Pilate - a man without guts.

When I was a child, I used to feel sorry for Pilate. I thought, "He really didn't want to crucify Jesus. He was forced to do so by the crowd of people."

Now that I am grown, I see him in a much different light. Pilate was a man who hadn't the guts to stand for what was right. He found no fault in Jesus, but still he had Him whipped. He wanted to let Him go, but when the crowd yelled, "Crucify Him!" and "Release unto us Barabas!" he didn't have the guts to say no. He feared the people. He feared the Romans. He feared his wife's dream. He was a coward, through and through.

I have met men like that in my lifetime. One man refused to stand for what was right when he knew a family was being defamed and denounced unfairly. He feared the repercussions. He refused to take a stand, even though he was torn up about it. He just didn't have the guts.

When I wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, explaining that I believed that corporal punishment, when administered by a loving parent in order to correct a child and train him in "the way he should go", was a legitimate tool, not one person had the guts to write in and stand with me on the issue. They stopped me on the street and quietly commended me, but they would not take a public stand, lest they would offend others. Sounds like Pilate, who was afraid of offending the Jews, and the Romans.

Thankfully, I have met men who are willing to take a stand, to risk their reputation, their job, their position, even their life.

I can name a few. Ezra Levant is one who will not compromise when it comes to speaking (or writing) the truth. He has had his life threatened; he stands to lose financially if the Human Rights Tribunal has its way. But Ezra is a man of principle.

I can write about the anonymous heroes who go into countries to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though there is a good possibility they could end up in jail, or worse.

Here at home we have men like Royal Hamel who is willing to "Light the Darkness", writing letters and holding meetings to tell the truth about what is happening in our society.

I have five sons, and seven daughters. It is my desire to teach them to be men and women of principle, willing to take a stand, no matter what the cost. I cannot see the future, but it would not surprise me if some day, my children or grandchildren will be called upon to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ. I hope and pray that they will be 'strong and courageous', that they will understand that the Lord their God is with them, wherever they go. I pray that they will stand firm in the face of imminent danger, as so many Christians of long ago have done.

I thank God that my husband has guts. He is not afraid to take a stand. He sets a good example for his sons, and his daughters. And for me.

Blessed Mother that I am...

I had a rough day. Spent most of the day in bed with a stomach flu that left me weak, shaky, headachey, and nauseated. Not much energy to do anything. I slept, I read, I sipped tea.

Later on in the day I found the energy to drag myself to the couch, where I watched "Davy Crockett and the River Pirates" and "The Rescuers" with my children.

I really hate days like this. My "Type-A" Personality makes me want to accomplish something every day, and I don't like to be in a position where I don't get anything crossed off my never-ending, ever-growing list of things to do. However, I do know that God at times chooses to slow me down and give me a reminder that the world will go on without me. Today was one of those days.

I was about to head to bed when my dear Linda told me that she linked to my blog and added a quote from Tertullian. I had to check it out!

Linda's post, Reflecting at Easter-time, blessed my heart. My daughter is a woman after God's own heart. She is creative, gentle, intelligent and articulate. Most of all, she loves the Lord with all of her heart, soul, mind and strength. She is passionate about justice and gets angry with fools, and on top of that she has the greatest sense of humour! She is the family's "official jester", as appointed by her oldest sister.

So, I don't have anything to say tonight, except this: I am blessed. Go read Linda's post to see why.

Hostility to Homeschooling; Parents respond!

In the States there has been a controversy going on for a few weeks, because a Californian appeals court ruled that parents have "no constitutional right" to homeschool. Thousands of homeschooling parents and friends of homeschooling have written letters, blogged, phoned and in some cases harassed those who can do something to overturn this bad decision.

I have not experienced any overt hostility to homeschooling in my nearly 25 years of teaching my own children here in Canada. Most of the time, when people discover I homeschool, there is grudging admiration, with the typical questions. "Don't they have to be tested?" "Who checks up on you to make sure you're doing an adequate job?" "Is it legal?" - that one is not as popular as it once was, back in the day that I had to phone the Ministry of Education in Toronto to find out if indeed, homeschooling was legal.

