Comments on: California court ruling attacks homeschoolers http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=2753 A blog by Jason Hayes - libertarian thought, policy, religion, the environment, tech, coffee, and Tabasco - the stuff of life Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:15:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: G. Reckart http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=2753&cpage=1#comment-407607 G. Reckart Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:25:55 +0000 http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=2753#comment-407607 Several years ago I was in conversation with a very high ranking freemason over public education. He informed me that it was the freemasons who first championed public schools paid for from tax dollars. He also informed me that freemasons still take seriously any religious involvement in public education. Our discussion turned to Christian schools and he informed me it was his opinion from what he was taught that this took children out of public school and should be illegal. He has the very same argument this court issued: namely that it was illegal for anyone to teach children who were not licensed or certified by the public school system. So, now I am wondering if any of these judges who issued this ruling have any connection to the massonic lodge, and if so, was this a subtle ruling of the lodges issued from the bench by members upholding that prejudice? G. Reckart Tampa, Florida Several years ago I was in conversation with a very high ranking freemason over public education. He informed me that it was the freemasons who first championed public schools paid for from tax dollars. He also informed me that freemasons still take seriously any religious involvement in public education. Our discussion turned to Christian schools and he informed me it was his opinion from what he was taught that this took children out of public school and should be illegal. He has the very same argument this court issued: namely that it was illegal for anyone to teach children who were not licensed or certified by the public school system. So, now I am wondering if any of these judges who issued this ruling have any connection to the massonic lodge, and if so, was this a subtle ruling of the lodges issued from the bench by members upholding that prejudice?

G. Reckart
Tampa, Florida

]]>