Whole Person Whole Life Blog

Whole life together

Home Essays on Whole Person Life

Exemple

Discerning Truth

               If we recognize the existence of truth and acknowledge the value of possessing truth, then next we must be able to discern what is truth if we are to seek and to know we found it.  Wisdom, in a sense, is this ability to discern by the senses what is true from the facts available using human reason guided as well by our spiritual nature.  Ultimately, for the Christian this must be based upon the Bible.  (You might call this later spiritual aide, intuition, if you want to avoid implicating the spiritual nature of man.)  Optimal functioning and fruitful living require the development, maintenance, and continual practice of discernment applied to both the world of “what is” and “what ought to be”. If one values knowing truth, then discernment is the prerequisite active means of acquiring the truth you desire.  Understanding discernment and the influences upon its practice will deepen your wisdom and ability to discern optimally.  Practicing this discernment grounded in the last principle to be discussed in this essay will help lead you to a fulfilled life.

               Before examining discernment and what influences it, quickly reviewing a few faulty worldviews of truth helps to develop an appreciation for the aspects of discernment to be examined next.  Some worldviews deny universal or absolute truths and will therefore not seek truth as they believe it does not exist.  Other worldviews may admit that truth exists but claim there is little value in seeking it.  Still others may be agnostic, believing truth cannot be found or skeptical in that they believe truth changes over time.  Regardless, claims of truth are not trusted by either of these last two groups.  In the end none of these groups value truth in a way that will lead to a desire to develop discernment for the sake of discovering truth.  Without developing discernment leading to truth, life will fall short of fulfilment.

               In contrast, for those of us who believe in a Biblical God who created the universe with order and made us to comprehend it, we will be inclined to seek truth for the sake of knowing our Creator and obeying Him so that we can seek fulfilment in life.  Once we assign a high value to truth in the pursuit of a fulfilled life, we must then determine a trustworthy method of ascertaining what is true.  In other words we must develop greater and greater means of discerning fact from fiction and good from bad as we go through life. I repeat the fact that understanding the process of discernment and influences upon its practice will deepen one’s wisdom and ability to discern optimally.  Learning the following eight aspects of or influences upon understanding discernment will serve each of us well to learn but culminate in the final aspect listed below – going to the ultimate source of truth and discernment.

               First, discernment requires more than taking the data from the bare senses and regurgitating it as the senses can deceive in expected and unexpected ways.  We know that our hearing may miss quiet or distant sounds.  We know that our sight has a limited focus and can be distorted by suggestion and bias.  We know that each sense can cross influence the others.  In the midst of stressful circumstances, knowledge of the facts may become distorted making discernment more challenging.  Even how someone asks us what we witnessed in an event can influence our memory of it.  Without operating methodically through reason and logic, discernment according to senses alone cannot properly bear meaningful fruit.

               Second, discernment, when employing human reasoning, takes the data from our senses and from our accumulated memories to evaluate what is true from the collective data available.  In the middle of an event, one’s discernment must determine which sense should be given greater weight versus which sense or senses might be limited or distorted.  Discernment must determine if our senses could have missed perceiving something or have misperceived some detail.  Discernment must ask if a prior memory of a similar event distorts the perception of the current sensory input. For example, does your spouse’s tone of voice indicate anger and malicious intent similar to your own parents’ arguments years prior or did some event of the day hurt your spouse with you simply being the first person to hear the painful story?  Just as senses may be distorted, reasoning may also fall short of correct discernment when it fails to distinguish between reality and misperceptions. Discernment requires moving past reflexive defenses and avoiding over reliance on past events to interpret present events.  Such discernment cannot remain undeveloped if a fulfilled life is sought.

               Third, the ability of reason to combine all of this into a correct descriptive interpretation of reality requires not only time, but repeated experience in order to become adept at discernment.  Such discernment is not something we are born with although some tend to have more natural ability than others.  Each experience and practice of discernment provides opportunities to make wisdom and discernment better than before.  Confidence in correct interpretation of reality grows and the speed by which discernment occurs grows faster.  Even the complexity of life challenges may increase without decreasing accuracy with greater ability to discern over years of such practice.  However, even reasoning applied to our senses over repeated opportunities does not guarantee that discernment will lead to truth.

               Fourth, right use of the of the senses and their training along with right use of reason through training brings us a long way in the skill of discernment, yet the human sinful nature places limits on the results of our efforts.  As previously mentioned, our senses will fall short in some situations and reasoning will be forced to proceed with less than all the possible information it could use in discernment.  Additionally, unrecognized biases may leave one prone to mistakes in discernment.  Beyond that, we are faced with the bare facts of our sinful nature, faced with the reality that without a spiritual influence outside of our sinful desires and sinful habits, we risk even greater distortions than our physical limitations produce.  Sinful desires bias us towards false beliefs.  For example, the sin of pride increases the number and the influence of blind spots in our lives.  Without a recognition of sin within us, we will mistake motives, misread communication, and will fall short in discerning reality. 

