Homeschooling, the Culture War, and the 2008 Elections

Written by Virginia Armstrong


March 26, 2008
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
Eagle Forum

On February 28, a three-judge California appellate court ruled that under California law, "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." This judicial war on homeschooling in California is a particularly egregious example of the threat posed by judges to the Judeo-Christian worldview on which the Constitution and American culture were founded and from which we have grown to greatness.


The In re RACHEL L. et al. decision is rooted deeply in Humanism's diabolical desire to take over America, and to seize the education system as a major weapon against the rest of the culture. Humanists have been infiltrating the public schools for decades, and have openly admitted their goals. "Education is thus the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism." This assertion is not from a 2008 publication by the American Humanist Association. Rather, the statement appears in a 1930 publication, entitled Humanism: a New Religion, by Charles Francis Potter.

Humanistic successes in capturing California public education are evidenced by California's state Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394. WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh has closely followed this crisis. On February 29, 2008 (just one day after the California Court of Appeals reported its decision), Unruh described these bills as embodying "plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices." Although this plan still faces a court challenge and possible referendum vote, such measures as these are recognized as reasons why many parents are moving their children into a homeschool setting.

With Humanists now training their guns on homeschooling, the opinion by the Troublesome Trio on the California appellate court in the Long case warrants close scrutiny. This examination reveals several glaring errors. Consider the following.

Talking Points

  1. The California state constitution describes the purpose of public education in this manner: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement." The Troublesome Trio also observes that "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare."

  2.   The juvenile court in the initial stages of the Long family controversy described the homeschooling being received by the Long children as "lousy," "meager," and "bad." Agreeing, the Troublesome Trio's opinion oozes with judicial solicitude for the poor deprived homeschoolers of California.

      3.   The "quality" of homeschool education is not the judges' greatest concern. If it were, judges   should be expecting the other branches of government more qualified than courts to scrutinize intensely the "quality" of education in the public schools. The Humanistic judges' real objective appears to be expressed in the unproven and excessively broad declaration that "It is clear to us [that home schooling in general is unconstitutional in California]." Forcing students to ingest an educational diet permeated with Humanism is the judges' real agenda, as is indicated by the judicial mandate that "credentialed" teachers or tutors are required in the state. Homeschooling is a major threat to this Humanistic educational monopoly and must therefore be removed from the educational landscape.

    Questions for Candidates

    The significance of the California educational battle cannot be overlooked in this election year. The Long case raises vital cultural and legal questions which should be asked of candidates, including the following:

    The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction of public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations [emphasis added].

    A major challenge facing homeschooling parents is to provide their children with an education that is of the very highest academic quality possible. A major challenge facing all other Americans is to protect the right of homeschooling parents to exercise this responsibility.
    SOURCE: Eagle Forum - leading the pro-family movement since 1972
     Subscribe to Eagle Forums alerts and newsletter, its free HERE

    National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. * 2438 Industrial Blvd. PMB 190 * Abilene, TX 79605
    325-673-3020 * E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

    You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials