Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered – again

[Soldier4Christ]

Arnold blasts homeschool ruling, says it punishes families

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today blasted a court ruling that endangered homeschooling and homeschoolers statewide.

"Every California child deserves a quality education and parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children," the governor said in a prepared statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

The comments came after a state appellate court ruling essentially concluded California state law allows no option for parents to school their children at home. Homeschool and legal experts have expressed concern that the move puts all of the parents of the estimated 166,000 homeschooled children in the state at risk of both criminal and civil penalties.

"This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts and if the courts don't protect parents' rights then, as elected officials, we will," he said.

The governor's office said the ruling from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles concluded "all children ages 6 to 18 must attend public or private school full-time until graduation from high school or be tutored at home by a credentialed teacher."

The ruling resulted from a case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long, who earlier described for WND their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and the promotion of a faith in evolution.

(Story continues below)

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Long told California reporters today. He said the responsibility includes issues such as protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

But the court had concluded that state law doesn't allow children to be taught by their parents in their homes, a result achieved by many families by having the parents register as a private school, which exempts them from the requirement of having credentialed faculty.

WND earlier reported Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, is planning an appeal to the state Supreme Court on behalf of the school in which the Long children were enrolled.

He said his concern is that the ruling might be used by "overzealous" school district officials and social workers to try to remove a child from a family.

"We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court," he said. But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, he said.

The Los Angeles court decision granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court's ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Justice H. Walt Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, then ordered: "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

"The question [now] is whether it's going to be enforced," said Dacus. He said criminal infractions could involve fines or community service, and civil penalties could involve parental counseling.

But he said the California legislature has adopted "education neglect" rules that could be used "as grounds for the removal of a child from a family." Such cases usually are handled in juvenile court and by social services agencies.

"We are advising our homeschoolers to continue, but to keep both eyes open," he told WND.

The estimate of 166,000 children in such homeschool situations that he provided earlier, he said, was a tabulation of those children only who are being homeschooled under state procedures.

"That's a conservative number. The actual number could be as high as a million. Many are completely under the radar for fear something like this could happen," he said.

He told WND he's assembling an e-mail list on his institute's website in order to provide immediate updates to those who may be affected.

Others were joining in the criticism, too.

James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family powerhouse Christian publisher, called it "an imperious assault on the rights of parents."

"How dare these judges have the audacity to label tens of thousands of parents criminals – the equivalent of drug dealers or pickpockets – because they want to raise and educate their children according to their deeply held values?" he said.

"The case before them involved one couple – the ruling should have been confined to that one couple, not used to punish an entire class of people, the vast majority of them religious conservatives," he said.

The Home School Legal Defense Association said it was setting up a petition effort to have the case ruling modified or limited in its impact.

The organization warned California is set to become the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their children at home.

"This is an all-out assault on the family," Dobson continued, "and it must be met with a concerted effort to defend parents and their children."

Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus, said the timing was horrible, because of new statutes facing school children in California, an issue which WND previously has reported.

"This takes away recourse from thousands of parents in California who want to escape the government-enforced indoctrination in public schools," she said. "The Legislature recently passed a law that basically ensures that students get a one-sided, positive portrayal of homosexuality and same-sex 'marriage.'"

WND broke the story of the ruling, which reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Officials with the school said they asked Pacific Justice to work on the Supreme Court appeal because the organization "has been in full compliance with the requirements of the law for more than 23 years."

"We've never been given an opportunity to represent our case in the Court of Appeal," Terry Neven, the president of the school, said. "Consequently, we are excited that PJI will represent us before the California Supreme Court so that the rights of homeschooling families are preserved."

The Longs earlier told WND they also are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

[nChrist]

This appears to be the perfect time to either:

1 - SET CALIFORNIA STRAIGHT!

2 - OR LEAVE CALIFORNIA!

The government needs REMEDIAL instruction that this is NOT a DICTATORSHIP, and the PEOPLE are still in charge of this country!

The second LESSON is that every CITIZEN of this country has RIGHTS secured by the LAW and the CONSTITUTION!

The next LESSON involves CONSEQUENCES for anyone denying individual RIGHTS secured by the LAW and the CONSTITUTION! The end result of this denial is CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROSECUTION to the fullest extent of the law!

The last LESSON is extremely SIMPLE and BLUNT:  a tiny minority of PERVERTS are NOT going to DICTATE morals or required education to decent people. It should be against the law to teach this PERVERTED AND ABNORMAL behavior to any child - EVEN THEIR OWN! Numerous FATAL diseases are the direct result of this PERVERTED AND ABNORMAL behavior. The millions dying right now are PROOF this is already a PUBLIC HEALTH CRISES! Attempting to encourage MORE DISEASE AND DEATH is at a minimum RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT OF LIFE! These CLOWNS are NOT going to be allowed to do this to our children - end of story!