I read an interesting short article today by Albert Mohler:

Overt Hostility to Homeschooling
—Albert Mohler

Parents in California have been on a rollercoaster of sorts in the wake of a state appeals court ruling that parents in that state have "no constitutional right" to homeschool their own children.

The decision is a direct threat to the rights of all California parents--and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's school superintendent pledged to find ways to protect homeschooling families. At the same time, an overt hostility to homeschooling has been unleashed, starting with a pair of retired professors who, in an op-ed published in The Los Angeles Times, called homeschooling parents "elitist" and "illiberal."

They wrote with venom and condescension about evangelical Christian parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with evolutionary theory and support for abortion rights.

Well, at least now we know who the real elitists are--and what their real agenda is. The threat in California is not just to the rights of homeschoolers, but of all parents. This decision must be overturned or remedied--and fast.

Then I read the article in the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-shaffer13mar13,0,5787994.story

Regulating home schoolers

A court ruling is right to examine the seemingly elitist and illiberal practice.

By Walter P. Coombs and Ralph E. Shaffer
March 13, 2008

A California appellate court has struck terror in the ranks of home schooling advocates by ruling that their children can't be taught at home without at least some oversight. Public education foes see this as an all-out attack on the concept of home schooling. That is not the case. And members of The Times editorial board didn't get it right either.

In the decision in question, the parents did not meet even the meager requirements for home schooling that California has established. While enrollment in a public school is required by state law, the Education Code permits an exception for those attending private schools or those taught at home by a credentialed teacher.

Though the parents had technically enrolled their eight children in an existing private school, the court found that the children were not attending it. In fact, they were schooled at home by parents not qualified to teach the kids in subjects appropriate to their age and grade level.

The decision has caused anguish among families who fear that they may now be required to demonstrate that home schooling is an adequate replacement for their children's attendance at a public institution. The court's decision means that home schoolers must be given some substantive instruction in social studies and not simply spend their time watching Fox with its strange assortment of oddballs pontificating on current events.

It's time Californians realized that there are few regulations regarding home schooling and virtually no safeguards to make certain that subjects appropriate to the age group are taught. On the other hand, there is a formidable cottage industry run by conservative evangelicals that provides "suitable" materials for home schoolers. For-profit charter schools specializing in "home schooling" -- and collecting your tax dollars while doing it -- have not only cast a cloud over the concept of home schooling but have rankled teachers who see the state's limited education dollars being diverted from traditional schools.

If home schooling forums on the Web are indicative of the views held by parents of learn-at-home kids, their offspring are getting an extremely warped lesson in civics. Typical of the shrill screed now running on the Internet are these comments: "This [ruling] is a good example of bureaucratic tyranny! Kiss liberty good-bye, people." Another wrote: "Perhaps the judge could be impeached for incompetence. Else Christian families need to flee California." And: "This is another example of how socialist mentality destroys our God-given rights as parents."

It's evident that the vast majority who teach their offspring in front of the television do so because they don't want their children to be subjected to such dangerous doctrines as evolution, abortion, global warming, equal rights and other ideas abhorrent to the evangelical mantra. Weighing in on the side of home schoolers and their fundamentalist spokesman, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that self-proclaimed expert on education whose latest action has been to recommend steep cuts for K-12 schools. The governor denounced the ruling as outrageous and vowed to overturn it. He must believe that the state's policy of providing no control over home schooling is just fine.

The Times editorial board misunderstood the ruling too. To start, we find no place in the ruling where the court "noted that the state Education Code appears to express distaste for home schooling." Then, the editorial goes on to say, "Private school teachers do not need a credential to instruct a class of 20 or 30 students. Why should parents need one to teach a few children at home?" That's a good question. But the court offered an equally good answer: In an earlier case, the court held that it is "unreasonably difficult and expensive for a state to supervise parents who instruct children in their homes" but that oversight of teachers in organized private schools is less difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the court noted that teachers in private schools would be supervised by the people who run the schools, and those administrators would want to make sure that their instructors were competent so that their private schools would qualify under the state Education Code.

