he may have said in a campaign or a book written essentially for campaign purposes. To see the way in which his administration squashed the D.C. voucher system has surely sent a shudder through the home school community as well as other school choice programs. And if charter schools are perceived in some way a threat by teachers unions I have no doubt Obama would seek to make changes in that area. He is simply too beholden to them.
Now you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitles to mine. If you do not see a connection between various alternative choices for education and the desire for the staus quo to protect itself by discouraging these alternates – OK. That is not breaking any rule of logic as far as I am concerned and I’m real sorry if you perceive it as an attack on you. I disagree with you and I’m not afraid to say so. I will, however, always do my best to completely explain why I disagree.
(As an aside I do find it interesting you feel you have been personally attacked because I said you have a naive opinion of Obama. Yet you feel it is all well and good to use such rhetoric as “ravings” blatant liar” “lying through your teeth”)
Lastly, with respect to the United Nations resolution on global children’s rights that harmonicminer has referenced. It should be noted that the resolution has already raised concerns within the home school community, specifically the Home School Legal Defense Association, the foremost US legal protection group for home school families. See below:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200905110.asp
You may not think the dots are connected. Fine. Others disagree, myself included.
June 1st, 2009 1:24 pm
If that is true he would have never chosen Arne Duncan as his Secretary of Education.
Sure… and he has done nothing on charter schools or home schooling. And doing something about vouchers is very different than doing something about charter schools or home schooling. They are three distinct issues, and I am not really sure what to say if you cannot separate them. Are there connections? Absolutely… but that does not mean that they are the same. And that does not mean that a decision/policy on one of them means that he make a similar decision on the others.
Again, I do not deny that there is any connection between vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. But where I disagree is when you essentially use the following logic:
A: Obama is blocking DC vouchers
B: People who support vouchers also support charter schools and homeschooling.
C: Therefore Obama will block charter schools and homeschooling.
The logic simply doesn’t work. And so when you come on a post that is 7 months old to attack me and tell me how wrong I am based on this very faulty logic, it demands to be shot down.
June 1st, 2009 9:36 pm
Yes, well you responded to the “demand” and fired your shot. I am hardly down, however. In fact I think you missed me entirely. I’ll leave it to other readers to decide where the “faulty logic” lies.
I happen to think it is a teachable moment to look back on what all of us were saying about Obama the candidate and Obama the president-elect. We now have the privilege of time and perspective with which to measure the accuracy of our predictions as we see Obama’s presidency play out. A good way to do that is to look at previous blog postings and responses, written during election time. Watch out – I may do it again! Cheers!
June 1st, 2009 10:43 pm
Dave, by your logic, it is impossible to discern what a person believes and wants by whom he supports, and by who supports him. By your logic, you can only discern what a person believes and wants by his direct, specific statements, and by his direct, specific expenditure of personal political capital to bring about a desired end.
What’s funny is that we’re talking about politicians, the slipperiest of all breeds, the least likely to make anything clear when it can be left murky and bring about the same end. Politicians can ONLY be judged by the company they keep, the supporters they seek and accept, and so on. Oh, any politician will attract a few nuts, and it’s not fair to judge the politician by those few… but when a central base of support for a politician has a certain view, and understands its support for that politician as promoting that view, and that politician lionizes that support group, and never challenges that view, it’s pretty clear to all but proof-text seekers that the politician can reasonably be seen as supporting that same view.
In fact, Obama has done a fine job of claiming that “marriage is between one man and one woman” while (with a wink and a nudge) having no trouble keeping the support of gays who know he doesn’t really mean it (he just has to say it to get elected and later to avoid needless controversy) because they know he will appoint judges likely to rule in their favor, and in fact allowed his name to be used in anti-Prop 8 ads.
So what a politician says is very, very far from being any kind of “proof,” except by your benighted standard. What a politician DOES, whom the politician supports, and who supports the politician, says very much more about the actual positions of the politician.
The teachers unions hate home schooling. They love Obama. Obama loves the teachers unions. So his perspective on home-schooling (not what he feels in his heart but what he will do if he gets the chance, which is all that matters) is best revealed by that association, with the strong hint of his position on the related issue of vouchers. Going strictly objectively, by the evidence, I think you cannot find a single piece of evidence that he supports home schooling (by the standard of his behavior, not his rhetoric), but there is plenty, by the standard described above, that says he doesn’t.
June 2nd, 2009 6:37 am
Ah yes… lets teach people about how our predictions haven’t come true, but we can pretend they have based on a different issue. Some lesson…
I didn’t say that.
I agree. And Obama has still done nothing to opposed charter schools or homeschooling.
This is absurd. You two have fascinating logic that doesn’t make any sense.
You think that Obama will do everything that the teachers union says that he should do. But you have zero evidence that this is that case. And actually, I would argue that you have evidence that this is NOT the case. Again… Arne Duncan would never be the Secretary of Education if Obama did everything that the teachers said.