Brothers and Sisters, this is MUCH MORE than just our RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS secured by the Law and the Constitution. This is the HEALTH and LIFE of our children at stake! ONE LAST NOTE:  OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS CAN'T BE REMOVED WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE - CHANGING THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! Otherwise, these judges and courts are subject to criminal and civil prosecution for ANY unlawful arrest or act.

[Soldier4Christ]

CA home school mom says 'we will have to move'

Home schooling parents are reacting to a recent California appellate court decision outlawing the practice.

Kathleen, a home school mom from near Sacramento was caught completely off guard when she learned that a three-judge panel – considering a child welfare case --  had issued a blanket ruling declaring that California parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children.
 
"I'm just shocked that it can happen quickly -- that our fundamental right to educate our children can be taken away just with a snap of the fingers..." she exclaims. The home school mother hopes that legal groups like the Pacific Justice Institute, Alliance Defense Fund, Home School Legal Defense Association and others will be successful in having the ruling overturned.
 
"We will not give up home schooling our child," she states. "If it means moving from out of state, however we have to do that, we will do it because that is what we feel that God has called us to do." Kathleen says she and her husband have not had much chance to discuss the issue beyond that basic decision.

Even Kathleen's nine-year-old son understands what is happening to parental rights in his home state. "He said to me, 'This is like that bad man,' which he couldn't think of his name, 'in Germany. That's what it reminds me of,'" she continues. "And I was surprised at his perception, that he actually considered that a comparison.
 
Adolf Hitler outlawed home schooling in Germany in 1938. The practice is still illegal in re-unified Germany to this day.

[Soldier4Christ]

2nd petition opposes homeschooling ban
Legal team warns of possible fines, parenting classes, loss of custody

A second petition has been launched in opposition to a California appeals court's ruling that is being interpreted to ban homeschooling in the state, this one an appeal to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislature, who already have expressed concern over the court's activism.

The new petition was announced by the Pacific Justice Institute, which earlier said it would be working on an appeal of the Los Angeles ruling on behalf of the school that was involved in the case by supervising the family's independent study work.

PJI said its petition is being assembled at the website PetitionsToday.org to let state officials know of the disaster that could face homeschooling parents if nothing is changed.

This week WND reported on an announcement from Capitol Resource Institute that California Assemblyman Joel Anderson had introduced a resolution calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision.

The proposal notes that homeschoolers in California now are now "responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of colleges and universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large. …"

It also notes "the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. …"

"On Feb. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal… [and that] denies California parents' primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and manner of their own children's education," the resolution says.

WND also reported when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blasted the ruling.

"This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children's education."

California state Supt. of Public Instruction O'Connell also added his voice to those concerned about the ruling.

"The California Department of Education policy will not change in any way as a result of this ruling," he said. "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

The Home School Legal Defense Association earlier launched a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

Pacific Justice is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal.

The school issued a statement today that when the appeal is filed formally, the move will put the court's ruling on a suspended status until the appeal process is finished.

"The family [in the case] faced juvenile court issues, which were resolved," the school said, "the DCS case was closed, and the judge resolved the family could continue to homeschool. However, the children's court appointed attorneys did not like the decision and appealed. … In the California Court of Appeals, SCS was never given an opportunity to represent itself and address who we are and how we function. Much of the information the court used to render this current decision was on incomplete and inaccurate information."

The school said it would continue to serve its families, and besides the PJI effort, other groups apparently are working on a rehearing at the appellate level, a hearing at the state Supreme court, and filing for the depublishing.

"Are you confused?" the school asked. "Let's look at the facts." It said:

    * This ruling sets precedent and interprets the law for everyone in California in its current status. It is not a ruling just for the family involved.

    * At this moment, there is no provision in the California Constitution to allow parents a constitutional right to direct their children’s education.

    * California Educational statutes do not currently define homeschooling.

    * California homeschoolers have been educating their children under the current laws for the past 27+ years without any major conflict.

    * This ruling effects both private homeschoolers and public charter home school programs, distant learning and independent study programs.

    * Filing for an appeal (which SCS’s legal team, Pacific Justice, will be doing) puts in suspension the ruling until the appeal is denied or heard (possible 4 months to 5 years). During this time no homeschool family will be challenged in a court of law with this ruling.

It is creating panic among homeschoolers because if left unchanged, it soon could be cited against other families, the school said.

"Don't panic," the school said. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won’t be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

Pacific Justice chief Brad Dacus promised, "I will leave no stone unturned in an effort to reverse this heinous attack on parental rights, and that includes asking for your swift and immediate help."

He said the petition allows thousands of people to join together in a voice to the government.

"The scope of the February 28 decision by the appellate court is stunning in its disregard for your Constitutional rights. Under the ruling, issued by Justice H. Walter Croskey and two other members of the appellate panel, parents like you could be subject to criminal sanctions, which could include the paying of fines and the completion of state-mandated parent education classes and counseling programs.

"But the potential threat is much worse! If this decision is upheld, the way will be paved for the courts to remove children from the homes of non-compliant parents on the grounds of 'educational neglect,'" he said.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the ruling was disturbing.

"The ruling is so alarming because the state appeals court judges actually wrote that 'parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.' The judges said that parents without teaching credentials cannot teach. This ruling is a radical slam against homeschooling," his organization said.

However, Thomasson also said parents should not do anything extreme.

"Despite this intolerant, anti-parent ruling, California homeschoolers must not panic.… California homeschooling families should continue homeschooling, and parents who are considering homeschooling as a way to exit the immoral government school system should continue with their plans," he said.

The family in the case, Phillip and Mary Long, previously told WND they were reviewing their options for an appeal themselves but had not confirmed specifics yet.

There are an estimated 166,000 children in formalized homeschool situations in California, but Dacus estimated there are others "under the radar" that would be several times that number.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

WND broke the story of the ruling, which reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress outraged by California homeschool case
'There are a variety of things being considered'

Members of Congress privately are infuriated and worried over a California appeals court ruling that essentially banned homeschooling in the state, where at least 166,000 students are being educated that way, according to a homeschooling expert who has met with them.

"There's a lot of concern and outrage from members of Congress," Michael Farris, the chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, told WND today, shortly after he met with several members on this issue.

"There's a variety of things being considered," he said. "There could be a brief by members filed in the appellate court in support of parental rights. There could be a resolution from Congress there."

Plans still were being developed, he said. But the ultimate resolution, Farris suggested, would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing the rights and responsibilities of parents to direct their own children's education.

That effort already was under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

The website notes the campaign exists "to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. … We believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child."

The campaign said, "Without secured parental rights, the vital child-parent relationship is exposed to the imminent danger posed by anti-parent judges within the federal courts, as well as to the risks of international law which seeks to undermine the parental role."

The California case involved the family of Phillip and Mary Long, and stemmed from a juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from the Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles essentially met their desires.

The opinion, by H. Walt Croskey, holds that homeschooling simply is not a legal option in California. The HSLDA said if the opinion stands, California would have the most regressive law in the nation.

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families said that would put California on the same standard as Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights," the court said.

The family told WND it was working on its options for appeal, but they remained indefinite. But there are other developments already.

    * Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

    * Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

    * California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

    * The HSLDA said it would coordinate a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

    * Another petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

    * Yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

"We have seen God’s hand of protection on the homeschooling movement for the 25 years we have been working together for this cause. There is no reason to begin to doubt God now," Farris said.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Don't panic," the school said in a statement. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won’t be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

Pacific Justice chief Brad Dacus promised, "I will leave no stone unturned in an effort to reverse this heinous attack on parental rights, and that includes asking for your swift and immediate help."

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

[Soldier4Christ]

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage
Would extend benefits of commitment to any duo

A San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society is being advanced in the California State Senate, with SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gaining approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"This bill functionally abolishes marriage," warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "Why get married, since you can get all the 'goodies' of marriage without the commitment of marriage?"

The state legislature, which earlier approved a marriage-by-another-name plan for same-sex couples despite a decision by voters that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, now is moving beyond even that, pro-family organizations say.

The plan, according to Concerned Women for America of California, "extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…"

"The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws," the group said. "Migden asserts that SB 1066 is 'a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'"

But, the group said, instead "it is an expensive experiment with California's children, who are at greater risk of abuse, behavioral problems and poor academic performance in cohabitating situations."

The California Family Council concluded such a plan would make marriage "virtually meaningless."

And Thomasson is urging pro-family residents to "pick up the phone and oppose SB 1066."

"This California bill … would award EVERY right and benefit of marriage between a husband and wife … to a man and a woman who are shacking up and outright refuse to marry," he said.

He said the state's family code already grants such rights to same-sex duos, despite the 2-1 vote of Californians in 2000 on Proposition 22 that defined marriage as involving only one man and one woman, a result that was affirmed by the 1st District Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier.

"Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, won't admit that SB 1066 rewards cohabitants for not getting married," Thomasson said in a statement. "Here's what Migden told Associated Press."

"Families are changing. Young people are often having children and not rushing to marry. Straight couples and families should have the same rights as gay couples and families," she told the wire service, Thomasson said.

"If SB 1066 becomes law, young couples will go to county government offices and be asked whether they would like a marriage license or a 'domestic partnership.' Word will get around that the domestic partnership is 'easier.' Why get married…?" Thomasson said.

This, he said, is the critical issue behind the VoteYesMarriage campaign, which is proposing a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as involving only one man and one woman.

Those participating in the agenda to radicalize marriage in California by including same-sex couples have been working on it since the 2000 vote affirmed traditional family values.

The battle reached a peak in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arbitrarily issued same-sex marriage licenses.

The courts eventually concluded he didn't have the power to create his own definition of marriage and the licenses issued to same-sex duos during that time were invalidated. However, several participants in the campaign sued, and that case challenging the state's marriage laws recently was argued before the state Supreme Court.