The board also claims that the courts "tossed out" the option of public and private school independent study programs to help home schoolers. Not so! What the court said was that the Education Code provides for independent study through a school district or a county office of education, but the purpose is to provide students with educational opportunities during travel or in subjects not offered in the school curriculum. The court said this clause clearly did not apply to a mother's home schooling of her kids.

The Times' editorial refers to the wonderful accomplishments of home schooling: "There are rare cases of parents who use home schooling to hide abuse or neglect. Far more common are the stories of responsible parents providing a good education." One anecdotal case of a home schooled teen writing a bestselling novel is cited, with the implication that such a remarkable achievement could not possibly have been attained because of the demanding homework assignments given by our public schools. Sounds like the board believes our traditional schools are overworking the kids -- which is not what most critics say. Isn't a major argument for home schooling based on the belief that the public schools aren't demanding enough?

Finally, in its call for the Legislature to enact laws providing for home schooling, apparently without credentialed teachers, the editorial wants "reasonable regulations," citing as examples required lesson plans or a student portfolio of work. Those regulations might be acceptable to some of the learn-at-home parents, but the Internet will be full of angry letters from home schoolers saying all that bureaucratic regulation is what they wanted to escape by teaching their children at home.

There has always been something decidedly elitist and anti-democratic in home schooling. It smacks of a belief that privileged children should not have to associate with the other kids in the neighborhood and that by staying home, they would not be subjected to the leavening effect of democracy.

Moreover, it is apparent from the cries of the far right that there has been a specific policy in home schooling -- to teach only the ideas acceptable to ideologues who fear the contaminating influence of what is commonly known as a liberal education.

Walter P. Coombs and Ralph E. Shaffer are professors emeriti at Cal Poly Pomona.

I was incensed when I finished reading the above, so I began to go through the TWENTY PAGES of comments. After only a few minutes it became apparent that homeschoolers are, for the most part, articulate and well-educated. They are able to soundly refute the arguments made by the "professors emeriti" and they make a good case for homeschooling children.

The comments will only be available for two weeks, so I will copy a few of my favourites here.

~Coombs and Shaffer have made it very clear that to them a good education is one in which students are indoctrinated with their liberal values.The authors' desire is a totalitarian state in which every child is force-fed liberal dogma and our freedom of speech is circumvented by labeling conservative ideas "hate speech." The fact that they consider abortion an inalienable right is proof that what they really want is not to educate our children but to euthanize them.


~As a teacher & mom, I teach my students to "check the facts" & "consider the source." Seems these professors need to either become one of my middle school students or my own child, because they did none of those things. I would suggest these professors educate themselves on both the history of public education, and the realities of homeschooling today. Every day I read about the horrors in the schools--molestation by administrators & coaches, school violence, low test scores, budget cuts, & more--perhaps we need to focus on fixing the educational system for those who cannot homeschool and leave those high performing self educators alone.

~Last time I checked, mandatory state funded public schooling could easily fit into the term, "anti-democratic." Just because the education that home schoolers receive is not "state-approved," does not make it elitist. Everyone is welcome to home school, so what's so elitist about that? The authors are clearly threatened by homeschooling and their arguments do not hold water and are extremely biased. Yikes...

~Many parents who home school have told me that they pulled their children from public schools because the children came home with stacks of papers and did not understand what they were to be doing. The parents wound up doing all the teaching and finally decided that if they were going to do the teaching anyway, they might as well have the time to do it right! They have also said that much of the work in public schools is busy work and does not help the children learn a thing.

~The internal logic of the ruling is this: 1. The protection of rights by a government-of-the-people requires that people to have knowledge. 2. The people are incapable of providing this knowlege to their children, without the oversight of a Nanny State. 3. Therefore, the Government must violate the rights of the people, forcing them to educate the State's children as the Nanny State pleases, in order to .... secure a protection of rights. Plato, Stalin, and Hitler would have been pleased. Hitler, too, outlawed homeschooling on the same basis in 1938. The law remains to this day.