               Fifth, the shortcoming of human ability becomes most apparent when we move beyond discerning “what is” and move into the realm of “ought”.  While discerning “what is” can be challenging enough with the fallibilities of our senses, without an outside frame of spiritual reference for morality, far less can be determined regarding the “ought” of right or wrong.  Many groups and even nations have sought to arrange life upon purely humanistic principles, but none has succeeded in a comprehensive approach to life.  Looking outside of humanity and its nature to a God above creation is our only option.  Knowing what constitutes right standards for ought requires a knowledge of what He revealed in the Bible as well as a spiritual connection to the one who wrote the Bible.  Such a connection goes beyond what many call an intuition of what is right or what should be, but instead recognizes a spiritual reality which influences beyond a purely physical sense. Great wisdom and discernment require more than great senses and great human reasoning, but a gift of spiritual insight from our Creator. 

               Sixth, besides the need for this spiritual discernment, given the paucity of wisdom born into children, a comprehensive ability to discern our proper response to the descriptive interpretation of reality must be accomplished not only as individuals but also vicariously through the collective wisdom of other’s lives.  Discernment stands alongside other skills in that it requires repetition for acquisition.  Rarely do the repetitions come as exact copies of the prior challenge, yet, the patterns develop when one challenge is overcome, allowing the similarities in the next challenge to be approached more successfully.  Given the great need and the multiplicity of potential challenges in life, we must also look to the lives of others practicing discernment and living out the wisdom that is desired.  We cannot afford to wait for their own experiences to develop discernment in all areas of life.  Instead, we must learn vicariously either through contemporaries further down the road of discernment, from prior lives who left a legacy of wisdom for surviving generations, or from the evidently bad examples offered frequently by the unwise.   Discernment deepens when wise counsel is sought and accepted from the lives of others either directly or indirectly.

               Seventh, as our ability to discern grows, we must nurture and maintain this gift as the skill can be lost rapidly.  While pride can sometimes make us think that past discernment will automatically repeat itself, discernment requires some maintenance of conscious effort and developed habits.  It is maintained by repeated intentional use.  Just as the aging brain thrives longer on word puzzles and challenges, so the mind and spirit of discernment thrives when applied to greater and greater challenges repeatedly. Setting it aside gathering dust disables any hope of receiving its prior benefits.  Neglect, disdain, and forgetfulness each detract from its efficacy.  The victories of prior discernment may even be forfeited by single acts of ignoring new opportunities for proper discernment.  Reputations fall and crash with such neglect and legacies can crumble when continued discernment is forsaken. 

               Finally, the ultimate source of truth and discernment originates from God and reaches us not only through a spiritually endowed sense of discernment but primarily through His revelation in His Word.  Unable to depend entirely on our sense perceptions as just noted and unable to depend entirely on our innate human reasoning as just noted, we find the superlative truths in the words of the Old and New Testaments.  While God’s gift of spiritual insight is required to fully plumb the depths of this revealed wisdom, truth cannot be attained and a trustworthy discernment for the optimal fulfillment of life is impossible without Biblical revelation.  Human reasoning guided by spiritually gifted insight when working with Biblically revealed truth enables us to discern the reality of present life and respond with wisdom approximating God’s truth after Him.  This is our best and only hope for living a fulfilled life in this present world and the one to come.

               Again, with the potential deceit of the senses, the limits of human reasoning, and the sinful nature of fallen man, those of us who seek truth require the continual practice of discernment empowered by spiritual insight firmly grounded in Biblical revelation.  To live a fulfilled life, a life of shalom described in other essays, we must discern which of the many offered paths of daily life lead to these goals.  This pursuit of a fulfilled life includes discernment in the area of physical, emotional, relational, and spiritual health.  Living as embodied souls means our physical habits affect our spiritual health and our spiritual habits affect our physical health while a life of discernment is our only hope of a fulfilled life before our Creator.  Caring for each part of our being and our relationships with others requires such attention to discernment.

               Next in the Series, “To Be Determined”

Read More →
Exemple

Cowardice, the Acceptable Sin

“No shortage of scripture establishes cowardice as a horrid sin, most specifically Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

— Andrew Allis on Truthscripts “What are You Willing to Sacrifice?

Mankind for ages has sought to simplify the requirements for Godly life. We choose the easy sins to avoid such as sexual immorality, sorcery, and idolatry (okay, these sins are not so easy). We then pride ourselves in ostensibly avoiding these “bad” sins. Meanwhile, we ignore the import of God’s inclusion of cowardice in this list of sins taking someone into the lake of fire and sulfur.

f we get past this point and take the Bible at its word, we then try to explain away what such a sin like cowardice really is. We may think this is refusing to run into a burning house to save someone or standing up to a bully on the playground of life. Resisting cowardice is more than that and more than refusing to denounce one’s faith at the threat of martyrdom.

More often than the extraordinary moments of existential threat, we are faced with choices to abandon the implications of our faith. We are asked to go along with the crowd in accepting a whole list of gender perversions. We are asked to go along with the indoctrination of our children in public schools. We are asked to attend the fake weddings of those with flagrantly unbiblical lifestyles.

Simultaneously, we must act courageously with wisdom whether we run into a burning building or refuse to condone sinful lifestyles. Prayerfully asking God to provide insight and wisdom into any such situation is critical. We should stand for truth wisely rather than foolishly, but all with courage.

We need more bravery and less cowardice to avoid judgement for ourselves and degradations for our society.

Read More →
Exemple

Preface and Call To Action:  As we near the end of the 2024 legislative session in Tennessee’s General Assembly, tracking legislation can resemble a science fiction movie.  The rules that normally regulate how and when proposed legislation can be brought up for a vote in committee or on the full house floors can appear to warp and bend to the point that a bill like HB1183 and SB503 could suddenly pop up in another bill’s amendment.  While we are watching the Finance Committees of the House and Senate for the original bills, we are hearing rumors that the language of these bills could be added to other caption bills passing through the process and end up on the floor for a vote.  Without getting into the rules-bending possible scenarios of a time warp movie, we are just asking you to email or call your one legislator today and be firm that WE THE PEOPLE do not want the bill to get any votes except a NO regardless of where the sponsors amend it. 

Find your LEGISLATOR HERE to call and email.

Main Article:

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the second in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point two reads:

·       The Education Scholarship program will Restrict religious freedoms via government oversight particularly for Church Related Schools and the homeschool students using them as an umbrella program. 

For those of us disagreeing with modern society’s misinterpretation of the separation of church and state, we hold that the church must influence the state rather than the state dictating beliefs and conduct to the church.  With the addition of this School Choice program, the state will instead be able to unduly influence what church related schools teach through funding and regulations.  The religious practices of these religious institutions may be unduly regulated and limited by such state interference in their religious liberties. Both now or in the future, this door for limitations on the religious freedom of parents, teachers, and schools should be kept as closed as possible. The current amount of control exerted by the state government is already enough of a hindrance to religious freedom.

With a Republican supermajority controlling the legislature the current proposal for School Choice may seem innocuous at the present in regard to religious freedom. However, the same opportunity for influence could be rather disagreeable under different political circumstances.  A general assembly or governor less friendly to religious freedom could one day walk through this School Choice funded open door and impose more restrictions on parents and on schools in the private and homeschool world. Also, given the worldview espoused by many current Republican legislators who ultimately believe the state has at least an equal fundamental right to direct children’s education, even now such an open door to state influence over church related schools is at the very least concerning. 

You may ask for examples of how similar legislation has led to such limits on religious freedoms in other states. Examples in the references describes stories of religious schools which accepted school vouchers who have already faced lawsuits for Biblical positions on marriage.  If this were applied in Tennessee, many church related schools would not likely be able to participate based on conscience. Then, due to the interconnectedness of Tennessee homeschool law, when private schools who run umbrella programs do participate, the umbrella homeschool student may become regulated through their umbrella program despite not taking any scholarship funds themselves.

This potential for state regulation arises from the following hierarchy of education regulation.  The Department of Education approves the accreditation agencies which oversee the private schools which then operate the umbrella schools enrolling most homeschoolers in our state.  A 2018 presentation online from the Tennessee Department of Education describes homeschoolers in category IV church related schools to be “non-public school students” meaning those homeschoolers could be regulated as private school students (Tidwell 2018)[1].  Basically, the state directly or indirectly controls all education in the state whether public, private, or homeschool through the Department of Education and its compulsory attendance laws (see separate blog article for further explanation [2]).