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's School of Law, was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage.

Staver said the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other," he said. "While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society's interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children."

[Soldier4Christ]

Petition seeks rehearing in homeschooling case
Law firm says state statutes support parents teaching their own children

A California appeals court that issued a ruling banning homeschooling in the state failed to recognize existing state law, according to a lawyer who filed court documents today.

The petition for rehearing before the state's 2nd Appellate District Division Three court in the case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long was filed by Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

The appeals court earlier concluded that there is no provision in California law for parents who want to teach their own children at home, but the petition notes that is supported numerous places in existing California law already.

The opinion, delivered just two weeks ago, has generated a shockwave through homeschooling circles in the United States. Just a day earlier, WND reported that Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said he had met with several members of Congress, and they expressed "a lot of concern and outrage" over the issue.

He said although plans still were being developed, it was possible members of Congress could seek to intervene in the case.

The California case stemmed from the family's juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted their wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights," the court said.

In his petition for rehearing, however, Kreep said he suggested the appellate decision had not recognized a number of references in California law addressing parents who want to teach their children at home.

And he said the opinion relied on precedents that have since been rejected in newer court rulings.

The USJF specifically is appealing on behalf of the father, since the mother still was represented by court-appoint lawyers, officials said.

The law firm said a review of all pertinent statutes supports the idea of parents homeschooling their children.

Farris said one logical solution would be an amendment to the U.S. Constitutional specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

The website notes the campaign exists "to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. … We believe that no government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child."

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families told WND earlier if California's ban would be allowed to stand, the state would be on par with Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

In significant developments already.

    * Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

    * Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

    * California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

    * The HSLDA said it would coordinate a petition seeking to have the legal opinion "de-published," which is a process that would prevent it from being used as a widespread precedent for other homeschooling families.

    * Another petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

    * Yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

"We have seen God’s hand of protection on the homeschooling movement for the 25 years we have been working together for this cause. There is no reason to begin to doubt God now," Farris said.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Don't panic," the school said in a statement. "Help those who feel distraught and afraid, to be at peace and have faith for a favorable outcome. While we are appealing this ruling, it won't be used in court against homeschoolers. Continue to homeschool effectively, caring about your family, children, their growth and development and their academic instruction," the school said.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

The Private and Home Educators of California organization is posting a list of updates on the situation, and also a legal fact sheet for those who want to homeschool in California.

[Soldier4Christ]

Students have their say about California homeschooling
'Court cannot make it illegal, that's legislature's job. Sheesh!'

Thousands of students from across the nation have weighed into the arguments over the recent court ruling in California that announced there was no legal provision to allowing homeschooling in the state.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School. And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The comments are just two from the many pages posted on The Wall, a comment section of a Facebook group called Make Homeschooling Legal in California. The forum-type operation on the social networking site was launched by a 16-year-old from Virginia, Sera Woodruff, who told WND she wanted to let people her own age know about the decision and its possible impacts.

The California case stemmed from the family's juvenile proceeding. That case already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed specifically trying to have homeschooling banned, and the ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted their wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

Those words echoed the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights," the court said.

The decision sent shockwaves through the homeschooling community in the United States, and statements denouncing it already have been issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

Several petitions also have been assembled to convey they unhappiness the court decision left behind, and one of those is being organized by the Home School Legal Defense Association, where Sera works while not pursuing her advanced homeschool classes including Arabic.

Her efforts are not connected to HSLDA, but she said she wanted to introduce the issue to the networking site because, "I realized there were a lot of teenagers who weren't even aware" of the issue.

To date, the group has nearly 3,100 members and it's growing.

"I really wanted to heighten awareness, so I've put up a lot of links, to Gov. Schwarzenegger's statement," and others, she told WND.

"Please sign this petition to legalize homeschooling in California," the group introduction says, including the link to HSLDA..

Quoting from the HSLDA website, the forum continues: "The court could have restricted its decision to the facts before it, but instead, it issued a broad ruling that effectively outlaws home education in California. The court also certified its decision for publication, which means that the decision can now be cited as legal authority by all other courts in California."

The HSLDA effort will be a formal petition to the California Supreme Court to "depublish" the opinion, which would limit its impact.

There has been a petition for rehearing submitted on behalf of the family to the 2nd Appellate District Division Three court that generated the opinion in the case of the family of Phillip and Mary Long by Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

The state legislature also has given signs it could get involved, and officials have confirmed that several members of Congress are expressing a high level of concern over the result.

A Facebook group posting confirmed just a few days ago that the petition signature total already has surpassed 100,000. "Keep spreading the word!" the group site urged.

Also posted are links to the ruling itself as well as a commentary on homeschooling by James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Christian publishing powerhouse, and other locations with information.

"The reality is that the Constitution did not specifically state that the parent had the right to choose their child's educational form because they didn't think they had to," wrote Heidi Elizabeth Van Loenen. "The intention was that such rights were already the people's and should not have to be dictated by the government: only if the right was being infringed upon did it need to become law by stating it in an amendment."