~America began its first 200 years without public education. The Bill of Rights guarantees families the right to inculcate Christian religion -something that the "liberal educators" deplore. To say that "there has always been something decidedly elitist and anti-democratic in home schooling" betrays a totalatarian mindset akin the those within communist regimes which brainwash children into statist thinking. These "liberal educators" hate Christianity. Far from privileged, any parent can choose to homeschool. Most all of the "privleged" homeschool families I have known were middle income or less.

~I would recommend that they study Western traditions of liberalism and democracy before publishing an article on the subject. Liberalism in the western tradition generally infers that the individual has a right to abstain from social programs. Social good is second to insuring the rights of the individual, as Thomas Mann would say.

~How little the authors know about home schooling. We began home schooling when found our son wasn't being challenged. He is now in 5th grade, doing geometry, Latin, logic, and very advanced in reading. My 7 year old is reading at an 8th grade level. My 6 year old is in 2nd grade math. There is very little time for TV in our house. What a waste of time!!! Contrary to what the authors think, on average home schooled kids test above the 80th percentile in standardized tests. What I want to know is why we are so undersupported by educators and intellectuals when we are the ones having the highest rates of success.

~Weren't the two fine young men who went on a murderous rampage at Columbine High School a product of the public school system. Wasn't their defense that they were picked on in (public) school. I guess the "socialization" they received in school wasn't that great after all. I have to wonder how they would have turned out if they had been homeschooled.

~Last thought: is it any surprise that the people who feel most threatened by homeschooling are the unions and teachers who spent years getting degrees which may not be so necessary if homeschooling continues to grow in popularity? It couldn't be THAT. They must be concerned about the children.

~Nice op-ed. Can be summed up thus: "Free markets, bad. Statism, good." That these knuckleheads are professors is exhibit A in the "value" of 20th century formal education. When government education becomes better than what one can obtain for free via the internet or from your public library, then we can have the debate on the merits of government education.

~Homeschooling is neither elitist nor undemocratic. While it's easier to visit a few radical websites and draw hasty conclusions than to research an issue thoroughly and thoughtfully, I recommend that the authors read the U.S. Department of Education's study, "Homeschooling in the United States: 1999." Homeschooling parents are somewhat more likely to be white and to have a college or graduate degree than mainstream parents, but financially they are very similar to mainstream parents (some are poor, some are wealthy, most are middle-class). Less than half homeschool for religious reasons.

~The freedom for me to NOT be in a program or with oversight is very important to me. I don't want legislation, testing, or parental requirements. Before compulsory schooling, kids grew up to become statesmen, inventors, thinkers, discoverers, & leaders. How did they do that without compulsory schooling, testing, and oversight? Ever had your child bring out a book and have the neighbor "schooled" kid loudly complain, "Oh, no, not books!I It's the weekend"? My homeschooled child can be away from that attitude that permeates the schools. Please don't just meet a few homeschoolers and then form your opinion. Get a bigger sample size.

So, there you go. I feel better. NO need for me to post further...they said it all!

August Rush

We sat and watched the video, "August Rush", this evening. It touched my heart! There is something to be said about the connection between a mother and her child, even when they are separated at the baby's birth.

The music in the movie was superb. The storyline was good, the acting was great. I especially watched the hero's expression on his face as he interacted with the music, first in his head, and then with the guitar, the piano, and the organ. He personified JOY!

I have always been touched by music. I love to sing, and I pay attention to the sounds around me, especially the sounds of nature: thunder crashing, waves hitting the shore, birds singing, dogs barking, etc.

One of my favourite memories is of my father, on Sunday mornings, playing the "Sound of Music" record full blast in order to wake us up. Nothing like waking up to the sound of the birds chirping , the music swelling, and then the voice: "The hills are alive, with the sound of music..."

I am thankful that God has blessed our family with musical ability. Some of the children play piano, and I love to hear them practice. Matt has played the drums since he was young, and Linda is following in his path with a bodhran. Not sure how to spell that, but it's an Irish hand-held drum. Most of the kids can harmonize, like their father, which is a real gift.

