Parents Oppose District’s Policy of ‘Interrogating’ Homeschoolers on Religious Beliefs

School busGOOCHLAND, Va. – Hundreds of concerned parents in Virginia recently voiced opposition to a controversial policy that allows school officials to grill homeschool parents and students on their religious beliefs.

In 2013, Goochland County Public Schools began requiring homeschool parents to reapply for a religious exemption to public education once their children turn 14 years old. The school district also requires homeschool families to write statements describing their religious beliefs.

“Before the School Board takes action on a request for a religious exemption, the parent must submit the application, a letter of statement explaining their bona fide religious beliefs and in the case of a student age 14 or older, a statement from the child stating his/her bona fide religious beliefs,” the school policy states.

The policy also gives the school board permission to schedule meetings with homeschool parents and students to question their religious beliefs.

“The purpose of the meeting is for the School Board to determine whether the request for exemption is based upon a conscientious opposition to attendance at a public school or at a private, denominational, or parochial school due to bona fide religious training or beliefs,” the policy says. “Such meeting will be conducted in a closed meeting of the School Board.”

Douglas Pruiett, a homeschool father in Goochland County, said three of his homeschooled children were affected by the school district’s policy. He likened the school’s procedures to interrogation.

“The policy provided the school board the right to call the child before them (and I call it interrogation) to defend those beliefs so they could determine whether indeed the child and the parents still held bona fide religious beliefs to qualify for the exemption,” Prueitt told Fox News.

  • Connect with Christian News

Prueitt believes the school district’s policy is illegal and alarming.

“I don’t believe the school board has the authority—nor should they—to interfere with families schooling their children this way,” he told reporters.

During the school board’s most recent meeting last week, hundreds of parents voiced opposition to the school district’s treatment of homeschoolers. The board promised to revise the policy, though the details will not be finalized until a later school board meeting, according to reports.

Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, told Watchdog.org that school officials have no right to grill families on their religious convictions.

“Government has no business interrogating anyone, much less kids, on the sincerity of their religious beliefs,” she said. “We as a society should never want people to have to subject their faith to a government body.”

In a statement, Scott Woodruff with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argued that the Goochland school district’s policy is “unacceptable” because it violates Virginia state law.

“The Virginia religious exemption statute gives families a right to an exemption from school attendance based on the religious training the parents are providing to the child—regardless of what the child believes,” Woodruff said. “The Goochland policy violates this right.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Fundisi

    This is clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt a violation of the 1st Amendment, the State has absolutely no business investigating the religious beliefs of anyone, unless their is clear evidence, on sound legal grounds, that the someone is suffering physical harm or some sort of actual abuse and it must not be conducted without a warrant. Even then it cannot be at all about their faith, but only restricted to evidence of any suspected harm, there must be NO discussion about faith. Unless such evidence exists that warrants arrest under the criminal code, this is unconstitutional.

    What is worse is that under the color of “its for the children” all sorts of unconstitutional abuses are being tolerated by CPS and school districts, almost of of which are atheists ans openly hostile to all people of faith. This is all part of the liberal war against Christ and the Church.

    • Evangelina Vigilantee

      Amen.
      First, people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. There is no such thing as a ‘thought crime’ unless you live in Orwell’s world. What I would do? Give them all the gospel and bible information that they want. We are to be a witness and ‘give to every man an answer for our hope…’ Then, if they discriminate, I would bring a lawsuit against them based on religious discrimination. I know, we don’t have to answer to them about what we believe, but seriously, like what would they do when you give them the gospel? It does say they will drag us before courts to give our testimony (Matthew 24, etc.). This is such a case. I know persecution is coming to the US and as I say; it is already here as many articles show. So either they fight it and win, or they will be persecuted. But denial or backing down is not an option. We must obey God rather than man. Acts 5; 29

  • bowie1

    Doesn’t this violate the separation of church and state atheists keep hollering and whining about?

