Posted by Joseph Knippenberg
EO’s Joe Carter writes a good ’un.
Hat tip: Steve Dillard (aka "Feddie") at the recently revived Southern Appeal, which he has brought back, to great applause from his friends.
Mr. Knippenberg: Information from California on Homeschooling:
Court of Appeal Grants Petition for Re-hearing
On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for
rehearing in the 'In re Rachel L.' case--the controversial decision
which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the
parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public
The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion
is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties
in the case.
The Court of Appeal has solicited a number of public school
establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs including the
California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department
of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three
California teacher unions. The court also granted permission to
Sunland Christian School to file an amicus brief. The order also
indicates that it will consider amicus applications from other groups.
St. Augustine once said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics.
What might be one essential matter of policy and politics around which a consensus could be built?
I'm skeptical such a thing could be settled on. Even something as basic as "Sanctity of Life" would meet with disagreement about wording and implementation as policy.
But I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)