Monsters, Incorporated

In the news last week, I read a story about the "wrong twin fetus" having been "terminated" in Australia. The staff "treating" the woman accidentally killed the healthy baby, not the one who had a congenital heart defect. Notice the demented wording to make more palatable the fact that a mother KILLED her own CHILD in her WOMB, which should be the safest place on planet earth for any baby, but is the most dangerous.

Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License for Killing Wrong Twin in Failed Abortion

As found on LifeNews:

Miami, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A Florida-based abortion practitioner lost his medical license this weekend after the state medical board evaluated his license. Matthew Kachinas was supposed to do an abortion on one of the twin babies who had Down syndrome but wound up killing the other baby in the failed abortion.

Kachinas injected a chemical to kill the baby in the abortion, but the injection ultimately killed the healthy unborn child.

The Florida Board of Medicine met over the weekend, according to the Miami Herald, and revoked Kachinas' license for that and other cases that have come to its attention where Kachinas engaged in shoddy medicine.

Immediately after the hearing, Kachinas said he would kill himself and was hospitalized at a local mental health facility out of concerns of his well-being, the newspaper reported.

Kachinas was one of the few abortion practitioners in Florida to engage in second-trimester abortions or the practice known as selective reduction, whereby one or more unborn children are killed when a pregnancy involves more than one baby.

The pregnancy in question involved unborn children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion.

The twin who was considered healthy was a girl while the twin diagnosed as having Down syndrome, was a boy.

[...]

There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to say where to start.

1) The hypocrisy of the Florida Board of Medicine to revoke a doctor's license for killing a "healthy" child, but for not even frowning upon the intentional killing of a "disabled" child.

2) What does a "Board of Medicine" have to do with overseeing intentionally taking human life? Isn't medicine about healing people, rather than eugenics and "ethnic cleansing"?

3) The gall of the parents. The article does not say whether or not they still went through with aborting the disabled twin even after the death of the healthy child, but my guess would be they did, since they never wanted him to begin with. To not even be ashamed to come forward with a story like that - "We wanted him to kill our son, but instead he killed our daughter, so now we want to press charges". Chances are, they are trying to recover the money they spent on IVF so they can afford to pervert nature again in the future.

4) This story once again proves my opinion that people who use IVF are obsessed with having a perfect token child to add to their perfectly planned out life, without any regard to the moral implications. Anyone who would intentionally kill most their children just so they can maybe have one, rather than to seek God's blessing in this area, is selfish and unfit to be a parent. This is proven by the fact that these people in cold blood were going to "reduce" their not-so-perfect offspring. This all reminds me of the story I blogged about here (an update on which is soon to come).

5) This was not the first time the doctor "messed up". My guess is that maybe it wasn't accidental. Maybe someone who kills little babies for a living enjoys it so much that sometimes he likes to kill even the ones who were supposed to "make" it.

6) Why does Sarasota Memorial Hospital carry out second trimester abortions for "medical" reasons? Isn't a hospital there to help people? It's amazing how they think size determines whether or not someone is a human being.

This story reminded me of an unrelated case I read about online of a 19-year old girl with Down Syndrome who died following what was likely an illegal, forced late-term abortion at George Tiller's abortion clinic. You can read about this very sad case here.

God help those mothers who have made their womb the most dangerous place in the world for their child to be in. One cannot pervert nature much more than that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to add: I received a comment from someone preferring not to have their comment published who pointed out to me that the article does, in fact, make mention of the fact that the parents ultimately aborted the second baby as well.

"Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion."

Vaccines and Population Control

We do not allow any of our children to be vaccinated. This decision was not based on emotion, but on studying the issue in depth over the course of several months.

I am well aware of the reactions this causes in some people. Ironically, those who have accused me/us of being irresponsible and crazy have themselves never educated themselves on the subject, other than maybe asking their child's doctor about it (who obviously has a vested interest in this issue).

This post is not intended to conclusively show how and why vaccines are detrimental, because that would take too long. I hope to expose several problems with vaccines in different posts over the next few months.

Today, I would like to draw attention to the fact that as parents, we really do not know what our children are being injected with, some of which will stay in their blood stream for the rest of their lives. I do not trust our government with its anti-God agenda and our modern medical establishment that knows next to nothing about health with my child's lifelong wellbeing.

As a sidenote, I read an interesting statistic this week. It said that the number 1 cause of unnatural death worldwide is being murdered by one's government. Shocking, isn't it? It also went on to say that while there have been thousands of dictatorships worldwide throughout history, there have been less than 10 nations who have enjoyed freedoms like the ones the United States had when the country was founded. Sadly, our freedoms are falling by the wayside quickly as a fabricated "war on terror" is ushering in a one-world government that will oppress humans worldwide, but I do believe that we are still the freest and therefore greatest nation on the face of the earth today.

This is an interestig article about the WHO's mass tetanus vaccination program in the 1990s in developing countries. It raised suspicions because only women of child-bearing age were vaccinated. After the vials were tested, it was found out that they were contaminated with hCG, a hormon women produce in order to sustain their pregnancy. After being vaccinated with it, women then developed anti-hCG, with the result of repeated miscarriages due to the anti-hCG in their blood stream.

The following is a video clip by Alex Jones on the same subject:



Parents, please think twice before blindly subjecting your children to vaccines without doing any research. The government does NOT have your best interest at heart.

The Octuplet Controversy

So much has been discussed about this subject already, I really did not want to add to the whole hoopla. I think it was 100% wrong and selfish of a single mother on welfare to get pregnant, and to do so though IVF (which kills dozens of babies for every living one).

But I would like to set the record straight on some things the media has been portraying negatively:

It was not wrong for someone with 6 kids to want to have more. Of course, there is a big difference between a married mom of 6 becoming pregnant by her husband and a single woman on welfare using IVF for the 6th time. Still, the news media acts as if anyone with 6 children must be crazy for wanting another baby.

