I am amazed at the number of conservatives who complain about the nanny state yet still seem to hanker after a literal nanny state for children. When I was young I rode horses! Bareback! I should have been protected for my own sake, surely. Or what about spashing about in small ponds (full of disease causing organisms) hunting tadpoles? My childhood was heaven on earth compared to what kids endure today. Of course, I was indoctrinated in all sorts of terrible, false ideas: People are responsible for their own actions; respect for elders; kindness to animals without anthromorphism; your word is your bond; etc.
I am in a teacher ed. course at this very moment. There are plenty of people there who think I should have been saved from such "rigid" indoctrination. They are training the next batch of teachers.

p.s. I do not believe the world was created in six days. Incredibly, I figured that out on my own.

Did you read the post?

I argue that schools should teach science because it's a good thing for kids to grow up to know things about the world. How would kids "figure it out on their own" without education?

And who's arguing for a nanny state to protect children from the normal dangers of society? That's a far cry from not allowing their parents to make them play with rattlesnakes or deny them surgery.

Some of the Religous Right (is it un-PC to call that amorphous group that still?) are not really upset that there is a nanny state, just that it is not theirs'. It has less to do with parental rights and more to do with saving us heathens and apostates. That they are being victimized by the secular world is an excuse to preach for a "return" to good old days, to proselytize where ever they can.

Americans have unprecedented religious freedom and can be free of secular world to a large degree because of it.

No one is forced to have a T.V. or purchase secular books.

As noted in the post there are alternatives to public schools.

There is a substantial body of non-secular media available to Christians in the country.

The cry from the Christian Right that there is hostility is disingenuous.

It is obvious that there is going to be hostility toward them. It has been made obvious by the history of Christianity and is laid out for them in the Bible. It should come as no surprise to Christians.

Um, any idiot would tell you that, to the extent to which this is correct--something that is highly questionable--this (i) may very well depend on what is on the "standardized test" and (ii) may also reflect an (assumed) fact that people who are currently engaged in "home schooling" are more engaged in their childrens' education than a larger group of people whose children are in public schools. The latter might not scale very well.

BTW, I thought this post was serious until I ran across

>constrained by the whims of an out-of-control judiciary

Given the fact, which should be obvious to any idiot, that the judiciary is not "out of control," it's fairly clear that this site isn't serious at all. I guess the proprietor of the site has never heard of legislation, much less constitutional amendments.

Go talk amongst yourselves, dears. But don't take yourselves too seriously.

Have you spent even, oh, ten minutes studying constitutional law? Court decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution--which most parental rights cases turn out to be, mainly on 1st Amendment grounds--are not overturnable by simple legislation. And formal amendment to the Constitution is phenomenally difficult, requiring a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress and approval by 3/4 of the states, either by their legislatures or by conventions. This is so difficult that it's only happened 27 times in the 215 year history of the Constitution--and 10 of the 27 were passed as a package called the Bill of Rights.

>Have you spent even, oh, ten minutes studying constitutional law?

Well, yes, of course, given that I'm a lawyer. Constitutional law is a first year law school subject.

I've also spent more than ten minutes reading the kvetches on silly web sites about the supposed "out of control judiciary."

As I said, go talk amongst yourselves. But don't take yourselves too seriously.

Did they, for example, actually have you read Article III?

If you have a particular kvetch regarding this supposed "out of control judiciary", perhaps you might want to consider posting it. Generalized kvetching isn't helpful for much of anyone.

The federal constitution isn't the only one around.

I've got an entire archive category on Law and The Courts and have posted at length on the topic; I don't detail the arguments every time I write a post.

Well, you know, that's what links are for.

I'll check in here in the morning. But I haven't seen much other than the usual kvetching that I see in the "blogosphere."

I'll check in here in the morning. But I haven't seen much other than the usual kvetching that I see in the "blogosphere."