While current legislators will claim that no such regulation of homeschoolers or private schools will be included in Tennessee, we have seen that type of homeschool controlling legislation in other states added in subsequent legislative sessions or through those state’s departments of education.  Tennessee legislators have publicly and repeatedly stated that they cannot promise that such future regulations will not be added later. They know that future sessions of the General Assembly could add completely different rules and regulations on homeschoolers and private school children.  Already in our current General Assembly in 2024, some legislators have proposed bills to add regulations to the currently active pilot school choice program. —– HB2409 and SB2268  — HB2450 / SB2273  (Tennessee General Assembly[3]).  See References (10, 14, 15, 18). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Three Reasons to Oppose School Choice – Part 4 – Unintended Consequences[4]”.

We must stand now and not allow any present or future restrictions on our religious freedoms as expressed in the education of our own children. As a separate article on the site describes, parental freedoms and religious freedoms are intertwined with the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children being inherently religious in nature both in its explicit command from God and logically foundational in the life and perpetuation of a family. School Choice legislation which opens a door for undue influence of the government in the jurisdiction of education and parental freedoms deserves our vigilant resistance.

References

[1] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/sbe_workshop_january_25_2018/1-25-18%201%2050%20Non-public%20and%20Home%20School%20Update.pdf

[2]  https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

[3] https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/BillsBySubject.aspx?Primarysubject=1520&GA=113

[4] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-unintended-consequences-part-4-of-4/

Read More →
Exemple

Preface: Today, at the state Capitol, both the House and the Senate “plan” to hear and/or vote on the School Choice bills, currently known as HB1183 and SB503. SB503 has been delayed in its committees Monday and Tuesday of this week.  HB1183 was delayed yesterday to be on today’s committee agenda.  While there initially seemed to be nothing that could stop this freedom threatening overreach bill, we are seeing the effects of our pressure on legislators.  The results of thousands of emails, who knows how many calls, multiple in-person visits, and our faces in the committee meetings opposing the bill are all taking their toll on their legislators resolve to pass this bill.  Take a moment today to contact legislators on the Finance, Ways, and Means Committees for both houses today to say a loud “NO to HB1183 and SB503”.  Thank you for standing with the parents of Tennessee in protecting their children. 

Scroll to bottom of article prior to references for both committee’s contact lists.

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the first in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point one reads:

·       The Education Scholarship program will limit the parent’s educational choices to those the government and its experts approve of while advocates falsely claim that parents retain control over their children’s education. 

In Tennessee, we currently have three separate educational systems which minimally overlap:  public, private, and homeschool.  That lack of overlap has allowed the non-public systems, private and homeschool, to remain freer in their education of children. Government funding with regulations will infuse money into the private and the homeschool sectors in such a way as to bring both of these previously freer areas under greater state control.  The private education institutions will be most directly and extensively impacted, but homeschools will also experience influences from the government. Over time, the three educational systems will come to resemble each other more and more, ultimately limiting parents to the government’s overarching control of what is allowed to count as education in Tennessee.

State government influence over private and homeschools already exists, but that influence will advance towards more and more overreach through various mechanisms already existent as well as new pathways created by this school choice legislation. The state, through legislation and through rules promulgated by the Department of Education now dictates what officially counts for a elementary and secondary education through official standards. While they directly administer public schooling through the local school districts, they indirectly influence private schools through accreditation agencies which they oversee through a state required approval process. The private schools then must be accredited through one of these agencies in order to operate in Tennessee.

For the homeschoolers, the state influences us through three different pathways. For the so-called independent homeschoolers, they must register under the local school district and report to that public school entity each year along with participate in testing mandated by the state. For those who place themselves under the oversight of a Church-Related School (CRS), they educate their children one step away from the state, but ultimately those CRS’s must be approved by an agency that must receive approval from the state. For those who enroll in a virtual school, they too ultimately come under a virtual school which must receive agency approval, again approved by the state. In all three cases, the state still stands over all of these homeschool options determining what is accepted as education in Tennessee.

Under the current laws and hierarchy, private and homeschools have enjoyed a decent measure of freedom although we can reasonably argue that more freedom would be better. With School Choice legislation as proposed, new regulatory factors arise which alter this current functional equilibrium. Such factors are mostly inherent in the foundational principles of the School Choice movement. For example, the government funding directed at private and homeschools will dictate what expenses are approved for these non-public options as determined under contract law. The parents, having willingly signed a contract with the state, will have little recourse should the state determine an expense is not permitted. This cannot be avoided without creating problems as some regulations must always follow the spending of government money.

In another example, the schools accepting the money will be bound by the regulations promulgated by the Legislature or the Department of Education.  Schools will be fined or excluded from participation if they are found to fall short of the dictated requirements. In order to comply, schools may adapt policies, alter curriculum, or be forced to hire additional staff to monitor compliance. These changes and more will filter down to affect not only the school choice scholarship students at that school, but most likely the other students as well.