I do not think that it is impossible to give enough love and attention to 14 children. That is, if they are conceived and born under normal circumstances, i.e. children that are spaced naturally. Most parents who have 14 children will have some who are about to leave the home or have already left. They are much less needy than a newborn (let alone eight newborns). Furthermore, many large families homeschool, and practically all of them have a stay-at-home mom. A homeschooled child in a large family gets much more individual, one-on-one attention than a child who only has one sibling but goes to school gets. True, the kid in the large family has to share his parents with his siblings 24/7, but kids in small families who are in school have to share their teacher (not even a parent) for the majority of their awake time with about 25 other kids (who are not even their siblings).

"Octo-Mom" has 10 children under the age of 2, something that is not normally possible, hence she will not be able to care for them as God and nature had intended. Hopefully, there will be people to volunteer and help her out, since the mistakes have already been made and the effort now should be to make the best out of the situation.

I believe that with God's blessing and hard work, anyone can support any size family that God gives them. Again, the emphasis here is children that are given by God, rather than artificially conceived. Stealing from God sounds like a sure way for parents to forfeit the blessings of God.

I do not think that this mom should have "reduced" the pregnancy, i.e. selectively aborted some of her babies in the womb. The mistake was using IVF in the first place, let alone with 6 babies (she said 2 of the eggs split, hence 8 babies).

Population control

“Throughout history, different cultures have celebrated birth as a unique moment signifying the joy of life. The reinterpretation of birth as a form of greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour speaks to today’s degraded imagination, where carbon-reduction becomes the supreme moral imperative. Once every newborn baby is dehumanised in this way, represented as a professional polluter who is a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly difficult to feel anything other than apprehension about the growth of the human race.” (Frank Furedi in the "Australian")

Click here to read a great article on this subject.

SIDS, daycare, and church nurseries

What do the three have in common, you may wonder? Let me explain.

After a recent order from a baby-related website, I received a notification in the mail telling me that my order came with a complimentary, one-year subscription to the magazine "Parenting". This magazine could more aptly be called "Lack of Parenting" or "Parenting Failures", but nonetheless, reading it makes for cheap comic relief after a hard day of real parenting.

Back to the subject at hand, though. The September issue featured an article called "Lost Babies", which deals with the subject of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is the diagnosis anytime an apparently healthy baby suddenly dies in their sleep of unknown causes during the first year of life (most deaths occur between 2 and 4 months).

First off, let me make it clear that I do think SIDS is real, that it is not entirely preventable, and that parents should never be blamed in the death of their child regardless of the circumstances.

Having said that, I think there are many factors that could reduce the incidence of SIDS. Some of the more well-known are putting babies on their back to sleep, keeping away cigarette-smoke, not using soft bedding, and breastfeeding exclusively. Personally, I am also convinced that sleeping next to Mom and Dad is infinitely important, and I am not talking about a bassinet by the bedside. SIDS is thought to be caused largely by an immature breathing reflex. If healthy babies do not get enough oxygen in their sleep, this reflex will kick in and make them yawn or turn their head to get more air. This reflex is also responsible for making sure baby doesn't "forget" to breathe once they go into a deeper sleep phase. By being tucked into bed next to its parent(s), the baby has a sort of "breathing pacemaker" by its side. Babies that sleep like that automatically fall into the same breathing pattern as the parent that they are snuggled up to, and thus do not forget to breathe. Also, babies have a reflex that causes them to take a deep breath anytime someone blows in their face, which Mom does all night long when she is breathing next to the baby cradled in her arms, face to face. Of course, there are safe sleeping practices that must be observed when sleeping next to a young baby, but I will not discuss those here.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has also started recommending that all babies should be using a pacifier, which has been shown to reduce the incidence of SIDS by as much as 90%. To me, this further supports my theory that sleeping next to Mom is very healthy, because babies that do so spend their night using Mom for their nursing comfort rather than a binky. This has many benefits for mom and baby: Mom will have a good milk supply, and will have lots of endorphins in her system from the extra feedings, which will create a strong bond between her and the baby. She will also sleep better and never wake up groggy and sleep-deprived from having to get up for midnight feedings. The baby will grow faster, have a close bond to its mother, and will not be sucking on a plastic binky that may contain dangerous chemicals or be recalled for being otherwise dangerous. Baby will also not be taught to find comfort in material objects rather than in his real, human Mom.

The following information, however, was new and shocking to me. According to the article, "In the most recent AAP analysis, about 20 percent of all SIDS deaths occurred while the baby was in the care of someone other than a parent. One third of the infants died during the first week of childcare, and half of those deaths occurred on the very first day." Such was the case of the couple that was introduced in the article, whose 4-month old died of SIDS during an afternoon nap on his first day in childcare. The study suggested that being in an unfamiliar (which to a baby equals hostile) environment might interfere with the baby's sleep cycle, "so that when he finally does fall asleep, he sleeps too deeply". Going back to the binky theory, this would now make more sense because the baby is fooled into thinking Mom is near when she isn't.

So please, do not put your young baby in a childcare facility, and you might save his/her life.

What does that have to do with church nurseries? A lot. Many churches are now making nursery care mandatory for all babies in an effort to eliminate all distractions from the service. For one, I don't know what young baby is ever a distraction when all they do is eat and sleep, both of which are silent activities and can be done during a service.

It has always amused me that it is perfectly fine to whip out a bottle and pop it in baby's mouth in front of everyone, but that discretely breastfeeding under a shawl or blanket is considered obscene, when a bottle that is made to look and feel like the "real thing" is much more graphic than a mom who is completely covered. Here is a shock: everyone is naked underneath their clothes. GASP! So covering up with a blouse or dress is fine, but a (much more modest) shawl is insufficient? That doesn't make any sense. Of course, these squeamish people will be quick to point out that it is the ACT of breastfeeding that is offensive, even if no skin is ever visible. In fact, I have heard one pastor compare breastfeeding to the marriage act, which I can only call perverted. Other people say that there is nothing indecent about nursing a baby if Mom is covered, but it is still inappropriate in mixed company because it reminds men of the fact that women have breasts. To me, that is just as laughable. You mean there are men who DON'T know that?!? Those same people must not read their Bible very much, because it talks a lot about those subjects.