"I think it is time to send all our judges back to school to relearn the Constitution and its meaning," she continued.

"There is no 'best way' for folks to be schooled. It ultimately should come down to what's best for the person in question, and that will be different for everyone on a case-by-case basis," added Jeremy Closs.

Such statements of support from Schwarzenegger and O'Connell are "good to hear, but it doesn't fix the court decision," Susan Beatty, co-founder of the Christian Home Educators Association of California, told the Los Angeles Times.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The Facebook forum is open, and even opponents of homeschooling are welcome to vent. But Katrina Huang of San Diego tried to explain her position in support of homeschooling.

"Most of my friends think that my parents are overprotective creeps who can't keep their noses out of my life. I believe that parents are to represent God. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they represent Him as well as they can. We, to some extent, view God as we view our parents. Last I checked, God doesn't only monitor us sometimes. He's checking on us all the time. God's the ultimate 'over-protective parent,' eh?

"My mom's always been able to spend one on one time with me to work through whatever I don't understand. Instead of viewing my parents as my parents, I see them as my friends and helpers. They're my mentors. I can't understand what the government or anyone else has against that," she said.

The HSLDA also is offering a suggestion to consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Spokesman Allan Carlson of the The World Congress of Families told WND earlier if California's ban would be allowed to stand, the state would be on par with Germany and Brazil, two other governments that ban homeschooling.

In other significant developments already.

    * Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the state Legislature in California that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

    * Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

    * California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

    * A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the state legislature and is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

    * And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district's advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles and promotion of the theory of evolution.

"The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child," Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous "emotionally" as well as physically.

Croskey's ruling reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home."

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a "ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

The Private and Home Educators of California organization is posting a list of updates on the situation, and also a legal fact sheet for those who want to homeschool in California.

[Soldier4Christ]

California homeschooling being given 2nd chance
Court grants rehearing, so earlier ban vacated

A California court order that essentially banned homeschooling in the state has been vacated and the judges who issued the ruling will hear further arguments on the status of parents who want to teach their own children.

WND broke the story in February about an order from an appeals court in Los Angeles against the family of Phillip and Mary Long.

The Longs say they have homeschooled because of an anti-Christian bias in public schools. The ruling stemmed from a juvenile proceeding that already had been closed by the court when court-appointed attorneys for their children appealed, specifically attempting to ban homeschooling. The ruling from Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey granted the attorneys' wishes.

The court ruling said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The decision sent shock waves through the homeschooling community in the United States, and a variety of groups jumped into action, including the Home School Legal Defense Association, which worked with other groups on a petition for rehearing before the same court.

The petition actually was submitted by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation to the 2nd Appellate District Division on behalf of the Longs.

In an announcement today, the HSLDA said the petition had been granted.

"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 schools," the HSLDA said in a statement.

"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," HSLDA said.

"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," HSLDA said.

"Home School Legal Defense Association will seek permission to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a number of organizations interest[ed] in filing briefs to support the right of parents to homeschool their children in California," the group said.

"This is a great first step," noted Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. "We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be. This case remains our top priority."

A long list of homeschool groups working in the state earlier had released a statement on the issue that could affect 200,000 students. Joining were the California Homeschool Network, Christian Home Educators Association of California, Private and Home Educators of California and HomeSchool Association of California.

"We are united in the goal of protecting the right of parents to teach their children private at home without additional governmental interference," the statement said. "We believe that children deserve to learn in the environment that best meets their individual needs. We support the right of parents to direct their children's education including, if they desire, teaching their children privately at home apart from any public school program and without a teaching credential."

The groups also described the appeals court ruling as "excessively broad" and concluded the previously interpretation of state law, under which parents are allowed to set up a private school and teach their own children in their own homes, is accurate.

The HSLDA earlier had sought to have the court "de-publish" the opinion, which also would limited its impact. But the ruling has attracted some attention from the highest levels.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has supported homeschoolers in the past.

"I'm sure it [the ruling] will probably be appealed, and then we'll see how it goes from there," she said.

Among the other responses have been:

    * Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the California Legislature that calls for the Croskey ruling to be overturned.

    * Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

    * California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

    * A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

    * And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Even students are getting their say.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School.

And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The HSLDA also is suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School, which has been working with the family's children in a study program, on an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

[Soldier4Christ]

Teachers union to decide fate of homeschooling?
Court solicits input from educators' labor groups

A California court has asked a teachers' union to provide its opinion on homeschooling, and the resulting decision will impact the rights of parents in the state to determine their own children's education.

As WND reported one day ago, the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District granted a petition for rehearing in a juvenile case involving the family of Phillip and Mary Long.