Furthermore, the parent’s choice of school will also be limited by private school’s freedom to not participate in the program. This freedom for a private school to not participate is part of the initial legislation. However, the potential then arises for the state to one day legislate that all private schools must participate in the program if they determine that not enough private school seats are available to the school choice scholarship recipients. After that Rubicon of forced school participation is crossed, the potential for legislatively imposed quotas on the same schools may follow. The door is therefore left open for ongoing battles for parents and private schools defending their freedoms in every Department of Education rule-making meeting and each legislative session.

With all of these forces active, the history of school choice programs in other states demonstrates how state funding can alter educational options in other states.  See References (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). A further explanation of this situation can be found at “Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole (8)”. This can happen in Tennessee just like it has altered non-public options in other states. Those alterations ultimately limit the educational choices for parents over time to just those approved by the state. The state cannot fund private and homeschool choice without undue influence which limits rather than expands parent’s choice over time, ultimately moving towards one choice of education, the government’s choice packaged in one of three forms: public, government-funded private, and government-funded homeschool.

Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List

House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List


References:

1)     Marshall, Alexis. (2023, December 5). Autonomy vs. accountability: Not all Tenn.. Republicans are on board with statewide voucher proposal . WKMS. https://www.wkms.org/government-politics/2023-12-05/autonomy-vs-accountability-not-all-tenn-republicans-are-on-board-with-statewide-voucher-proposal

2)     Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. (2022, September 2). Comment from Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/MATCH.state/posts/pfbid02o9K7YC11MQoSbYZPTzT81fL5oW3azYuAJmKY6Bu6ofyufYjLZLzcEjw4RQyJX71pl

3)     Dragon, B. (2019, July 30). 6/12/2019 – Legislative update. Nevada Homeschool Network Homeschooling vs Government school choice Why we should care Comments. https://nevadahomeschoolnetwork.com/nv-esa-funding-bill-threatens-liberty-of-homeschooling/

4)     Editor. (2023a, March 13). 2/21/2023 Legislative Update. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2-21-2023-legislative-update/

5)     Editor. (2023b, April 6). 2023 Legislative Session: Takeaways. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2023-legislative-session-takeaways/

6)     Coulson, A. J. (2010, October 4). Do Vouchers and Tax Credits Increase Private School Regulation? – Working Paper. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-8.pdf

7)     PewEduReport. (2017, March 21). Philadelphia’s Changing Schools and What Parents Want from Them. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/03/state-reforms-reverse-decades-of-incarceration-growth

8) https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

Read More →
Exemple

Article XI. Miscellaneous Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee

“Section 12. The State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools. The General Assembly may establish and support such postsecondary educational institutions, including public institutions of higher learning, as it determines”.

We hear the word constitution and assume that everyone knows what it means. In one sense, the first Merriam Webster dictionary definition quote below is generally understood among those discussing a “constitution” of a state or nation.

“a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it

b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

In practical day-to-day life under the laws of a state or nation, the term “constitution” means more than this simple definition superficially suggests. In reality, wide variation exists in how the public views the role, scope, and power of a “constitution”. The best contemporary example of how a constitution can be viewed revolves around the idea of whether or not one views our US Constitution as a “living constitution”. Without getting into the nuances, this is simply the erroneous belief that our US Constitution is meant to adapt to the times and shift with today’s legal mood rather than stand on enduring principles. Your agreement or disagreement with this view of the constitution greatly determines how we as citizens interpret and apply it to current issues like discrimination, religious freedom, and more.

If we consider the Tennessee constitution according to the dictionary without the “living constitution” approach, we cannot shape it into whatever legal and societal mood is in vogue. This is called the “Originalist” approach. Neither the collective body of people in a state or nation nor an individual within that body have absolute rights to do as they please in all situations. A constitution sets those boundaries into explicit terms for all to respect and follow.

Then arises another divisive determinant in how one applies constitutional law to daily life.    The watershed lies in whether we believe government has only those powers explicitly granted to it or has all power that is not restricted from it.  In other words, proponents of the former approach believe that our legislators only have powers granted to it by the people but cannot go beyond what is clearly and explicitly granted on paper.  In the latter approach, the government is free to exert power in any area unless we have set explicit constitutional boundaries in that area.  Such a difference in approach can make a world of difference in areas that are not explicitly or fully addressed by the Tennessee constitution such as private education.

For our Tennessee Constitution, we can look at our current issue of School Choice and first consider what power has been granted to the state in regard to educating children. The constitutional article cited above clearly spells out the delegated responsibility of the state government to provide for a system of free and public education. They are given the responsibility to provide maintenance and support for such schools, presumably meaning funding, They are to also provide eligibility standards, presumably allowing the state to set standards for what counts as a public school. This seems simple enough, free schools for anyone to access which are paid for by the state and operated according to the state’s standards.