Breastfeeding is vital to a baby. It has become optional in our freak society with science supposedly making life "easier and better", but God never intended for that. He designed for Moms to feed their children, not Nestle. To me, giving a baby formula on a physical level is like reading to him out of a false Bible on a spiritual level. The Bible is called the "sincere milk of the word", and babies should be fed with sincere milk both physically and spiritually. If exclusively breastfeeding Moms should only do so in the privacy of their home, than they would never ever be able to go anywhere, including church, because most young babies need to eat at least once per hour.

Back to the church nursery. Young babies are not allowed in the service because they like to nurse, the thought of which sends most independent Baptist pastors into convulsions. Older babies are not allowed because they might coo, or look at other people in the room and distract them by smiling at them. Young toddlers might drop a toy, say something, or need to go to the bathroom. On and on the list goes.

Nobody seems to care that Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19:14) and "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:16). They seem to never have read that "when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14). I wonder why all three times Jesus used the word "suffer" - could it be because babies and young children can, in fact, be distracting at times, but we are still supposed to put up with it?!? What a strange thought. My kids were very distracting to me throughout the day today, but the thought that I should just leave them at a daycare center instead never crossed my mind. You just learn to put up with it. I find adults just as distracting at times. They have coughing fits, whisper during the service, dig through their purse, and are not just allowed but actually encouraged to yell out during the service ("Amen!" "Preach it, brother!" "That's right!" etc.). So an adult yelling out loud is not distracting, but a baby is? Why are children not allowed in church (which is not the building, but the general assembly)? Don't they need to learn more than anyone else, and aren't they the most likely to believe what is taught from the Bible?

If anyone who reads this thinks that our services must be a pandemonium because all children of all ages are in the services, they should listen to the sermons. Outbursts from children are very, very rare, and always very brief. We do have a "mother-baby room" at the back of the auditorium that has a rocker, a swing, toys etc. where Moms can step out while still being able to see and hear the service without being heard themselves. That being said, nobody is ever expected to use it, and the room is empty at most of the services.

In spite of claims of how clean, nice, and loving church nurseries are, I have to yet see one that is. Nursery workers are "hirelings", and a hireling is just that - a hireling and not a loving parent. Back when we were going to a big church in Indiana I heard of several young babies that had died in their newborn nursery, some while we were there. In fact, 3 more died in the year after we left. While some of the ladies in the older nurseries were sincerely friendly, such was not the case with the newborns. The Nazi in charge of the nurseries had picked the meanest, oldest matrons to care for these babies. The routine was the same for each baby at each service: feed, change diaper, put down in crib or swing to sleep. Crying babies were left to soothe themselves and were not carried, rocked, or otherwise comforted, and is it any wonder that the babies who had died were found lying dead in their crib after crying themselves to sleep. Just the thought makes me shudder. This same church issued photo ID cards (they looked much like a driver's license) for babies who due to medical reasons could not be in the nursery (such as a permanent, contagious disease). These babies and their parent(s) were then confined to a glass-enclosed extension of the main auditorium that was soundproof but had the service transmitted via speakers. I think we were the only parents to hold this precious card, other than the family whose daughter was born with a heart defect. She was not allowed to cry much because it could have strained her weak heart to the point of death, which made her ineligible for the loveless nurseries. This same little girl died shortly after she was finally put in the nursery at age 1 - but of course, there is no connection, right?!?

Another argument against telling people where they or their kids have to be during church is found in James 2:3: "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:" I am well aware of the fact that gay in the Bible has a different meaning than it does today, but isn't it ironic that most churches will in fact allow homosexuals in their service and treat them kindly and respectfully, but ban the babies from church? "Stand thou there in the hallway outside the auditorium" and "Sit here under my footstool in this back office" (or worse yet, the closet behind the restrooms) are all places where I have found myself with my babies.

There are other arguments against nurseries, such as the perverts and pedophiles who are always quick to volunteer to watch the kids, or the never-ending cycle of diseases being passed around.

Why is it acceptable to drop your child off four times a week for Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night services and for soul-winning, but it is wrong to put him/her in daycare five times a week to go work a job? If leaving your child in the nursery means risking him/her dying, being molested by a worker or hurt by another bratty child, and at best coming home with (sometimes very serious) diseases, why does everyone do it even though the Bible says it is wrong?

More women having fewer children (if at all)

From yesterday's press release by the US Census Bureau:

A new Census Bureau report on fertility shows that 20 percent of women 40 to 44 were childless in 2006, twice as high as the level 30 years earlier. Among other highlights, the report, Fertility of American Women: 2006, found:

• The majority of women with a recent birth (57 percent) were in the labor force.
• Of the 4.2 million women who had a birth in the previous 12 months, 36 percent were separated, widowed, divorced or never married at the time of the survey. Of these 1.5 million unmarried mothers, 190,000 were living with an unmarried partner.
• Second generation Hispanic women tend to have lower fertility rates than either foreign-born Hispanics or those who were third generation (i.e., native and of native parents).
• The highest levels of current fertility (67 births in the year prior to the survey per 1,000 women) were among those with a graduate or professional degree.

The report is the first from the Census Bureau on this topic to use data from the American Community Survey, resulting in state-by-state comparisons of fertility characteristics. Data from the Current Population Survey are also included in the report, permitting historical comparisons of levels of childlessness and births.

This report shows a great deal of variation among states in the characteristics of mothers who had given birth in the previous year. Such mothers, for instance, in the District of Columbia, Mississippi and North Carolina were the most likely to have never married. In addition, recent mothers in California were the most apt to be foreign-born, while those in Mississippi were the likeliest to be poor.