You two can continue to argue that Obama will oppose charter schools and homeschooling even though the evidence says otherwise. It is pretty laughable.
June 2nd, 2009 7:16 am
Dave, this is one time when I hope you’re right. But clinging to Arne Duncan as your sole evidence makes about as much sense as using his continuation of Gates as SecDef to claim that he is continuing the war just as Bush might have done.
But as I say, may you be right this time. It would be a good thing for America if you were.
In the meantime, I said: ” it is impossible to discern what a person believes and wants by whom he supports, and by who supports him.”
You said, “I didn’t say that.” But you DID, since that is precisely the kind of argument I’m making, and whose validity you deny.
But I still hope you’re right this time.
June 2nd, 2009 7:29 am
harmonicminer … this is somewhat unrelated to this post, but I was reading your about section, and I would like to know what “center” positions you take. You refer to yourself as “center-right,” yet I do not recall ever seeing you take a position on this blog that would not be considered right/far-right. Maybe you could write a post about what you mean by “center-right” and how you fit under that label?
June 2nd, 2009 7:36 am
No… I did not say that it was impossible. At all. I said that in this situation, it is not logical to assume that because the Obama administration is blocking one voucher program they will also block charter schools and homeschooling.
Here is another example for you… unrelated to education. Labor supports single payer health care. Labor likes Obama (kind of). Obama likes labor. Obama will not push a single payer health care system. Would he sign it if it landed on his desk? Probably… but he will not introduce it, advocate it, support it, or at all make it happen.
Hell… just last week the Obama administration changed their mind on an opinion regarding California’s FMAP money via the ARRA. They originally sided with SEIU and said that California would not receive billions of dollars if they cut home care funding, and they have since changed their mind and sided with the State. SEIU was THE strongest labor supporter of Obama. Obama supports SEIU. Yet Obama went against SEIU.
So much for your theory of Obama always taking the position that his allies want him to.
June 11th, 2009 9:17 am
Oh look… the Obama Administration supports charter schools? Who would have thought?
Source:
But yea… you are right. Obama and his administration will do everything that the teachers unions say.
Yup – I still want to say it.
June 12th, 2009 11:32 am
Dave
Thanks for citing your source. I did actually read the entire article, something I suspect you do not do when harmonicminer and I cite a source to you. (in fact you are fairly consistent in responding only to those particular points you feel comfortable with, while ignoring wholesale those you are perhaps less prepared to discuss – but I digress).
First of all this article does absolutely nothing to dispel my assertion that Obama is in bed politically with the NEA and AFT. If I’ve missed something here please feel free to illuminate me. In fact the quote you inserted coupled with your second sarcastic comment are curious, to say the least. Did you actually read the entire article? The teachers union in Illinois is in favor of this bill. And if you were to read a little further you would see why:
From the article you cite:
So there is at least the possibility the Illinois teacher’s union support has little or nothing whatsoever to do with improving education. It may, in fact, have everything to do with being able to unionize charter school teachers. And if they increase the number of charter schools…Voila! potentially more union members, more union jobs, (and more loyal Obama voters). This is entirely in harmony with President Obama’s support of labor unions, specifically the NEA and AFT since he and the Democratic party are so financially beholden to them.
Lastly and perhaps most sad about this article you cite is its last three paragraphs:
So the new bill places restrictions on some charter school operators, forcing them to operate at a single campus site while allowing others (perhaps those catering more to the desires of the politicians and union leaders?) to open multiple locations. And I can’t help but wonder who will make these decisions and on the basis of what criteria. In my opinion this is entirely in keeping with the Obama administration’s proclivity toward increased government control over private enterprise.
And the new schools will exist at least in part to give dropouts a second chance at completing their education. On the one hand a noble proposition. On the other hand it seems Illinois’ answer to improving education is not calling teachers into greater accountability, it’s just the hiring of more union teachers.
I plan to expand on this subject in a new blog. stay tuned!
June 13th, 2009 11:04 am
You are excellent at getting little digs in at me, even when they have nothing to do with the content that you are referring to.
Not necessarily. The teachers unions are not in favor of this bill. They just like this bill better than the alternative.
Umm… no. Good try though. For the most part, any charter school that opens will take away students, and in turn teachers, out of already unionized public schools.
First of all, Obama had nothing to do with this legislation. I know that may be tough for you to understand, but it is true. Second of all, the government has every right to have what ever control they want over entities that are largely (or even solely) funded by government dollars. If a private enterprise doesn’t want the government to have any control of what they do, then they should not take government dollars. It is pretty simple.
Did you not read this:
The Obama administration is pushing for more charter schools. Which goes completely against what you said previously that the Obama administration would be opposed to charter schools.
Nowhere in Duncan’s statement does it say anything about pushing charter schools that fall under labor laws that allow unions to organize them. Nowhere does it say that the Obama administration will only support charter schools that can eventually be organized. Further, even if it DID, it would still go against what you said, that Obama would oppose charter schools.