    • Disqusdmnj

      As an atheist… yes. I think the “grilling” of the kids – if that’s indeed what’s happening – is egregious behavior and should be stopped immediately. The policy of requiring parents to submit an application for exemption is wholly reasonable, and I agree that meetings with the parents of homeschooled children should be scheduled, so that the administrators can be sure the children are being taught to standard.

      But as for asking children about their religious beliefs? No, not right at all!

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Thank you for your intellectual honesty in calling out the godless government fascists on this one – that takes courage! I might add that it’s really the government schools that could learn from homeschoolers when it comes to meeting the standards. All the data points to homeschoolers scoring about 30 percentile (not percentage) points higher on equivalent standardized achievement tests, and such tests are NOT the homeschoolers’ strong points. (And there is no statistically significant performance difference in minority versus white homeschoolers, unlike the government schools, where blacks are intellectually raped time and time again.)

        Back in the 80’s and early 90’s, government schools were collecting data themselves on this comparison. Then, they suddenly stopped: they did not like the answer they were getting: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

        God bless you, and thanks for supporting us on this one!

        • Disqusdmnj

          Appreciate the appreciation! One note though… pretty incorrect on the whole “godless government” – 99% of all elected officials consider themselves religious, or at least profess themselves as such (to get elected, I’d imagine). Maybe it’s not your brand of god, I don’t know, but believe me… there aren’t enough atheists in control of any government office to have an effect.

          Yet. ; )

          Take care!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The government schools are godless, that was my point. The a-theists won that battle in the early 60’s. The American people have suffered mightily since. The fact that religious people, the vast majority of whom are NOT elected, may teach or work in godless schools are no warrant as to the undeniable fact that what is taught in these schools and universities is nothing more than the blind-faith religion of a-theism, namely:

            1. The universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.
            2. Life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.
            3. Minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys. Because we said so.

            Your side already has full control of the government schools, the lamestream media, HollyWeird, and the Demon-crat Party. What more do you want – the lions back?!? 🙂 God bless!

          • Disqusdmnj

            Sorry, World, but you and I will disagree on everything you wrote above. Atheists, and school teachers, and scientists, deal in a world of proven and duplicatable facts; we can only teach what’s been accepted as fact, and what our best guesses are until another scientific theory (like that of gravity) comes along that better answers a question.

            So yes, our best guess so far is that our Universe started with a Big Bang. This time… and maybe it wasn’t the first time, and maybe no one will ever have a solid scientific answer on that. And yes, our best guess is that life sprang forth because our planet is in a remarkably unlikely zone habitable for life, which probably got its start because of the formation of molecules and radiation and lightning and the like. Add in a couple billion years of evolution, and you get fish and birds and dinosaurs and apes and us. And yes, we’re pretty smart beings, so deciding on how best to live in a moral society and get along with each other shouldn’t be so difficult. Plenty of non-religious societies have gotten along just fine, and plenty of religious societies have destroyed themselves and others in the name of their religion and gods. Neither side has a monopoly on being good or causing evil.

            Religion, on the other hand, deals in many things that are alleged to be outside our natural realm. Since none of this can be proven in an educational, science-based class, it’s best left to churches and other places of worship. And there are scores of opportunities for people to explore their faiths outside of the school day – heck, there’s a church on every other corner, and everyone is welcome to practice and believe what they want in their homes and in their hearts; this is what makes our country so great. And, what makes the separation of church and state so important. No one wants a State to tell us what to believe, as inscribed by law… and no one wants a Church to tell us what to believe either, because who knows which church is the right one?

            But again, if “we” are in control of the government, why do elected officials on both sides OVERWHELMINGLY identify as Christians?

            [I do appreciate the dialogue, but I’ll pass on the lions. 😉 ]

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Sorry, Disqusdmnj, but the religious statements that are taught above are nothing close to scientific facts. Regarding blind-faith statement number 1, we have Kalam, coupled with Big Bang and the BGV Theorem for premise 2, that clearly support a transcendent Cause for the universe. Those things are not being taught in schools. Instead it’s “nothing created everything out of nothing, and by the way, your cousin is a cockroach” which is a very dangerous cult – one responsible for the Jewish Holocaust, Stalin’s murders, Mao, and the greatest holocaust of all: abortion.