The previous decision determined parents have neither statutory nor constitutional authority to school their  children, causing a backlash of surprise and horror from homeschooling advocates across the nation, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The new order confirms the court is expanding its decision far beyond a single juvenile case to include an assessment of all state laws and opinions regarding homeschooling, as well as an evaluation of whether the state provisions follow the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the court asked the state's superintendent of public instruction, the California State Board of Education, the Los Angeles school district, the California Teachers Association and the Los Angeles teachers' union for their opinions on homeschooling.

The court denied a request by Sunland Christian School, the independent program in which the Long children were enrolled, to participate directly in the case.

Instead, it granted that school permission to file an amicus brief on the issues. Other homeschooling interests were invited to file such briefs, and the court said they would be considered.

Oral arguments are scheduled in June.

The court's opinion said the homeschooling case arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.

The district court denied the request, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request.

The appeals court noted its first opinion concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.

The court said its new ruling, when it is issued, will address whether state law allows homeschooling and, if so, under what circumstances, whether parents are allowed to homeschool their own children and whether California limits meet the demands of the U.S. Constitution.

Among the groups working on the case are the Alliance Defense Fund and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who are representing the father.

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children," said Gary McCaleb, a senior counsel for the ADF. "Because this ruling impacts all of Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look."

"Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected," Kreep added.

The original ruling concluded parents who educate their children at home could be criminally liable under California law. Homeschooling advocates also warned if that would happen, civil charges for child neglect and others also could be added to the mix, creating the potential for fines, court-ordered parenting classes or even the loss of custody under extreme circumstances.

The original opinion, written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey, said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

Also involved in the case on behalf of the parents is the Home School Legal Defense Association, which said it would seek permission to file amicus briefs on the issues.

A long list of homeschool groups working in the state previously released a statement on the issue that could affect 200,000 students. Joining were the California Homeschool Network, Christian Home Educators Association of California, Private and Home Educators of California and HomeSchool Association of California.

"We are united in the goal of protecting the right of parents to teach their children private at home without additional governmental interference," the statement said. "We believe that children deserve to learn in the environment that best meets their individual needs. We support the right of parents to direct their children's education including, if they desire, teaching their children privately at home apart from any public school program and without a teaching credential."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president has supported homeschoolers in the past.

"I'm sure it [the ruling] will probably be appealed, and then we'll see how it goes from there," she said.

Among the other responses have been:

    * Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a resolution in the California Legislature that calls for the ruling to be overturned.

    * Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "if the courts don't protect parents' rights, then, as elected officials, we will."

    * California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said, "Parents still have the right to homeschool in this state."

    * A separate petition appeals to Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is being run by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working with the website PetitionsToday.org.

    * And yet another petition also is under way, at the ReverseTheRuling.com website. That organization offers information for homeschoolers who want to follow the California case, because of that state's influence throughout the nation. It was assembled by the organization Learning By Grace, an outreach dedicated to providing parents with innovative online Christian homeschool materials.

Even students are getting their say.

"The court cannot 'make' something illegal – that's the legislature's job. Sheesh!" wrote Jon Chi Lou, of Heritage Christian High School.

And Hye-Sung F. Gehring added, "This is ridiculous. California is retarded. Always has been."

The HSLDA also is suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizing parental rights. That effort already is under way under the banner of Parental Rights.

Pacific Justice also is representing Sunland Christian School in the case.

[nChrist]

The simple-minded stooges in many of our courts need to be reminded that we have a Constitution and Rights that can't be taken away unless the PEOPLE VOTE and change the foundational documents that govern every aspect of all Law and EVERY DECISION MADE BY EVERY SINGLE JUDGE who SERVES THE PEOPLE as a servant - NOT A MASTER!

Many judges have the FALSE assumption that they make the law, and they are the master. They don't have the power to do either BECAUSE the PEOPLE didn't give them that POWER. Those who ABUSE their office and deny the Civil and Constitutional RIGHTS of Citizens under the COLOR OF LAW need to be shown the CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONSEQUENCES of their acts. These judges are NOT above the LAW OF THE PEOPLE, and they are mere SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE. Otherwise, there is plenty of room in prison for them. On the CIVIL end of this, their property and money made by their ABUSE OF OFFICE can be forfeited in WHOLE or PART. These ROGUE JUDGES CAN BE JUDGED AND/OR REMOVED FROM OFFICE!

[Soldier4Christ]

Crackdown on biblical speech challenged
Case cites approval of 'fags' slogan, ban on 'Romans 1:27'

A brief has been filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California again challenging a school district's policy that allows such slogans as "Stop the Hate," "fags," "queers," "that's so gay" and even "I Kiss Boys," but bans "Romans 1:27."

The case stems from punishment handed down by the Poway Unified School District for student Chase Harper, who was a sophomore in 2004 when the school recognized the "Day of Silence," an annual promotion in public schools of the homosexual lifestyle.

The event, scheduled this year for April 25, is targeted for exposure by a campaign assembled by a multitude of Christian organizations.

"It's outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom," said Buddy Smith of the American Family Association, one of a long list of organizations asking parents to keep their students home from school on that day.