When I was a child, our family often sang for hours while travelling. Dad would whistle and Mom would sing, and Nancy and I would sing along with Mom. It passed the time and made the trip much more enjoyable.

August Rush celebrates music and love and family. It's the best music movie I have seen, since Mr. Holland's Opus.

Feminism - who needs it?

I once was a feminist. For a very short time, in high school, and in college, I thought that women were just as smart and just as capable as any man. "I can do anything he can do better, I can do anything better than he!" was my mantra. (For those of you younger than I am, that really was a popular song in the 60's.) I viewed my mother, who stayed at home during my growing up years, with a wee bit of contempt. I read Ayn Rand, and thought that her rabid feminism was right on. I was sorry for women who were "stuck in the home", and thought they were wasting their lives.

Surprisingly, I didn't act on my feminist views. I got married at the ripe old age of 18, and worked until my first child was born. I was blown away by how much I loved this little blonde beauty, with her sparkling blue eyes and tinkling laughter. Being a mom was great! It banished all thoughts of career or self-advancement. I was content to be the centre of Adeena's world.

Although I worked outside the home for a short time when Adeena was two, I soon conceived baby #2. It was during that pregnancy that God turned my world upside down, by calling me unto Himself and revealing to me Who He IS. Suddenly, being a mommy was a calling. It became my role and my blessing, as well as my joy.

My first baby will be 33 later this year. I went on to have 12 beautiful children, each one unique, each one precious.

My child-bearing years are over, and I have to say that I have no regrets.

I graduated at the top of my class in a prestigious boarding school. I was accepted into a major university. The world was my oyster, so to speak.

Yet instead of pursuing a medical degree, I settled down to bear children and guide my house. I carried them, birthed them, nursed them, trained them and taught them. Most important, I loved them.

I also, through it all, loved my husband. My early feminist views were a source of strife in our marriage in the early years. I expected my husband to help me with chores or dishes or laundry when I was overwhelmed with exhaustion during some of those pregnancies. I became resentful and angry when he didn't do what I expected him to do.

I also considered myself far more spiritual than he was. I didn't respect him as I should have. I thought highly of my own abilities, and figured "I could do anything better than he..."

I have feminism to thank for a lot of strife in those early years.

However, I have to say that God is a gracious God. He slowly and patiently taught me what it is to be a godly woman. I learned, along with that, to be a godly wife and mother. Through many toils and snares and trials and dangers, He led me and taught me His way.

I learned that the demands of feminism are foolish. There is no joy in wanting to control the world. Corporate boardrooms are full of strife and competition, stress and long hours. Why would I want that?

My home has been my castle for nearly 35 years. I have been the Queen, serving alongside the King of our little realm. I get to decide my schedule. I manage a group of other people. I encourage them to learn and to use their talents to glorify God. I am mother, nursemaid, decorator, cook, laundress, confidante, counsellor, gardener, assistant carpenter, teacher, seamstress, and so on. The list truly is endless. I have been able to develop my talents and pour my life into those people that I love the most in this world. How could I have been more blessed?

Phyllis Schlafly recently gave a talk at DePaul University in Illinois. The homemaker-turned-attorney raised six children and didn't get her law degree until after the age of fifty. At eighty, she is still growing strong. She believes that women should be given every opportunity to achieve success; she also believes that feminism is incompatible with happiness.

Read an article in the Chicago Daily Observer here: http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/phyllis-schlafly-was-right855/

My life isn't over at 53. I have plenty of years left before I reach the age that Phyllis Schlafly is. At this point, I am content to be a helper to my husband and a mother to my children. Some day, perhaps doors will open in other areas - missions, writing, publishing...who knows? Until then, I consider myself most blessed.

Most blessed, and very happy.

Do Not Fear Anything that is Frightening!

I was going through some old boxes of papers today, and came across a huge file from a legal matter in 1999. At that time, an anonymous crank wrote a letter to CAS, stating, among other things, that

these children are homeschooled, so they have no idea of what real life is all about.