The report also finds that the national birth rate for women age 15 to 50 receiving public assistance in 2006 was about three times of those not receiving public assistance. A decade after the passage of welfare reform in 1996, data show that women in this age range receiving public assistance had a birth rate of 155 births per 1,000 women, compared with 53 births per 1,000 women not receiving it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my own words: Women who went to college and who are working successful careers are having 0-1.9 babies that are being raised in daycare. Women who are on welfare (after probably dropping out of school and never going to college) are having three times as many babies as anyone else. Women who are unmarried are having babies more than ever before.

Are there any normal families left? Married people where Dad works hard so Mom can stay home and raise whatever amount of children they are blessed with?

No wonder strangers in public ask to take pictures of our family, saying it's so rare to see a normal family any more these days.

How big is big?

"Total fertility rate" (TFR) is the expected number of children born per woman in her child-bearing years. At the ripe old age of 29, I am currently somewhere between Djibouti and Guatemala. Hopefully, in just a few months I will move up several ranks to the levels of Eritrea. Niger tops the list with a TFR of 7.19, which does not seem that far off for me. I love to be #1 and have every intention of making it there!

The U.S. Census Bureau's latest figures, for 2002, reveal that 0.3 percent of women ages 15 to 44 have given birth to seven or more children. Moreover, the number of U.S. women birthing seven or more children has declined steadily since the government began tracking the demographic in 1976. I read an interesting statistic today that families who pick Biblical names for their children have more children than families who pick non-Bible names.

It is interesting to note that in the UN figures below, the TFR for the world in general is only 2.55. Not that I believe the "the world is overpopulated" talk in the first place, but even just to maintain the current level we would need a worldwide replacement fertility rate of 2.33 children per woman (the replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates). At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero. So all these doom and gloom predictions on how we will soon be standing shoulder to shoulder don't add up even with the UN figures, which if anything would be skewed in favor of their agenda (reduction of population).

I understand that, unfortunately, there are many women who wish they could have children, or who wish they could have more. It is not my intention to make them feel bad or inferior. Being infertile is a physical disability and I feel bad for anyone affected. But I cannot for the life of me understand why a perfectly healthy, married woman would act as if adding another child would just be such a burden. I have yet to hear a reason not to have kids that is not motivated by selfish reasons. Is having a baby really that much worse than getting to spend more money at the mall, more time playing and vacationing, more hours in front of the TV, and less time working and cleaning?