            It does appear you are agreeing with blind-faith statement number 2 – that is really quite astounding. Lightning hit mud – that’s your myth and fairy tale?!? And, oh, the creative power of “a couple of billion years” – how does that work? Time applied to nothing equals nothing. What wishful thinking! I’m sure you have not heard about the pre-Cambrian explosion of life and the total lack of intermediate forms, but let’s face it: “punctuated equilibrium” is just the naturalists’ way of expressing “then a miracle occurred” – something I tried to avoid encouraging when teaching my graduate-level students in engineering back in my academia days.

            Finally, you wrote concerning blind-faith statement number 3: “Neither side has a monopoly on being good or causing evil.” Well, of course this is not true! Under naturalistic a-theism, such things as objective good and evil do not exist. You are stuck with Darwinism: back to raping and murdering like your fellow animals now. And, your “pope” and “cardinals” agree with me here: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/

          • Disqusdmnj

            Sorry, World. You’ve gone off the rails and into an accusatory realm that you believe can only result in rape and murder because of the science of evolution, and the absence of a god. I have no pope and no cardinals, and don’t particularly care what one person allegedly wrote on a blog. One person speaks for an entire group no more than you or I.

            As such, there’s no point in my continuing this conversation, because it will lead neither of us anywhere constructive. But I’ll leave with this…

            If you honestly believe that I, as an atheist, would willingly rape or murder a fellow human being simply because I know there is no god nor afterlife punishment, then you have the sorriest view of humanity I have ever encountered. If you believe that a person who grows up in a community and society of people can’t develop on their own a sense of what is right and wrong, if you believe that faith in some deity is the only thing preventing you from raping and murdering your neighbor, then I’m glad you consider me an outsider to your world, because I sure would not want to be part of it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, then, I shall hereby apologize for the harshness of my previous reply. The link I provided was, yes, to a blog with the documented and cited writings of 3 “biggies” in the world of New A-theism: Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse, plus an anonymous a-theist who pointed out the implications for adopting the a-theistic worldview. I believe that they are correct in their assessment: there is absolutely no objectively moral reason not to rape or murder under a-theism, because we are just animals and animals rape and murder all the time. I would really like to know why these heavy hitters are wrong, because when I was an a-theist (for 42 years), I was forced to either make up subjective rules (with the endless list of exceptions) or admit that, yes, when the Nazis gassed the Jews, it really was just survival of the fittest.

            It has been well established that Darwinism is directly linked to eugenics, which was a major contributory factor toward Nazi-ism, and explicitly to abortion. And, this religion (Darwinism, the foundation of naturalistic a-theism) which has holes in it that a freight train could run through, IS indeed being routinely taught in the government schools. Whereas the fact that Kalam plus all of the cosmological science points strongly to a transcendent Cause remarkably similar to the God of the Bible is not being taught. Poor science, yes. Good science, no.

            And, I am sincerely sorry for placing these previous thoughts in an accusatory tone that was taken personally.

          • Disqusdmnj

            World, your words are appreciated. You sound older than I, and therefore have around the block more times than me, so to speak. Having been an atheist for so long though begs me to ask why you still have some questions about a lack of belief in a deity. Darwinism did not lead to eugenics, nor Nazism; those ideologies twisted the simple idea of evolution, which is not (and never has been) survival of the fittest, but rather survival of the group most adaptable to change. That is all. Darwin himself was hardly interested in how it all began (he was, in fact, rather religious), but how did animals change and adapt over time. Others who followed him extrapolated backwards to find a probable beginning of life, just as Hawking did to find a probable beginning of the universe.

            As for a First Cause or Prime Mover, what caused them? Did they not also have to have a cause or creator? Any answer in the negative to that question is the same answer that states the universe did not need a first cause or creator as well. We’re both blind on that one, but you say a holy book already has the answer, and I say science hasn’t quite yet figured one out.