"'Day of Silence' is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It's time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day," he said.

The "Day of Silence" promotion is intended, ostensibly, to make students "aware" of the "discrimination" suffered by homosexuals in society, by having students remain silent for the day. Such events typically are organized by a school's "Gay-Straight Alliance" group, but the event has been promoted for its previous 11 years by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

The case over Harper's expression of his opinion developed in Poway High School in 2004. The district, which operates 23 schools in San Diego and 11 in Poway, serves about 33,000 students. But when Harper wore a T-shirt with two slogans: "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned" and "Homosexuality is shameful. Romans 1:27," he was ordered either to take the shirt off or spend the day in the school office, where he was photographed, questioned and challenged by a police officer.

The Bible verse reads, in the New American Standard version, "And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

A school administrator then told Harper he should "leave his faith in the car."

The 9th Circuit initially ruled the school may have been justified in its censorship, but in March 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision.

Chase, and his sister, Kelsie, have renewed their case because of the potential impact of the school policy that prohibits students from expressing any religious beliefs that might be seen as "negative" or "offensive" by others.

The new brief submitted to the 9th Circuit notes that the school specifically authorizes recognition of the pro-homosexual "Day of Silence," and has allowed a variety of slogans, including "loser," and a purple square and yellow "equal" sign.

But it bans Harper's specific statement of Christian faith.

"Our education system is the incubator of democracy. And our democratic system depends on the ability of its members to engage in vigorous debate. Thus, schools have a duty 'to guide students through the difficult process of becoming educated, to help them learn how to discriminate between good concepts and bad, to benefit from the errors society has made in the past, to improve their minds and character,'" said the brief, quoting from a previous federal court ruling.

"But schools may not eliminate all diversity of thought. To do so would allow schools to become precisely what [the U.S. Supreme Court] said the First Amendment could never tolerate: 'enclaves of totalitarianism' where students are 'confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved," the brief said.

"The school has made no attempt to respect the balance struck by the Supreme Court between preserving an effective educational environment and safeguard students' free speech rights. Accordingly, the Harpers respectfully request that this court reverse the lower court decisions and remand the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in the Harpers' favor on their facial challenges to the school's speech policies…" said the filing submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom, two law organizations.

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said Tim Chandler, ADF legal counsel. "They have the same First Amendment rights as all other students on campus. Speech cannot be silenced simply because someone else disagrees with it or deems it to be 'negative.' As the Supreme Court has stated, students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."

Just a few weeks ago, the Poway district adopted a new policy regarding "hate behavior," after a series of incidents including the hanging of nooses, a complaint that a Halloween costume looked liked a Ku Klux Klan outfit, and the drawing of a swastika and profanity, written in feces, on a student store window.

Supt. Don Phillips said it is meant to be clear that "intimidating (or) harassing will not be tolerated."

A district judge earlier had ruled in the Harper case that schools have a special "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment" because that is a "legitimate pedagogical concern."

Such a concern, he ruled, "allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner."

Critics have worried that opens wide the door for any activist school principal or superintendent to create a range of new ways for Christian students to be denied First Amendment rights based on the content of theier speech.

Robert Tyler, who has worked for the Alliance Defense Fund on the case, said that looks like a double standard.

"Why is it acceptable to tell a student of faith their views are not as valuable as the view of any person opposing them?" he said.

Judge Alez Kozinsky, who wrote the minority opinion the last time the case was before the 9th Circuit, had concluded, "I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning … The fundamental problem with the majority's approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future."

The campaign calling for parents to keep their children home of the "Day of Silence" for 2008 quickly is gaining momentum.

Matt Barber, a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, said the day "amounts to educational malpractice."

"Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It is the height of impropriety and cynicism for 'gay' activists and school officials to use children as pawns in their attempt to further a highly controversial and polarizing political agenda," he said.

The coalition is suggesting parents ask their school districts about "Day of Silence" plans, especially the date because some school districts vary. Then, the group said, parents should "inform the school of our intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why."

Among the groups already promoting the protest are:

    * Abiding Truth Ministries

    * American Family Association

    * AFA of MI

    * AFA of PA

    * Americans for Truth

    * Christian Information Service

    * Christian Civic League of Maine

    * Concerned Women for America

    * Culture Campaign

    * Defend the Family International

    * Exodus Mandate

    * Illinois Family Institute

    * Traditional Values Coalition

    * Indiana Voice for the Family

    * Informing Christians

    * Liberty Counsel

    * MassResistance

    * Mission America

    * New Generation Christian Center

    * Parents' Rights' Coalition

    * Right March

    * Stephen Bennett Ministries

    * Values USA

    * and Watchmen on the Walls

[Soldier4Christ]

Hackers attack Christians, promise punishment
'Because of threat to our staff, we're working off-site pending investigation'

Staff members for a prominent pro-family organization that has been key to the battle against California's mandated homosexual indoctrination programs for public schools are working off-site while an investigation is conducted into threats that someone would arrive at the office and "punish" them, officials confirmed today.