Table 2 UN Ranking	Country	Fertility rate (2000-2005) (births/woman)	Fertility rate (2005-2010) (births/woman)
1	Niger	7.45	7.19
2	Guinea-Bissau	7.10	7.07
3	Afghanistan	7.48	7.07
4	Burundi	6.80	6.80
5	Liberia	6.80	6.77
6	Democratic Republic of the Congo	6.70	6.70
7	East Timor	6.96	6.53
8	Mali	6.70	6.52
9	Sierra Leone	6.50	6.47
10	Uganda	6.75	6.46
11	Angola	6.75	6.43
12	Chad	6.54	6.20
13	Somalia	6.43	6.04
14	Burkina Faso	6.36	6.00
15	Rwanda	6.01	5.92
16	Malawi	6.03	5.59
17	Yemen	6.02	5.50
18	Guinea	5.84	5.44
19	Benin	5.87	5.42
20	Equatorial Guinea	5.64	5.36
21	Nigeria	5.85	5.32
22	Ethiopia	5.78	5.29
23	Zambia	5.65	5.18
24	Tanzania	5.66	5.16
25	Mozambique	5.52	5.11
26	Palestinian territories	5.63	5.09
27	Eritrea	5.53	5.05
28	Kenya	5.00	4.96
29	Togo	5.37	4.80
30	Madagascar	5.28	4.78
31	Gambia	5.16	4.70
32	Senegal	5.22	4.69
33	Central African Republic	4.96	4.58
34	Republic of the Congo	4.78	4.49
35	Côte d'Ivoire	5.06	4.46
36	Mauritania	4.83	4.37
37	Cameroon	4.92	4.31
38	Comoros	4.89	4.30
39	Iraq	4.86	4.26
40	Sudan	4.82	4.23
41	Guatemala	4.60	4.15
42	Djibouti	4.52	3.95
43	Samoa	4.42	3.93
44	Solomon Islands	4.36	3.87
45	Sao Tome and Principe	4.34	3.85
46	Ghana	4.39	3.84
47	Tonga	3.73	3.83
48	Papua New Guinea	4.32	3.78
49	Vanuatu	4.15	3.74
50	Federated States of Micronesia	4.23	3.71
51	Haiti	4.00	3.54
52	Pakistan	3.99	3.52
53	Bolivia	3.96	3.50
54	Swaziland	3.91	3.45
55	Lesotho	3.79	3.37
56	Cape Verde	3.77	3.37
57	Saudi Arabia	3.81	3.35
58	Tajikistan	3.81	3.35
59	Honduras	3.72	3.31
60	Nepal	3.68	3.28
61	French Guiana (France)	3.67	3.27
62	Philippines	3.54	3.23
63	Laos	3.59	3.21
64	Namibia	3.58	3.19
65	Zimbabwe	3.56	3.19
66	Cambodia	3.64	3.18
67	Jordan	3.53	3.13
68	Paraguay	3.48	3.08
69	Syria	3.48	3.08
70	Gabon	3.39	3.06
71	Oman	3.70	3.00
72	Belize	3.35	2.93
73	Botswana	3.18	2.90
74	Egypt	3.17	2.89
75	Bangladesh	3.22	2.83
76	Dominican Republic	2.95	2.81
77	India	3.11	2.81
78	Nicaragua	3.00	2.76
79	Fiji	2.98	2.75
80	Israel	2.91	2.75
81	Libya	3.03	2.72
82	Western Sahara	3.01	2.70
83	El Salvador	2.88	2.68
84	Qatar	2.93	2.66
85	South Africa	2.80	2.64
86	Maldives	2.81	2.63
87	Malaysia	2.87	2.60
88	Ecuador	2.82	2.58
89	Panama	2.70	2.56
	World	2.65	2.55
90	Venezuela	2.72	2.55
91	Guam (US)	2.74	2.54
92	Peru	2.70	2.51
93	Turkmenistan	2.76	2.50
94	Uzbekistan	2.74	2.49
95	Kyrgyzstan	2.50	2.48
96	Jamaica	2.63	2.43
97	Suriname	2.60	2.42
98	Algeria	2.53	2.38
99	Morocco	2.52	2.38
100	Réunion (France)	2.46	2.36
101	Guyana	2.43	2.33
102	Kazakhstan	2.01	2.31
103	United Arab Emirates	2.52	2.31
104	Grenada	2.43	2.30
105	Brunei	2.50	2.29
106	Bahrain	2.51	2.29
107	French Polynesia (France)	2.39	2.26
108	Argentina	2.35	2.25
109	Brazil	2.35	2.25
110	Colombia	2.47	2.22
111	Mexico	2.40	2.21
112	Lebanon	2.32	2.21
113	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	2.30	2.19
114	Bhutan	2.91	2.19
115	Kuwait	2.30	2.18
116	Saint Lucia	2.24	2.18
117	Indonesia	2.38	2.18
118	United States Virgin Islands (US)	2.23	2.15
119	Turkey	2.23	2.14
120	Vietnam	2.32	2.14
121	Uruguay	2.20	2.12
122	Guadeloupe (France)	2.06	2.11
123	Costa Rica	2.28	2.10
124	New Caledonia (France)	2.23	2.08
125	Myanmar	2.25	2.07
126	Albania	2.25	2.06
127	United States	2.04	2.05
128	Iceland	1.99	2.05
129	Aruba (Netherlands)	2.12	2.04
130	Iran	2.12	2.04
131	Bahamas	2.11	2.02
132	New Zealand	1.96	1.99
133	Ireland	1.97	1.96
134	Chile	2.00	1.94
135	Tunisia	2.04	1.93
136	Martinique (France)	1.98	1.91
137	France	1.88	1.89
138	Sri Lanka	2.02	1.88
139	Mongolia	2.07	1.87
140	Mauritius	1.91	1.86
141	Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands)	2.06	1.85
142	North Korea	1.92	1.85
143	Thailand	1.83	1.85
144	Norway	1.80	1.85
145	Montenegro	1.83	1.83
146	Puerto Rico (US)	1.84	1.83
147	Finland	1.75	1.83
148	United Kingdom	1.70	1.82
149	Azerbaijan	1.67	1.82
150	Denmark	1.76	1.80
151	Sweden	1.67	1.80
152	Serbia	1.75	1.79
153	Australia	1.76	1.79
154	People's Republic of China (mainland only)	1.70	1.73
155	Netherlands	1.73	1.72
156	Luxembourg	1.67	1.66
157	Belgium	1.64	1.65
158	Trinidad and Tobago	1.61	1.64
159	Cyprus	1.63	1.61
160	Canada	1.52	1.53
161	Barbados	1.50	1.50
162	Cuba	1.63	1.49
163	Estonia	1.39	1.49
164	Portugal	1.45	1.46
165	Macedonia	1.56	1.43
166	Switzerland	1.42	1.42
167	Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) (UK)	1.41	1.42
168	Austria	1.38	1.42
169	Spain	1.29	1.41
170	Georgia	1.48	1.41
171	Moldova	1.50	1.40
172	Armenia	1.35	1.39
173	Italy	1.29	1.38
174	Malta	1.46	1.37
175	Germany	1.35	1.36
176	Croatia	1.35	1.35
177	Russia	1.30	1.34
178	Greece	1.38	1.33
179	Bulgaria	1.26	1.31
180	Romania	1.29	1.30
181	Latvia	1.25	1.29
182	Hungary	1.30	1.28
183	Slovenia	1.23	1.28
184	Japan	1.29	1.27
185	Lithuania	1.28	1.26
186	Singapore	1.35	1.26
187	Slovakia	1.22	1.25
188	Czech Republic	1.18	1.24
189	Bosnia and Herzegovina	1.28	1.23
190	Poland	1.25	1.23
191	Ukraine	1.15	1.22
192	South Korea	1.24	1.21
193	Belarus	1.24	1.20
194	Hong Kong (PRC)	0.94	0.97
195	Macau (PRC)	0.84	0.91

The truth about homeschooling

This is going to be a lengthy post, one I have written over many days. I expose the common misconceptions about homeschooling using a letter from a pastor who thinks that it is a wrong choice. I then explain why the reasons given are invalid, misinformed, and sometimes just plain ridiculous.

No doubt, certain people will be offended by what I have to say. If you think you are one of them, please stop reading right now. If you do read on, don't bother to comment and tell me about all the things you didn't like.

The original letter will be in italics and red font, while my comments will be in italics and black font. All bold statements had the emphasis in the original and were not added by me, except when noted otherwise. All spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammatical errors were in the original - and yes, there are very, very many.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Parents and Students,

We believe that it is the God given commission of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth'' to teach our children that they be not tossed to and fr0 by every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men(like evolution, New Age and Satanic "Mother Earth", and "Mother Nature" teaching, etc.) but rather grow up into Him in all things. [Eph.4:14,15] We believe that it is the Church's God-given task to teach and train believers to grow up in the Lord in "All Things". We believe that the Church in the New Testament epistle's is a Local Church, a group of called out, born again believers, joined together for the cause of spreading the Gospel in their immediate communities as well as around the world through world-wide Missions. The word "church" comes from the Greek word "ecclesia" which means a called out assembly. At present, all believers are not a called out assembly. Someday at the Rapture we will all be called out and then will be together, the CHURCH the Bride of Christ. Right now the Church, is the Local, Independent, Self Governing, Baptist Church.