            As for the blog post, which I scanned, I can only offer up what I personally believe. I know lots of atheists (all very fine people, I assure you), and everyone comes at their views of life a little differently, but some align with mine:

            I, you, we, everyone, has no *reason* to be here, in existence. The vast universe and all of its galaxies and stars and space couldn’t care less about our tiny little planet and the creatures on it. But we all have *purpose*. We have connections to other people. We love our friends and family. We create societies and laws to (try to) keep the peace. We defend our principles. We write and play music and watch movies, ski and ride motorcycles. We create and invent. We cook and eat. We make children and guide them to be good people like us. We try to make our world a little better in the new ways we’re learning work for the people in it.

            Most people are really good at all this, and some people are downright terrible. They steal and rape and murder not because of demons or disbelief in deities – all you need to do is ask people in jail what religion they are, and only 1 of a hundred will say “atheist”. So Christians, Jews, Muslims, Jains, etc, all have the capacity to be good, or bad, or evil. Hitler considered himself a Christian, with God on his side – that didn’t place Christianity at fault. Mao and Stalin were a-religious, and I draw a distinction between dictators who prohibit religion from those who simply don’t practice one or believe in one. Regardless, atheism didn’t cause their regimes either.

            The rules I live by are remarkably simple: try to be good. I don’t need a book or a god to tell me what’s good. I know if I do something wrong, that I’m going to hurt someone. If I don’t want to be hurt the same way, why would I inflict it on someone else? This is a basic social construct that’s existed long before the god of Abraham and Judaism, so of course we have a moral obligation to not rape and murder. To say that you have to have a whole set of rules as an atheist, different from the whole set of rules as a Christian, and that they would never intersect when one tries to live a good life, is ludicrous.

            And while it’s lights out for me when I pass away – no up or down, nowhere to go but back to where I was before I was born… nothingness – my name and memory will live on in others. That is my afterlife, and I spend my life working towards that being a good memory and not a bad one.

            I guarantee you, you did not go from being a bad person to a good one just because you found religion. I’m sure you were good beforehand already. Maybe it answered questions you had, or gave you a better sense of community. I’d hate to think you lost a sense of science and facts and proofs in shedding your atheism, but religion can and does coexist with the reality of our world, its Big Bang and its evolution and its 13.8 billion year history. You needn’t discount those facts to reconcile your faith.

            You just need to be good.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are most welcome! If it is OK, I would like to chop out a few of your replies and respond to them. It might be annoying, so I apologize in advance. 🙂

            “Having been an atheist for so long though begs me to ask why you still have some questions about a lack of belief in a deity.” A-theism is not a “lack of belief in a deity,” except in a Webster dictionary sense. In a serious and philosophical sense, it is a statement of the NO God Hypothesis which requires the same burden of proof as theism: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/12/25/is-the-definition-of-atheism-a-lack-of-belief-in-god-3/ and http://www.str.org/blog/are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-the-%E2%80%9Cburden-of-proof%E2%80%9D#.VMBFtEfF9hg

            Most serious old a-theists understand this – that the burden of proof is two-sided.

            So, we are in a plausibility domain here. If the evidence supports that a-theism is more plausible than theism, then I become an a-theist. And vice versa. Right now, Kalam plus Big Bang, BGV Theorem, etc all point to the universe coming into existence at a beginning point in time, and therefore, that the universe has a transcendent Cause. It’s not a mathematical proof – it is empirical, based on secular science and secular philosophy. Right now, the a-theist is on the wrong side of their own science and data in clinging to a-theism. So, theism appears to explain the world, in a scientific and moral sense (see below), better than a-theism.

            “As for a First Cause or Prime Mover, what caused them?” You misunderstand premise 1 of Kalam which is: everything that begins to exist has a cause. The First Uncaused Cause of the universe requires no cause because it did not “begin to exist.” In fact, this is something older (previous) a-theists like me knew well: either the universe is eternal or whatever (first) caused it is. Why, on earth, do you think that a-theists were salivating over eternal universes, oscillating universes, bouncing universes, flying spaghetti monster universes (:-)) for so many decades?!? They, like me, knew full well that if Big Bang pointed to the universe having a beginning, they were going to have to be accountable to a Higher Authority. Alas, even the most disgruntled a-theist now admits that the universe almost certainly had a beginning.