At no point in this definition have we heard of our state being given responsibility for any school system other than the public one. Private schooling is not mentioned. Here the second set of differing views on constitutional law comes into play. Does the absence of explicit language in the Tennessee constitution regarding private education mean that the state cannot interfere with and fund private education in our state OR does it mean it can do so but does not have to? While it clearly does not require the state to fund or to oversee private education, does the constitution allow the state such activity in private education if the state so chooses?

Given the reality that our state Department of Education currently oversees the agencies which approves private schools in our state and dictates standards for graduation in our state, the general consensus that the state can oversee private education has been accepted for decades. While debatable at a philosophical level, at a practical level society already conceded this right to the power of the state. Obviously, the public’s beliefs described earlier regarding rights of the government in the constitution have allowed this to occur, but that does not mean it is the correct view.

Now the question arises whether the state can also provide funding for private education.  Reading through the Tennessee constitution, you will not find explicit support for such a practice by the state nor any prohibition.  Therefore, we come back to how we approach this question of whether or not the state can do something not addressed or restricted by the constitution. 

In this case, the constitutional article addressing public education requires that the public education offered by the state meets several criteria.  It must be free.  It must be for the public.  It must be paid for by the state.  It must be maintained by the state.  In none of this does it address paying for private education in regard to charter schools nor to any private school.  Neither are homeschools mentioned.

If we take this at face value, the state does not automatically have a role in overseeing private education in contrast to the current practice.  It definitely does not have an explicit role in paying for any individual child to receive a private education.  While many look to a general welfare clause in the federal constitution in order to grant the federal government a right to fund endless programs for public good, there is no such clause in our state constitution.  Such a general welfare concept is rather assumed and used by Tennessee legislators to justify legislation and expenditures for the best interest of the public.

At this point, we have legislators stating publicly that they are allowed to make whatever law they wish in regard to homeschool education (you can hear this in the Education Committee regarding SB503).  They do so because we the people are either not aware of our rights and the government’s constitutional limits or we are not willing to stand on those rights we believe rightly to be ours. 

In closing, we have gone down the slippery slope accepting the government’s claim that they have power in an area of our lives unless the constitution prohibits it.  Instead, we must assert that they only have power where the constitution explicitly permits.  In this case, no permission to oversee nor fund private education has been granted to the state in the constitution.  That should put an end to the possibility of school choice in Tennessee whether or not one believes it will help children.  Children in the public school system truly need help, but we must find a different solution than one which sacrifices constitutional principles.

Read More →
Exemple

Copied from Stand For Health Freedom’s Legislative Alert

Go to their page to take action on this bill.

  • A bill is moving that we thought was dead . . .URGENT but EASY ACTION needed to preserve the sanctity of informed consent to vaccination for parents.
  • HB2902 passed in the House Health Committee because the committee members were given dangerously inaccurate information about vaccination law and informed consent. Please read our FACT CHECK on the legislator’s presentation. It’s important to know that the original language of this bill did not even include the term “informed consent”, only “consent”. It was amended to add “informed” after a sub-committee member said he’d only agree to vote for it if “informed” was included. But the addition of “informed” did not make the bill acceptable.
  • Last year, you all helped us pass the Mature Minor Clarification Act (MMCA) that made it very clear parental consent for vaccination is required for all children until they turn 18.
  • HB2902 undermines MMCA by:
    • allowing doctors and other providers to abandon medical due diligence and violate the federal 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury act by obtaining consent to vaccination ONCE from a parent for “all future vaccinations”, bypassing all the protections of valid and ethical informed consent that should happen just prior to every dose.
    • removing the one protection a parent has just prior to a vaccination. Manufacturers of pediatric vaccines and those who provide them are shielded from liability when the shots cause injury or death. The properly provided opportunity to give either informed consent or informed refusal is all that stands between a child and the drug industry.
  • Even the CDC does not condone advance consent to vaccination!
    • MMCA does NOT prevent a parent from allowing another person to bring their child to a vaccination appointment, but if such a policy is arranged at a doctor’s office, the doctor is still obligated to provide a VIS to the parent, obtain proof of informed consent, prior to each and every dose of a vaccine, and document the information in the child’s medical record. This can be done in person or electronically.
    • HB2902 also includes a definition of PARENT that would make nonparents with temporary authority over a child able to give consent to vaccination. Vaccination is a preventative medical intervention, not emergency medicine, and all vaccines come with the risk of injury or death. The vaccination decision can wait until a child’s parent or legal guardian is available.
    • HB2902 has a “grandfather” clause for the Department of Children’s Services (DCS), allowing them  to vaccinate children who were in their custody before MMCA passed — without getting informed consent from the children’s legal parents who retained medical decision making authority, and without getting a court order. The bill’s definition of parent may give DCS even more ability to circumvent legal parents.
    • The state of TN should not make laws to undermine informed consent and that violate the requirements of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
    • Contact your representative now and ask them to vote no on this bill.
Read More →
Exemple