While education in academic subjects is certainly not the first or main goal of teaching our children, it is nonetheless an important goal, one that takes second place to teaching a love for God and the things of God. Shouldn't a preacher's command of the English language be excellent? Shouldn't he at least know the basics of grammar, such as when to use 's (to show possession) vs. -s (to show plural)? What about habitually using commas wrongly, and capitalizing nouns that ought to be lower case? The list goes on and on - I counted a total of 15 errors in this first paragraph alone. The only other explanation for such poor English would be to say that this letter was written in a hurry, but that brings us to the question why a subject such as this would be addressed in such a hurried and careless manner. As you read on, please know that I have only corrected a few of the worst mistakes in the text below - if the error was grievous and made it hard to understand the true meaning of the particular sentence.

We believe that God in His ultimate wisdom provided the setting of the Local Church as a functioning body to provide an educational as well as social environment to provide the child with a well-rounded education in truth. God knew that all the members of the body, were different people with various personalities, talents, levels of knowledge and abilities, as well as levels of spiritual depth.. Though he knew this, He considered it a good thing for all these different types of people to function together as a body. Each one has a use and an area of effectiveness. As each "joint" of the body supplies the blessing and ability that God provided it to do, the rest of the body is benefited. Many today think that all these different people and different levels of spiritual growth are dangerous and should be avoided, and thus, they "PROTECT" their children from all this perceived "DANGER" and keep their children home in a "home school", AWAY from the Local Church, the Body of Christ as much as possible, stopping in to visit on Sunday and Wednesday.

I really would have loved to see a single verse to prove the beliefs put forth in this paragraph. There is a reference made to the passage about the body of Christ, but according to the Bible that equals the local, independent church, not a school. "Church" is a general assembly of ALL members of a local church, not just the teachers and students. So if he wants to use the body of Christ allegory, we have to conclude that all week long in the "church school" the body of Christ is severely handicapped because it is missing many vital parts, joints, and organs - men and women who are at work or at home instead of at school. Calling their school a "church school" has more to do with the fact that they are meeting on the church property, are run by members of the church, and subject to rules put out by the church. Defining the building itself as church (as opposed to the people) is wrong and reminds me of Catholicism. In the last sentence, this pastor equals his school with the "Local Church, the Body of Christ" which is just plain wrong. I feel bad for all those people who are too old to go to school and thus are deprived of this "church experience" that they can only get during the services on Sunday and Wednesday.

Also, if the Christian school is equated with the church, why does it cost money to attend? After all, the services on Sundays and Wednesdays are free, as they ought to be. Why aren't the school expenses covered by the tithes and offerings? Maybe God DIDN'T design for church schools to exist. After all, if that WERE God's perfect plan, then wouldn't He have made sure to mention how to fund such an endeavor if tithes and offerings alone are insufficient? God only commands us to tithe. Yet parents are supposedly obligated to send their children to this place of education and pay for it in order to be in obedience to the Bible? The truth is that a school is a business, not a general assembly of the local believers.

But what about these verses that I found in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Deuteronomy 11:19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Don't these verses sound like the children are with their parent(s) from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep, being taught in the house and when out and about?

Here is another verse I found:

Deuteronomy 4:9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

Again, the command is only to educate our own children and grandchildren. "Thou" is a singular word, talking to just one person in particular as opposed to "you" which is addressing any number of people at the same time. This is very well illustrated in Deuteronomy 11:19 above, where the entire nation of Israel as a group ("ye") is commanded to teach their children individually ("thou").

At [name of church], we do not believe that it is God's perfect will for families to keep their children away from the Local Church School. I have written an entire book on this subject and so I will not write it here. Suffice it to say, we at [name of church] believe that to take your children away from the body of Christ school that God has given, is short-sighted, un-wise and unnecessary. Such a decision takes your children away from the influences and blessings that each joint of the body supply's [should say: supplies] in God's incredible design, and basically tells the Lord that you have a better design than he does for the children He BORROWED to you!! I am reminded of the servant who went and buried his talent in the sand, instead of investing it as did the others. Anyone can provide the "facts" of education, like 1 + 1 = 2. Albert Einstein was very smart in many facets of "education", however he died and went to Hell. A Home School can teach the facts, the 1 + 1= 2 part of education, but think of all that is missed by keeping a child penned up within the four walls of a home, and not putting him within the living functioning Body of Christ, school, down at the Church House.

Several points on this:

(1) I have yet to find where the Bible says that children are on loan from God (the author of the letter erroneously used "borrowed" instead of "loaned"). Based on Psalm 127 I thought they were our heritage. I thought they were a reward. Even logically, this point doesn't make sense. Yes, we are commanded to teach our children about the right ways of the Lord. But what if people decide NOT to raise their children for the glory of God? Will he send the "heavenly CPS", take the children back, and give them to another family?!?

(2) I didn't know that Albert Einstein was raised by God-fearing parents but still grew up to be an atheist all because he was home schooled. In fact, I don't even know whether or not he was home schooled - maybe he was because he flunked out of the public school for being such a poor student. Rather, I think his parents were unbelievers, and if he did go to school it would not have been a local, independent, fundamental Baptist church where he could have gotten saved. Seems like the parents were the deciding factor, not whether or where he went to school. Besides, Einstein was one of the last great scientists who again and again said that all science points to the fact that there IS a God. I am not saying he was saved, but no modern scientist would even dare say that any more.

(3) Again, no verse proving this supposed design of God for children's education.

(4) Sticking your child in a school all day to be taught and cared for by others while mom goes off to work IS hiding your talent.