            Just going with the evidence on this one. I am fully convinced that your side’s data points to my side’s Deity. 🙂

            “Darwinism did not lead to eugenics, nor Nazism; those ideologies twisted the simple idea of evolution, which is not (and never has been) survival of the fittest, but rather survival of the group most adaptable to change.” The fittest are, by definition, those most adaptable to change. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. 🙂 Nazi-ism was a deliberate attempt to accelerate the evolution of the Aryan race, and the eugenics movement was Hitler’s primary source of “revelation.” Abortion, even more so, as Margaret Sanger admitted. And, a-theists are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of that one as well, which shows you just how nicely God can correct the moral compass of even the most vile a-theist. (Speaking of myself BC – not pointing at you.) You don’t get to re-write history because it makes you uncomfortable.

            Your purposes and principles are nothing more than subjective opinions without a transcendent Moral Law Giver. And Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse (pretty big names, no?) admit that. Bertrand Russell did as well (he was one of my heroes in my no-god days). And, there is no justice, either, in your world, which means that objective moral values and duties are even more ungroundable, not less.

            “all you need to do is ask people in jail what religion they are, and only 1 of a hundred will say “atheist””
            Here is the link from an a-theist website no less. Same data they use, but a vastly different conclusion. Go down to the bottom chart released in 2013: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

            Out of 218167 prisoners, 161 self-identified as a-theist. However, 37138 identified as “no preference,” 6584 as “other,” and 7512 as “unknown.” So, I would agree with you that only a small percentage of prisoners take their a-theism seriously, but I would say that someone who has “no preference” or “unknown” certainly qualify as people who do not take any religion seriously. And, those are people who are not in the God Hypothesis camp. When you add those numbers back in, you get something in the neighborhood of the same proportion of a-theists in society, perhaps a bit more. A-theist cherry-picked the data on this one, but, to their credit, printed the foundational document.

            “The rules I live by are remarkably simple: try to be good. I don’t need a book or a god to tell me what’s good. I know if I do something wrong, that I’m going to hurt someone.”
            Great, you are totally against abortion then, right?!?

            “This is a basic social construct that’s existed long before the god of Abraham and Judaism, so of course we have a moral obligation to not rape and murder.” Well, not if the God of Abraham and Isaac is the transcendent (first) Uncaused Cause that we showed is likely to exist above! That Cause existed before the beginning of the universe, long before the golden rule.

            “To say that you have to have a whole set of rules as an atheist, different from the whole set of rules as a Christian, and that they would never intersect when one tries to live a good life, is ludicrous.” This is actually one I agree with. But, that is because the a-theist is stealing from the God he doesn’t believe in to attempt to ground objective moral values and duties. And, it is even explained in the Bible why this is so: “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” Romans 2:15 So, the problem is not that we have no consciences (well, some do not), but that those consciences have been corrupted by sin.

            “And while it’s lights out for me when I pass away – no up or down, nowhere to go but back to where I was before I was born… nothingness – my name and memory will live on in others.” Totally false, and provably so. I used to think about this as well. I was blessed to know my great-grandmother until she passed away at 105. She was an amazing woman! I have told my kids a little bit about her, but if I asked them her name, they could not tell me. How much “thinking about” my beloved great-grandmother do you think my kids’ grandkids will do?!? How much “thinking about” your 6th generation ancestors do you do now? Don’t be silly: in a matter of no time at all, cosmically speaking, you will be long forgotten, no matter how “good” you are, and that is why great a-theists of the past knew full well that, under a-theism, life has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Not just no purpose, no meaning. Even if you are relatively famous, how many people will know your name in a thousand years?!? Not one! You are clinging to a hope that is delusional in a common and testable sense.