At times, we can provide confident details.  At other times, we can pass on the rumors.  Today, we can provide a little of both.  Initially we expected a 4/10/24 vote on the HB1183 School Choice bill in the House Finance, Ways, and Means committee moving the bill one step closer to the full House floor.  Instead, we get an encouraging turn of events in that they bumped the bill 1 week to 4/16/24.  This was a little surprising as the word on the street was that since the Governor wanted this bill, it was destined to pass.  This is where the confident details end.

From there, there are rumors that they realized they do not have enough votes to get this passed so they delayed it.  Some rumors hint that they may have to break up the costlier HB1183 version into smaller bites in order to garner enough support.  We knew that the Senate’s initially cheaper SB503 version would sooner or later have to reconciled with its costlier house twin, but this latest development portends more hope for stopping the whole thing. 

I don’t have any inside informant to confirm this, but it is common practice to delay a bill in order to avoid a “nay” vote.  The supporters then work on the “nay’s” another week or two to talk them out of the “nay”.  Therefore, the scenario above for HB1183 is very possible.

Regardless, we must keep up the pressure, emailing, calling, and showing up for the next House Finance, Ways, and Means committee 4/16/24 at 2pm.  The bill is number 7 on the agenda that day and in person support with small “Say no to HB1183” signs will balance out the Americans For Prosperity Green jackets which keep showing up in support of the bill. 

Forgive me that I have not had time to reformat the committee members into a clean page, but this link allows you to see all members and email them one by one or call their offices.

Read More →
Exemple

“… liberal society necessarily makes possible, permits, and even fosters what is called by many people ‘discrimination’.”

— Caldwell, C. (2021). In The age of entitlement: America since the sixties (p. 15). essay, SIMON SCHUSTER. quoted from Strauss, Leo. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures on Modern Jewish Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Initially, this seems like an illogical statement until one reads the preceding text and understands the terms “liberal” and “discrimination”. Leo Strauss had begun his point with “A liberal society stands or falls by the distinction between the political (or the state) and society, or by the distinction between the public and the private. In the liberal Society there is necessarily a private sphere with which the state’s legislation must not interfere.” He then stated the remainder of the quote above introduced.

Strauss was dividing life into a political and a private sphere, the former regarding how government placed limits on how members of its society could interact one with another while the latter private sphere regarded what men and women did or believed in their interpersonal interactions. His liberal society referred not to the current polarized sides of liberal and conservative, but to the classical sense of liberalism in which mankind had freedom to act according to their wishes within bounds.

Strauss’ point can then be understood that while mankind can rightfully be limited in the wider sphere of public life by their government, there existed an area of life, that of the private life, in which the government should not interfere. By allowing men and women freedom in this area, the people could be free to discriminate. Rather than the pejorative connotation of discrimination we think of today, it simply means that we should be free to choose based on our beliefs and preferences. Government should not dictate every decision of our life as there is a limit to its jurisdiction.

Read More →
Exemple

This Murky Area MIGHT Affect Everyone

According to the Senate version: SB503, Scholarship Amount- Allowable uses pg. 3-4

To receive the Scholarship or ESA the parent of the student applies to the Department of Education (DOE). It must be ensured that the student will satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirement by providing documentation of enrollment in a private school (I, II, III, IV, or V nonpublic category) or a public in a local education agency (LEA) outside the students normal assigned district (the Senate bill provides for movement between LEA’s as space allows).

In this section, of greatest interest to Private school students and Category IV Umbrella homeschool students is the following on pg. 4 (4) dealing with special education services.  An ESA eligible student “by participating in the program through enrollment in a private school does not retain the right to receive special education and related services through an individualized education program” BUT “the students may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1414) to receive equitable services through an individualized service plan.” (Pg 4)

In the House Education Committee meeting there was significant discussion about the use of IDEA federal funds in private schools.  The Commissioner of Education, the Deputy Commissioner, and House legal staff and even legal staff from the Department of Education were not able to answer definitively if the federal funds being used by one ESA student in a private school or homeschool would bring the entire school or the homeschool under federal regulations. See below for further information on this complicated issue. This is apparently an open question even though the legislation passed both the chambers with this language in place.  