As children come to the Academy, in the setting of the local church, there are a multitude of blessings that come their way. First of all, they are provided an opportunity to establish a close lifelong relationship with their Pastor and the Pastor's wife. This will be a major strength to them as life moves along and they make decisions of who to marry, job decisions, and in times of trials and tragedies. Home School children seldom have strong and close relationships with their Pastor.

So are people who do not go to school not "provided an opportunity to establish a close lifelong relationship with their Pastor and the Pastor's wife"? Again, I feel bad for the average adult church member. If homeschooled children lack this relationship I venture to guess it is because of being ostracized due to the fact that they are home schooled.

They will also benefit from each member of the body of Christ who volunteers his or her time in the process of education. Children will learn from people who have not just perhaps gone to school themselves but more importantly, have real life experience in the subjects they are teaching. This is extremely effective and influencial in their lives and greatly increases and edifies the Local Church, the body of Christ.

They also benefit from the Godly influence of their regular daily teachers. These are people from the local church, whose lives and examples help them perhaps go on to serve Christ themselves. Because they are set in an environment with others besides their "'mommy and daddy", they gain ability to deal with one another's differences and learn to work with others. They learn to in honor prefer one another. They learn to not live for self and become loners, but rather to daily be interested in the needs of others. They learn to listen and obey authority in addition to and other than their mother and father. They learn to have to obey and suffer the consequences if they do not. They learn that other authority will probably not baby them as most mothers often fall into the trap of doing. They learn to have to toughen up, sharpen up and obey right away and soon realize that a little pouting will not change their punishment, but rather a change of behavior will keep it from coming their way in the future.

Homeschooled children are exposed to many people besides their "mommy and daddy". They are called siblings. They are called adults that they meet when they come along on errands throughout the day. They are called repairmen who come to the house. They are called coworkers and bosses when Dad takes them to work. There are many benefits to not being cooped up in a school room all day waiting for the slow kids to finish their assignments. The only distraction in that case is to play with other kids (since the teachers are busy). The Bible says that "foolishness is bound in the heart of a child", so wouldn't it be better for children to interact with mainly adults and not only other children (i.e. fools)? It is an old argument and one that has been disproved many times that homeschooled kids have the social competences of wood lice. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Maybe this man is speaking from personal experience when he writes that mothers tend to go soft in punishing wrongdoing, but I think it is just rhetoric. There is NO SCHOOL in the world that would dare discipline a child the way a loving parent would, because they are not the loving parent. Love is the prerequisite to correct discipline, as outlined in Proverbs 3:12, Proverbs 13:24 and Hebrews 12:6. I love my children more than a "hireling" teacher. The hireling would be afraid to administer correct discipline because God never designed them to, and the law wouldn't allow them to.

They learn to participate and have team spirit and to not quit when it is something they don't particularly enjoy doing. They learn to choose proper friends and are in an environment whereby they can fall spiritually and yet not fall apart. Proverbs 24:16 states, "'For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again..." Under the daily refining of the Word of God, they learn to come to the Lord for strength to rise up and go on for Jesus. As young impressionable children and teens, they learn the team concepts in sports, and gain strength from teammates and coaches who are fellow church members rather than from teammates who are lost and curse and educate them in the ways of the world as they compete together. They see the other team as someone they can be an example to and witness to after the game, rather than participate with teammates who are lost and whose minds are filled with the stench of this world. They learn to get up in the morning and get to school as an appointment, similar to how it will be someday when they have a job, rather than rolling out of bed and gradually getting to things when it is convenient.

So being "in an environment whereby they can fall spiritually and yet not fall apart" is an advantage? Whatever happened to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof"? Just because the Bible states the fact that a just man will fall and rise up again, does that mean God wants him to fall in the first place? Is someone not a just man if they don't fall seven times? Are children grown men, physically or spiritually? Doesn't the Bible call new believers "newborn babes"? And yes, children even just because of their age are new believers.

To say that the children there are "Under the daily refining of the Word of God" is only true if that's what you call a short devotional in the morning. In our family, we read the Bible out loud for about 30 minutes per day, and then I work on Bible memory with each child individually at a rate where even my preschooler far exceeds what is expected of the students in this particular school.

Frankly, I don't know who the "teammates who are lost and curse and educate them in the ways of the world as they compete together" are. My guess is that the author of the letter is alluding to homeschool groups offering an athletics program. For one, I am against any homeschool group that is not organized and headed by a local church, and only has their members participating. Secondly, I doubt that the overly protective homeschool parents that we were told about a few paragraphs earlier would then join a homeschool group of potty-mouthed unbelievers for their kids to play with.

Most homeschool families, especially those with many children, have rather rigid daily schedules, and getting up early to get work done is pretty universal. It is a Biblical concept to rise early and work hard, and you don't have to go to school to learn to do so. This point was especially humorous to me because this particular pastor is ALWAYS late for EVERY appointment, and his wife dropped the kids off late for school more than any other mom, while the homeschooling ex-principal and his wife were the most reliable, organized, and punctual people you'd ever meet.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, they learn that they are a part of the Body of Christ, and must do their part, and fulfill their God given task as a "'joint" within the Body. They learn that God gave them their local church for them to fully participate in as an important part of the body. As a child 6 days a week(5 in school, plus Sunday), their life will be totally involved in the church and in the things of the Lord. This will give them more often than not, a strong love and attachment to it, and to the "work of the ministry", that will last a life-time. If you realize that your children are not really yours, but are simply borrowed to you for you to make sure that they are trained up in the way of the Lord, then you must see that God's most important institution for the preaching and teaching of the truth, is the Local Church. Having your children in a Local, Independent, Fundamental Baptist Church school is a wonderful decision to make as a parent.