My emotions ran the gamut as I read the file. I was angry with the false accusations, which came when I was in the hospital, awaiting the birth of my 12th child by emergency C-section due to placenta previa. I was proud of my dear husband, who handled court documents, affidavits, appointments with the doctor, and so on, while his wife was in the hospital. He was accused by someone of being lazy, when he spent hours and hours working at his own business to provide for our large family. I was thankful for the many letters of support from those who really knew us - our married daughter, dear friends, two of whom were nurses, a former counsellor of ours, and so on. I was amazed at the Provision of the Lord, Who sent just the right people at just the right time, in order to protect our family.

We won our court case. The judge basically said that we as parents were different from most parents, in that we homeschooled, etc., but that we had the right to be different, and, significantly, we had the right to refuse to allow the CAS to interview our children. The case was dismissed.

When I think back to those trying times, I remember how afraid I was. I feared that the CAS would continue to harass us, and that they would, indeed, interview our children. I feared that the children would be upset by such an interview, because they would feel uncomfortable. Fears abounded... but I remembered: whoso puts his trust in the Lord shall be kept safe.

Rick read to us this passage yesterday:

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. I pondered this. The passage is about being submissive and respectful to your husband, having a gentle and quiet spirit. Why does it mention not fearing anything that is frightening?

I thought about Sarah. She had a lot to be frightened about. Picture her husband walking in the door, saying, "Honey, we are moving. Get packing!"

"Where are we going to?", she would have responded.

"I am not sure," he would have said.

"Why do we have to move? I like it here! I don't want to go. All of my friends are here!"

"Because God told me to. "

"What?"

I can imagine Sarah being stuck by fear. Yet the Word of God says that she had a hidden adornment of the heart, for she submitted to Abraham, calling him Lord, because she hoped in God.

Sarah knew that the road ahead was a dangerous one. She trusted God to lead her husband. She knew when they went down to Egypt and Abraham asked her to lie (or at least stretch the truth) and say she was his sister, that she could end up with her purity violated. She was stuck in a harem - not exactly a safe place for a beautiful woman. She did not fear, however. She chose to hope in God, and submit to her husband.

What was the result? Abraham loved her. The king saw them sporting, and just knew they were husband and wife. Abraham loved Sarah's gentle and quiet spirit, because she respected her husband, and trusted God to take care of the details.

I think back to 1999, and I see that my husband was definitely the leader and protector of his family during that trial. I was stuck in the hospital. There was little I could do, but pray. My husband fulfilled his God-given role, and took care of all the details.

And God blessed.

I am so thankful for Rick - for his leadership abilities, for his quiet, steady ways, for his sometimes abrupt manner, which does good when you are dealing with bureaucrats! I know that God showed me that my dear husband is very capable, that he is able to see through the garbage to the main points, and that he does not get caught up in emotions when there is a job to do. He's a man! Just what I need.

And I do not fear.

Heaven = High-Speed!!

I seriously am close to heaven at this moment. I have been checking my emails for the past half hour, and I am zipping through them at break-neck speed! What a treat!

Unless you have lived with excruciatingly slow dial-up, you won't understand my joy. But the greatest part of all of this is that I haven't spent one second playing Freecell, or Spider Solitaire, or Solitaire.

My pattern used to be this: click on an email. Wait. Wait. Sigh. Wait. Sigh again....click on Freecell. Wait. Finally, Freecell pops up. Click on New Game. Wait. Start the game. Email finally pops up. Go read the email. Respond. Hit Send. Wait. Wait. Go back to Freecell. Play some more of the game, waiting. Then the email would finally go. Hit delete. Wait...wait...wait... Finish Freecell. Open the next email. Wait. Wait. Start Spider....

You get the picture. A lot of time was wasted in simply waiting for things to open.

So, now that I have high-speed, I can open emails quickly, respond in a jiffy, and delete in a snap. NO wasting time with games that bore me. On to bigger and better things!

I know it's a little thing. But for me, today, it brings a bit of joy.

Now I am off to delete old emails. Maybe I can watch a video or two tomorrow, once Rick hooks up my new speakers. Ahhh, heaven!