While a soon to be attached visual will likely be required to understand the following flow of funding for service to children with disabilities in either public, private, or homeschools, the following description walks us through the present practice in schools and the proposed flow under the new EFSA program.  Currently, children with a disability qualify for funding to cover services such as speech therapy, tutoring, occupational therapy, and other therapies through the implementation of an IEP (Individualized Education Program) funded by the state and enacted by the public school in the LEA.  Under both current law and the proposal in SB503 under consideration, if a public-school student with an IEP leaves the public school to attend either a private school or a homeschool, they lose access to that IEP and its services/funding.  In the private school or the homeschool, the child with a disability can instead access funding for similar services through a federal program called IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) that is then titled an ISP (Individualized Service Plan).  These facts are clear and seem to be corroborated by testimony by the legal services representative of the Department of Education during the recent House Education Committee discussion of HB 1183 on March 6th, 2023. 

From this point, the implications of this funding are unclear both in the language of HB1183 and SB503 (sister bills).  Based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Grove City v Bell (1984) (https://time.com/6835607/grove-city-supreme-court-conservative-education/) an institution of higher education which accepts federal grant money for student tuition must agree to certain Title IX non-discriminatory regulations on that money by signing a form.  If that same legal ruling is applied to a child with a disability who receives service funding through the IDEA federal funding, what regulations will be required of the student, their parent, or their private school as a student in a private school or umbrella school?  It is possible the entire school comes under federal regulations but the legislators in attendance at the committee meeting did not receive a clear answer from their own legal counsel nor from the legal services representative for the Department of Education. 

Prior to passing the legislation as written in SB503/HB1183 which follows the same legal logic of severing IEP service funding when a student leaves a public school for a private or homeschool, parents and private schools need to understand how they may be impacted by federal regulations should a student with IDEA funding attend their school or become a part of their homeschool. They need clear answers to the following questions.

  1. For a student with a disability who receives EFSA funds and then receives services funded by IDEA through a public school or its LEA, what strings of regulation will they be expected to comply with?
  2. For the same student, what strings of regulation will be applied to the private school or umbrella school in which they are enrolled?
  3. For the school noted in #2, will other students be impacted by such regulations?
  4. Will the private school ever be the provider of such services and thus regulated by the federal government through IDEA?
  5. Will the money for IDEA ever be distributed directly to the parent and what are the regulatory regulations for the parents and/or their umbrella school in such a situation?
Read More →
Exemple

If you thought that ESA recipients would be given a $7000 check for educational expenses each year, then you will be in for a surprise.  In fact, direct payment to the parent or student is strictly forbidden in both proposals.  In the house bill it reads on pg. 10, “(a) A scholarship awarded under this part: (1) Must not be paid directly to an eligible student or to an eligible student’s parent;” In the Senate bill it says on pg. 13 “(b) The department shall establish and maintain separate scholarship accounts for each recipient and shall verify that the uses of scholarship funds are permitted…”  The Senate bill also specifies that refunds from schools or providers shall NEVER go to the parent or recipient but only to the scholarship account (p. 14, (d)).

Additionally, in the Senate version, use of the funds must be PRE-APPROVED by the DOE (p.13 (b)). Further, the parent or recipient can be suspended or terminated by the DOE if they fail to comply with requirements meaning that the account will be closed by the DOE (pg. 15, (b)). Fraud measures are in place. First, if a parent or recipient uses scholarship funds on non-qualified purchases or if they have misrepresented “the nature, receipts, or any other evidence of one or more of the expenses paid using scholarship funds” (pg. 15 (c)), they will have to pay the amount back to the state.  Second, if they believe that a person knowingly used the funds on expenses that were not qualified (remember pre-approval required) or knowingly misrepresented the information then the DOE may refer the recipient for criminal prosecution (pg. 16 (d)).

The House version also has a section on penalty for fraud or misrepresentation.  On pg. 10 it reads “(a) A parent who knowingly provides false information on an eligible student’s application in order to obtain a scholarship commits a class A misdemeanor.”

At the end of the year, any unused funds will be put back into the treasury for next year’s scholarship fund.  For private school tuition, the funds will probably be used up on that alone.  If a homeschool student does not find a way to use all the funds on approved expenses, then the money will be returned to the state.  You do not get to keep any excess for your personal use or put it toward next year.

To sum it up, no money is directly given to the student or parent.  You can only use the funds on DOE approved expenses (more on this in another blog), receipts and proofs are required for approval of an expense, and you may have to pay it back or face criminal charges if you are not very careful with the procedures and rules.  Money is never FREE and Government Money is never without strings.

Read More →