Another very funny point: When children go the church school every day it "will give them more often than not, a strong love and attachment to it, and to the "work of the ministry", that will last a life-time." Anyone who knows what church and school I am talking about will find this as ridiculous as me. The majority of kids coming out of this school is either not in church any more, living in fornication, pregnant out of wedlock, drinking, living a horrible life-style, or (this is most of them) all of the above. Which is little surprising when you consider that one principal after another left the church because either their kids or they themselves were involved in heinous, disgusting sins. The one good principal they had homeschooled his own kids, and was eventually pushed out because of that.

This phenomenon is not unique to this school, but rather is pretty universal. Remember Dr. Bob Gray for Florida, who was arrested for molesting girls in his church school? What about Pastor Domelle from California who not only abused his own adopted daughter for years but also other disabled girls in the school? What about the son of Dr. Jeff Owens, who worked as a janitor at a public school, where he raped a girl? He had been charged in a similar case before but there was not enough evidence to convict him in that case. The list goes on and on.

With this in mind, [name of church] established [name of school] to train boys and girls in the things of the Lord, and to see them become Men and Women who serve God with their whole hearts. [Name of school] is not a separate entity, but rather is an extension of the ministry of the [name of church] of [city, state]. Just as we have a Sunday School to teach and train our children, so also do we provide a Monday through Friday School. [Name of school] is committed to a balanced education, meeting the needs of the total person spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, physically and socially. Like the Founding Fathers of this nation, we at [name of school] wish to be known for our love of God and country. It is our intention to uphold the Word of God in its proper place of supremacy, the position of the Local, Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Church as the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth", Christian Homes, Biblical Education and the virtues of America and the Republican form of government.

We believe America in its founding to be a Republic, not a Democracy. A republic is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of representatives whereby men are elected by the people to go in good faith and honest character and make decisions regarding the laws of the land and the defense of the people. It is a form of government that allows the people if they do not agree with those who have been elected, to remove them from office by in fair elections, voting in someone else to take their place. A Democracy is a government that rules by majority. This is simply a guide to dictatorships. Rule by majority always eventually results in someone taking ultimate power. Leaders in a democracy, instead of voting by moral conscience and by the laws of the Bible, stick their finger in the air and vote according to the way whoever is making the most noise would have them to vote. These leaders are not leaders, but rather mindless robots desirous of simply retaining their positions of power. Eventually, because someone will always be the leader, a leader will step forward from the majority and because the majority hates the minority, this leader will move quickly to squash and eliminate the minority and anyone who might threaten his power. Thus he is the established dictator and a dictatorship is in place and rules the nation. See "Hitler" for further details!!

Our founding fathers did not want this to happen to America and they put in place guidelines to insure [should say: ensure] that America stayed a republic. However, this form of government is only possible to a people who are followers of the Bible and the God of the Bible, as the supreme authority. President John Adams our second President stated clearly, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Benjamin Franklin stated at the Continental Convention, "l have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men... We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it." "I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become reproach."

At [name of school] we share these foundational beliefs of our founding fathers and it is our goal to raise men and women who when called into positions of leadership will be true leaders, and available to serve in our republic. We love America and are actively training tomorrow's leaders. When God needed a man to step forward and put the Word of God back in its proper place in Israel, Ezra stepped forward, and the Bible says, he was a "ready scribe". This is our goal to prepare young men and women to be '''ready'' to serve the Republic of America. If God calls them to be a Pastor or Evangelist or Missionary, we want them to be ready. If God has a lesser calling for them, such as the President or the United States, we want them to be "ready".

Yes, that's what we need - another Hillary Clinton. Another Nancy Pelosi. We need more female preachers, judges, police officers, and military personnel. After all, if it is the goal of this Christian school to "raise men and women" to be true leaders, to "prepare young men and women" to be a pastor, evangelist, missionary, or president. If you do not believe me, notice the pronoun "them" in the second to last sentence. It goes back to its antecedent in the previous sentence, which is "young men and women". Whatever happened to "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house" (I Timothy 5:14)? While that passage is talking about widows, I think it is safe to assume that if God is emphasizing that even widows need to marry again and raise a family, so does any other young woman. How about Isaiah 3:12: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them."

The "problem" is that if women were to obey the verse in I Timothy and stay home, have babies, and raise their own children instead of pursuing a career, who would be available to teach in the Christian school? Most church schools are staffed almost completely by women, women who do not have a baby or young child as commanded in the verse (if they do, it is raised by daycare and not the mother). Women who usually are practicing birth control in order to limit the size of their family to a few children. Women who are not keeping their own vineyard (Song of Solomon 1:6). Women who don't even like their own kids enough to want to spend the day with them, but who are put in charge of watching and educating dozens of other children.

We believe that this is best accomplished by teaching young people to first of all be true followers of the Lord Jesus and His precious Word. To accomplish this we have several goals that must be understood as our priorities. If you as a parent or guardian do not understand these foundational guiding principles, which are the core of our goals, you will find it difficult to understanding [should say: understand] why we do what we do.

As you read on please understand that we wish it to be known that our vision and our venture, our motive and our message is all to THE GLORY OF GOD. It is for Him and with eternity's values in view that we are doing what we are doing.

Since this is the end of the letter, I am still scratching my head about the "as you read on" part. Read on about what? The greeting at the end?!? This again just shows how little careful consideration went into writing this letter.

Your Friend and Preacher

[name of pastor]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sad to say, the man who wrote this pastors a local, independent, fundamental, KJV-only Baptist Church. Sadder yet, it is probably one of the best ones in his area, which is pretty bleak because the church has now abandoned soul-winning and instead believes in repentance from sins - a lazy excuse for why almost nobody ever gets saved or baptized any more.

Now that we have left fairytale land, let's look at the REAL reasons why churches like to operate a school:

- Money: That's right, these schools want more money coming it. While not all schools make a profit, they are staying busy and trading dollars.

- Control: Control over church members by way of school rules and dress codes. Control over the students' minds through mass education. Control over disgruntled members who don't want to leave the church in the middle of the school year.

I rest my case.