            “I guarantee you, you did not go from being a bad person to a good one just because you found religion. I’m sure you were good beforehand already.” Oh, now you know me so well! You should ask my wife and best friend (both Christians) and my Mom and brother (both a-theists) about that one. They will tell you full well how Christ has changed my life! The only difference between the two pairs is that my a-theist family will say that I brainwashed myself and my Christian family will say that I finally stopped being disobedient to my Creator. But, both pairs will conclude that the change was for the better. You may be a better behaving a-theist than I was, but you are stealing from God to do so. As CS Lewis wrote (approx): the question is not why can’t a-theists behave better than Christians – they can and often do: it’s what would the Christian be like without Christ and what would the a-theist be like with Him.

            As for discarding science, etc, I’m the only one in this conversation with 4 degrees in engineering and math. 🙂 Not trying to be prideful or arrogant here, but it was science and philosophy and logic that led me to Christianity.

            “You just need to be good.” Yes, and what would that BE under a-theism? If you can use your ideas above, perhaps you can refute Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Bertrand Russell, etc. Take it up with them: they say there is no “good” under a-theism, and that you must steal from God to assert it. I cannot figure out how they are wrong on this. On that note, God bless!

          • Disqusdmnj

            World… lots of words, some tough for me to parse through and understand, some I just don’t have the will to refute, and others that we obviously agree on. Particularly that come a few generations, even a memory of me will fade. So be it. What matters is what and who are around me now, and how I treat and am treated by them.

            As for abortion, I’ll play the typical progressive statement: I want it safe, legal, and extremely rare.

            But you do know that neither you nor I need a god to be good. Just a heart and a brain. : )

            Be well.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Disqusdmnj! Sorry for the slow reply. Two quickies:

            1. “But you do know that neither you nor I need a god to be good.” I once thought so too, but no longer do. And, apparently, Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Russell, and many other a-theists also disagree with you here. All those people, myself included, have or had tremendous brains – in a worldly measure sense. I like to believe that I have a heart, and I think that Russell, Provine, and Ruse do too, but not sure about Dawkins. (He believes that it is immoral to NOT abort Down’s Syndrome babies.) So, keep pondering this particular issue – it is a fascinating one to explore.

            2. “As for abortion, I’ll play the typical progressive statement: I want it safe, legal, and extremely rare.” I’m sure we would both agree that “extremely rare” is just not there. But, since today is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, just two quick questions:

            a. Do human beings have intrinsic moral value, in and of themselves, and not a means to an end?

            b. Is what is located in the female human womb, following conception, a human being?

            If the answer to either one of these questions is “no,” then there should be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion. But, if the answer to both of these questions is “yes,” then there is surely no justification for killing an innocent defenseless human being, merely because she is located in the womb. Question a is philosophical and moral, but question b is scientific.

            Thanks for the kind words, and God bless you too, and “Stay thirsty my friend.” (for the truth – cuz you seem to be a truth seeker!) Much health to you as well, Disqusdmnj, and thanks for hanging with me after I offended you! (Many apologies again.)

          • Disqusdmnj

            So’s you know, World, I posted a reply, but I’m not sure if it’s going to post. I can never be sure what will trigger a block on sites like this!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, I didn’t get it, Disqusdmnj, but it could be because I have been away so much the last 48 hours. I will check a few places. Regardless, I really enjoyed our dialogue on this – a great experience for me. And, I want to highly commend you once again for your courage in standing for what is right on this particular story, too! You are the kind of person who follows the truth wherever it leads you – and that kind of truth-seeking will never go unrewarded! Many blessings to you, and thanks again for your kindness!

          • Disqusdmnj

            Same here World. I wish my response got posted, because it *absolutely* would have convinced you I was right about EVERYTHING! ; )

            Alas, there’s obviously some coded words here that the website won’t allow, and there was no bad language or anything, so I don’t know what prohibited it from posting. Maybe the admins realised I was right as well!