The investigation into the threats follows several days of aggressive attacks on the website for Capitol Resource Family Impact, which has restored the site multiple times, only to see another hacker attack disable the location.

Karen England, chief of the organization that has played a prominent role in a challenge to the implementation of SB777, a legislative plan to mandate only positive messages about homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in public schools, confirmed the web attacks, and the subsequent threat.

"Last night CRI's website was hacked again by the same vandals that have been attacking our website and e-mail servers for the last several days," she said in a notification to supporters. "One of our internet savvy supporters has been investigating the source of the hacks and discovered that several hacker websites are taking credit for the attack on our organization.

"These hacker websites encourage other hackers to not only deface our web site (and gives them instructions on how to do so), but they threaten to send someone to our office to 'punish' us," she said.

"Because of the physical threat to our staff safety, we will be working off-site until authorities have investigated the threats," she said.

"The hackers intend to stop our work and intimidate our staff. This proves that we are being effective!" she said. "Although this attack has caused us some headaches, we are moving forward, undeterred."

"History has shown that the fiercest persecution comes when you're having the greatest impact on culture. While we will take precautions for our safety, we will also boldly continue our fight for families!" she said.

The website attacks apparently were launched late last week. At that time, a reporter was visiting the site, and his standard virus protection program was triggered, with more than a dozen warnings and alerts.

Capitol Resource, however, could not prevent the attack that was developing, and staff members spent the weekend rebuilding and restoring the site, officials said.

"Out website technician worked all weekend to fix the problems and as soon as he had fixed the site, another hack would occur almost immediately. As a result, we had to make significant changes to our website and e-mail services," England said. "Our website was literally wiped bare by the hackers. It's going to take us many days to replace the content that was destroyed."

WND has reported on Capitol Resource's work notifying Californians when the legislature wanted to criminalize parents who spank their children, as well as when a lawmaker proposed allowing communism to be taught in schools.

But the organization's highest profile recently has come as part of its Save Our Kids campaign to assemble enough petition signatures in the state to put SB777 on the state election ballot.

That plan was adopted by the Legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"SB777 is a mandate for every school district, ending local control on sensitive issues," the organization says on the SOK website. "SB777 normalizes homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality across the state, without room for local discretion on addressing these issues."

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality in addition to the possible vote of the people.

The organization notes earlier state law already "establishes equal protection for every California public school student," so that SB777 was unnecessary. It specifically requires: "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias" against homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality."

While there's no indicate of any connection to the current situation Capitol Resource is facing, WND has reported in the past on a public threat from a homosexual activist to the organization.

"If you continue your efforts, we will BURY you," said an e-mail from Ben Patrick Johnson of Equality California, to his "colleagues" at the CRI, according to a statement from the Christian organization.

"For a group that purports to expand tolerance and civil rights, Equality California is not practicing what it preaches," CRI said at the time.

"This type of language evokes images of Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium of the United Nations when he declared that Communism would bury America," said CRI. "The irony is not lost on us – Communists squelch all opposing speech, just as the modern 'intolerance' movement seeks to silence all opposing viewpoints.

"Johnson then threatens 'we have every intention of yours [group] going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.' It is shameful that a group that represents itself as promoting tolerance and civil rights would stoop to the very tactics it accuses CRI of using. Not once has CRI personally attacked opponents in such a degrading and vicious manner," said the organization.

"In a video diatribe against CRI posted on his website, Johnson declares that CRI and its supporters are 'hate peddlers' and 'conservative, religious prejudice peddlers.' He further declares that we are 'smirky, self-righteous folks' who have 'launched an aggressive campaign against legislation to protect gay youth in California's and ultimately America's schools.' This statement reveals not only the vitriolic language this supposed 'tolerance' group uses, but also the true agenda behind such legislation as SB 777. The radical homosexual agenda intends on sweeping the nation. California is merely the first step in the campaign to stifle free speech and stamp out opposition to 'alternative lifestyles,'" CRI said.

The e-mail from Johnson, according to CRI, said:

"Dear colleagues at the Capitol Resource Institute,

"I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech, and therefore I support yours, even if it in direct contrast with my own. However, we all use the media and the internet to spread our message: and with no hubris intended, I advise you -- if you continue your efforts, we will BURY you ... with public opinion, with media, and ultimately with legislation. EQCA passed NINE bills last year to protect basic dignities and we have every intention of yours going down, as have others who oppose decency and human rights.

"Today, over 150,000 Californians will receive the following message via email blast, MySpace, YouTube, and iTunes -- in other words, we're everywhere. I invite you to subscribe to my daily webcast, not because you agree with what I/we have to say, but for your own information ... so you can see what thousands of Californians are hearing and seeing about you."

[Soldier4Christ]

Of course this lack of tolerance is coming from a group that decries that Christians are not tolerant.