Reply #124: Just as we outlaw murder, theft, rape, etc.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

Those laws are simply regulations to maintain a functioning society. Moving down the slippery slope of allowing home schooler parents to teach their kids whatever religious garbage they desire steers us towards a society that looks more like that of Saudi Arabia instead of a modern democracy. This is what social liberalism aims to remove.

The standards are simple: 1) is the parent *intelligent* enough to actually provide a good education; 2) are the children making satisfactory progress in the basic subjects. Grade level and age level education standards are pretty standard across the nation. It wouldn't be difficult to tie home and private schools to these minimum requirements.

"*ANYTHING* can damage society in the long run, our eating habits, our laungauge(sic), our free speech.."

If we had universal health care, eating habits would be policed as well. Language doesn't damage society in any way - perhaps one can be offended by certain language, but society is not going to crumble because of poor language. And free speech? This argument has been rehashed over and over and over. If you are publishing abortion doctor's phone #'s, addresses, etc. on the web and inciting murder, your free speech rights have gone out the window. A person's right to free speech ends at the point when that speech begins to harm others.

You sound like a libertarian, which I have nothing against other than the fact that it's completely infeasible as a doctrine.

Again the question: what harm does it do to kids to enforce a standard so that they go into society well-equipped educationally? A huge percentage of home schoolers would have no problem meeting minimum standards, and I'd hope they would welcome some oversight as being in the best interest of their children.