            Either way, it has been nice chatting with you, and I’m sure we’ll run into each other on here again. I believe we are both good people, and even if the reasons why differ, the results are the same, and that can only be an improvement for the world.

            Take care!

  • Rachelle

    I think Christians should gather together outside the school and start praying for God’s help. I believe that would make a Huge difference!! Also, it would strengthen the churches no matter what denomination they are, if we all ban together to fight this spiritual war. It’s about God, it’s not about us! We can do this….together!!

  • gatekeeper96740

    Doesn’t Virginia have a terrorist cell there somewhere, with ISIS Muslims et al. Why not go ask those friendly folks a few questions.

  • Joseph

    Death…that is what this represents….If what the American people want their death then this is where it begins….Try having some balls and just say no….

  • Rumplestiltskin

    Just who the H*ll do you think you are you immoral SOBs. My religion is “F” You, and if you want to know more, I invite you to come over to my house so we can discuss your overstep. If you believe you own my children, we are going to have a serious discussion, that you are not going to win. Do you like Daisies or Roses !!!

    • Disqusdmnj

      Well, there *is* a concept that we *all* “own” everyone else’s children to an extent… hear me out.

      We live in a society where in a way, we are dependent on and responsible for each other. Let’s say you have parents who are schooling their children at home, and they’re doing an extremely poor job of it. The children eventually enter the school system at junior or high school level, and they’re years behind. They aren’t capable of catching up, develop social problems, and drop out before being able to make it to a trade school or college. They can’t get a job because they don’t have a GED.

      At this point, they become “everyone’s” problem. Maybe they turn to crime, maybe they go on welfare, maybe they simply disappear off the map. Now, we as a society have lost someone who could have contributed to the collective good; or conversely, we just allowed the creation of someone who contributes to the ills of society, and now we’re on the hook for prison expenses, rehabilitation, etc.

      Life isn’t all lovey-dovey for sure, but we should be concerned about children being brought up well as a whole, because we all have to deal with the next generation one way or another, and better to have good kids than not. Both forms of education have good and bad examples, but we should want expect the best from both.

      Remember, I’m on the side of the article here!

      • Rumplestiltskin

        You may be on the side of that article, but you come off as a died in the wool socialist, which I oppose for a myriad or reasons.

        The least of these is that someone at the top always believes they have the right to determine how a society “SHOULD WORK”, with no real concept of what really makes a society work at all.

        Israel has what you are suggesting, which they call a “kibbutz”. They were or are based on agriculture and the children were pretty much raised by everyone in that community.

        But sir, it does not guarantee a cohesive society as we have seen with Israel’s war mongering. The Utopian view you hold, only works if everyone thinks alike, which just won’t happen.

        What that article above barely mentions is the reason “why” they are concerned with the religious affiliations of a family who home school. In some states you can only home school if you have a religious objection to publicly educating your children, so they are trying to see if a family is faking that affiliation just so they don’t have to put their kids in those indoctrinations centers, (schools).

        It is still no one’s business who or what my family prays to, especially the state, no matter how much you believe that it takes a whole society to raise good little “F”ing robots !!!!!!!

    • Aislynn

      Actually they will win because they will come for your children like the feds came into Waco or Ruby Ridge. Then your children will be carried over your bullet ridden corpse and be placed into foster homes where they will never hear the word ‘God’ again. Over the long term is that a better solution than submitting a simple affidavit explaining your beliefs?

      I do home school and I have never had an issue with government officials demanding diddly squat from me.

  • http://www.infowars.com/ Marshall Banana

    No sovereign but God, no king but King Jesus. That’s my “bona fide” . . .”religious” belief.

  • Truthhurts24

    There goes the government trying to play God again.

  • Charles Filorux

    I take it the district is concerned to know whether parents and children can make a succinct statement of their Christian faith, even while it is none of their business. Something like this could help them right:

    I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
    He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
    He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
    He descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again.
    He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.

    And now, Mr District, what is your creed? What? Surely you have one? Why did I just have to tell you what I believe if you don’t believe anything yourself?