@Jamie - Your view that society can control what happens in the privacy of the home used to be what put sodomy laws on the books. Guess what? SCOTUS has over turned those laws time and again. Only actions that physically harm another are enforcable prohibited inside the home. So technically teaching the Koran is not against the law, but practicing that verse (if you are correct whoch I doubt as you can't even provide a quote) would be illegal.

@ TheCzech: "I don't have to defend natural rights. They're natural."

What is your basis for this claim?

@ Draugnar: "if you are correct which I doubt as you can't even provide a quote"

Ok then, I shall provide the quote:

"those wives from whom you fear arrogance - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them."

SOURCE: http://quran.com/4/34

I should probably say that my views on what should, and should not, be taught by home-schoolers are to a certain extent moot, since in actual fact I'm opposed to the entire concept of home-schooling. It's illegal in most European countries. Sadly not in the UK, but I'd be in favour of a move to ban it in the UK too.

@Jamie - The Bible speaks of using the rod to scold as well. Striking is *not* beating. A smack across the face (which women do to men in bars) is not a beating but it is striking a person. Epic fail.

@Jamiet99uk What is your basis for this claim? History.

The issue here isn't wife-beating sharia. It's a science textbook that takes a creationist/intelligent design position and is used only by SOME religious private and home-schooled kids. Relax, it's not a big deal. Sad, but not a big deal.

I'm dropping in only to add that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) advocated for the right treatment of women.

"The most perfect Muslim in the matter of faith is one who has excellent behavior; and the best among you are those who behave best towards their wives." (http://www.usislam.org/islamicyouth/Muhammad/prophet_muhammads_mercy.htm)

The "beating" or "striking," Draugnar points out, is not an abusive "beating" or "striking." I'll dig up links to support that if necessary for the discussion to continue.

*for the discussion to continue in a fruitful manner instead of along this tangent.

It doesn't matter what Mohammed did or didn't say, or even if he really existed as we think so today. What matters is that Islamic precepts are used to oppress women in Muslim majority countries. Whether they're doing Islam "properly" or not is irrelevant. It's happening. And it's incomparable to teaching non-science as science.

@Draugnar: "The Bible speaks of using the rod to scold as well. Striking is *not* beating. A smack across the face (which women do to men in bars) is not a beating but it is striking a person. Epic fail."

Right.... so.... erm.... beating your wife is wrong, but smacking her across the face is just fine? What's your point here?

@ TheCzech: "@Jamiet99uk What is your basis for this claim? History"

Right... so... erm... anything that has ever been viewed as socially acceptable, at any point in history, is still acceptable today, because of "history"?

@ dubmdell: "I'm dropping in only to add that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) advocated for the right treatment of women.

The "beating" or "striking," Draugnar points out, is not an abusive "beating" or "striking." "

You're right, of course. I wasn't having a go at the prophet, bless his little cotton socks. However, it is also the case that some muslim men use the verse I quoted to justify beating their wives. Epic fail on their part, to take Draugnar's phrase. But nonetheless some people do hold that position, and they defend it on the basis of their religious belief. Do they therefore have the right to teach their children that beating women is acceptable?

I would argue that they don't. TheCzech and Draugnar are arguing that they do. What the prophet *actually* meant to say on this point is not the issue.

I stand corrected, I was referring to HS and Private christian schools combined with that #, and that actually makes it a low number I put out there.

You are British, so your views are from there, and our constitution means shit to you (and also to our Government...lol) but, the Public Schools answer to the Federal government, so any ban like this, would eventually come from that direction I suppose, but anyone trying would certainly lose in court, as it would probably interfere with free speech, freedon of religion, and force someone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights..lol

While despicable, they do have the right to teach it but *not* to practice it. Satanists (followers of Antonio Levay) have a right to teach that killing a man in your home is acceptable if he disrespects you orbyour family, but they don't have the right to actually do it.

And that, right there, is one of the reasons I oppose home-schooling.