So please, do tell me how the Obama administration is opposed to charter schools, even with the evidence clearly says otherwise.
I know it is tough for you to acknowledge that you are wrong. But this is a pretty clear example of a good time to do it.
June 13th, 2009 1:21 pm
DAVE: If I’m ever on trial for murder, I hope you are the chief witness for the prosecution.
As amuzikman stated, you simply ignore the things he points out from the article that undercut your position, especially the requirement that charters hire more unionized teachers over time, and the limitations on charters having multiple sites. (Can’t let them compete TOO successfully, you know.)
There is not a chance in the world that in a Democrat blue state, the teachers union settles for ANYTHING from the legislature that it really doesn’t like. You’re naive if you think otherwise.
And no one said anything about what the government had a “right” to do with institutions it funds, so that’s yet another straw man argument.
My opinion: any competent defense attorney would have me on the street very shortly, after taking you on cross-examination.
As always, I invite anyone reading this to actually READ the link DAVE and amuzikman are discussing, and draw your own conclusions about who is fairly using the source.
June 13th, 2009 8:20 pm
Huh? Nothing in that article, or the legislation, says anything of the sort. Certified teachers are not unionized teachers. At all.
I live in the State. I know how it played out. And I know that this is not a bill that the teachers unions supported. It was a bill that they settled on, because the alternative was worse. But sure, go ahead and pretend that you know what you are talking about on this.
I am still waiting for either of you to give ANY evidence that Obama or his administration opposes charter schools. I am pretty sure that I will be waiting for a long time…
June 14th, 2009 12:12 am
Dave, you and I know that the teachers unions and their accomplices in the legislature and administration have a stranglehold on the process of “certification.” Why pretend otherwise, by drawing a false distinction between “unionization” and “certification,” when the unions, in essence, control who gets certified, by controlling the procedures they must follow?
And you think the teachers union didn’t like the bill because they cried big salt tears? Very convincing, I’m sure, if you want to be convinced.
Dave, you argue micro-points and miss the main point with great regularity. We’ll see how friendly the judges Obama appoints turn out to be to home school rights. Maybe a “latina with life experience” will love them… but somehow I doubt it.
June 14th, 2009 12:16 am
Put it this way, Dave. In a red state, with Republican governor and Republican legislature (of very long standing), if the legislature passed a bill extending gun rights in some way, and the governor signed it, and the NRA complained that the bill didn’t go far enough, or didn’t like some aspect of it, how seriously would YOU take the complaint? Wouldn’t you be tempted to have just a WEE bit of skepticism about the NRA’s supposed opposition?
If not, I hope to play poker with you someday.
June 14th, 2009 12:29 am
And Dave, the article says that the new law allows charters to unionize, which requires only a 50% vote, if I recall. If 75% of teachers are required to be certified in a charter school fairly soon (the connection of certification and union influence already being established), don’t you think it likely that many charters will unionize? The union thinks so… which is why it didn’t fight the bill particularly, but just got those “poison pill” insertions into it.
It really surprises me that you don’t see through the union’s “opposition” to the strategic thinking behind it.
June 14th, 2009 1:25 am
Hey Dave,
That comment was not subject-specific. It is a general observation I made about you based on various replies you have submitted covering a number of topics.
That is NOT what the article says. If you are privy to other information on the subject please cite the source.
Again I must ask you to (re)read the article: “But the five schools re-enrolling high school dropouts will be able to open as many as 15 campuses with up to 165 students each.” Re-enrolling high school dropouts does not take away students, it adds students. It is therefore reasonable to expect it will require additional teachers as well.
Compare these two statements you wrote:
If this is true, then why bother to mention this article in defense of your position about Obama and his support for charter schools? If this is true then your statement – “Oh look… the Obama Administration supports charter schools? Who would have thought?” – seems rather silly, doesn’t it?
If this is true, then why did you say Obama has nothing to do with it?
I never said Obama opposes charter schools per se. What I have been saying repeatedly is that Obama is in bed with the organized labor, including and especially the NEA and AFT. And I believe when push comes to shove Obama will not oppose these unions in a substantive way. BTW – did you know the NEA has financially contributed to at least one organization whose stated purpose is to oppose charter schools?
I understand how badly you want to prove me wrong, I really do. I just don’t think it’s going to happen on this subject. And the article you have used as your authority here hasn’t helped you much. But don’t stop trying! Our president thinks highly of “robust debate”.
June 15th, 2009 6:44 am
Because it isn’t a false distinction. The union has no control over who gets certified, and no control over whether or not certified teachers join a union. A certified teacher is simply not the same as a unionized teacher. At all. There are many school districts that are not union-shops, which means that you can be a certified teacher without belonging to the union, even if the union represents the teachers at your school. You seem to have a significant lack of understand of how unions work.
Right… because you say it is so, it must be true.