But those same principles would still be taught in the house regardless. Public schooling doesn't keep the parents from indoctrinating there kids on nights, weekends, during the summer, etc.

Their not there.

@Czech

"It really seems like the non-Christians just want something to bash. Can you name one job (other than preacher/priest) where my belief system would have any impact on my ability to do said job. Purple monkeys from Mars had babies and they were dinosaurs. There’s no scientific evidence because a great flood washed it all away...."

The point of schooling. Especially, elementary and HS is not purely vocational. There is a reason why students are taught math, and science, and language. Presenting creationism in a science textbook as a competing theory to evolution is absolutely misleading and is a discervice to the students.
No school teaching this crap in a science class should be accredited (or whaever the term is for elementary or HS curricula). IMHO, that includes private schools.

Feel free to teach in a relgious class, but there is no value in allowing people to learn this in a science class and call themselves educated.

@Yonni - I happen to agree it isn't science and especially not the form of ID that the creationists and YEC specifically try to push as ID. But forcing a creationist/YEC family to accept evolution which, while the evidence is strong for, still has gaps and its own set of proven and admitted frauds is just as wrong. One is a scientific theory and the other a religious theory. Both have proponents and detractors but both are attempting to explain the origins of life on earth, something that will not be provable without the development of time travel.

As far as accredidation, that is a slippery slope I don't think we want to.go down. But lets talk about history and social sciences and the fallacies taught therein. The "history" taught in grade school and high school is demonstrably false on many issues from small to big. And they still teach Freud in high school psychology classes. Freud... The man wasbso screwed up and had so many issues with his own mother that everything was about sex with the patient's parents.

I'm not talking about history or social sciences as, you're right, they're greyer.

There are some facts. T-Rex bones are really fucking old. Humans didn't exist when T-Rex's did. I don't care what the parents think but suggesting - in a science class - that this isn't the case is not OK. If the government is going to mandate that education is necesarry for all children, then it certainly has the authority to say that a science class saying humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time is not education.

Exceptbthat the argument of the religiois right is "Satan planted those bones to mislead us." and you can't prove they are wrong.

Understand that isn't my view. It is theirs but I support their right to believe it.

i was homeschooled using this very curriculum from the time i started school all the way through my freshman year of highschool. i then moved to a public school. (i am now a senior)
have i been eternally scared? not hardly, just because you are taught something doesn't mean that you can't think and make decisions for yourself.
and before anyone says that i wasn't taught the skills i need i will tell you that i have a 4.75 GPA (weighted), 28 ACT score, and 1910 SAT score. i know these are not the best you will ever see but they still prove that i am just as capable as any student who came through any public school system.

Seth's example is probably the norm. Home schooling is 1 on 1. You'll obviously learn much more that way than in a classroom of 15 or 20. Even if you learn something you'll have to unlearn later, your total amount of learning will be much higher. Too bad it can't be done everywhere because parents simply don't have the time.

lel statists gon state!! xDD

yONNI, i dont disagree with you on that. What I disagree with, is offering an alternative view, no matter how much you disagree with it, they are entitled to it.

I dislike Islam as a religion, but recognize their right to blab their mouth about their prophet.

Public school is a dismal failure in America, and it's not due to a lack of funding. The system is broken far beyond repair or salvage. Increasing education spending would be essentially throwing borrowed money down a black hole. It's time to privatize the system and encourage homeschooling in the interim.

And even if your dad is pulling your leg sometimes, it's still a great memory...

http://img.phombo.com/img1/photocombo/63/sunsets.jpg

Seth's stats aren't surprising at all, but they're probably not the norm either. Many parents choose to homeschool not because their child is gifted but because their child struggles academically and they can provide better education at home - their kid will never be a genius, but at least they'll be literate. Others home-school because they're tired of their kid coming home everyday with stories about the out-of-control kid who peed on the floor during class (I'm not making that up).

Others homeschool because - egads! - they actually enjoy being together as a family and they don't feel like sending their 5 year old away to spend his/her whole day with strangers.