The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has a rather lengthy entry on homeschooling. Not surprisingly, the neutrality of the article is “disputed,” as a notice near the top of the entry warns readers.

When I see any “disputed” entry on Wikipedia, I usually go to the discussion page to see what the fuss is about—and in this case, the discussion page is here. Scroll down a bit, and you’ll find some really interesting comments from various users. Among the better (or worse) ones:

There’s a strong suspicion that a fair amount of homeschooling is conducted by nutcases who, by definition, aren’t going to participate in an academic study. One of the largest and most detailed studies on homeschooling family characteristics was conducted using data generated by Bob Jones University, so even that data has a self-filtering mechanism built in.

It seems like one issue missing on this discussion page is that of homeschooling’s successfulness, which still for me is unsettled . . . I wonder if homeschool students take standardized tests like Virginia’s SOL; an update here is appreciable. I also have sensed a conspiracy in the participation of homeschool students in spelling bees because it seems like parents are just trying to impress colleges knowing that success in these events don’t reflect overall competence.

To deny that a large portion of homeschooling parents act out of intolerance is to deny a fact, not an opinion.

Of course, there are some better contributions as well:

My personal opinion (not observed fact) is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to presume that home-schooled children are more likely to be sheltered from the “real world” and that their socialization is abnormal. I would expect that homeschooled children are not the ones who are locked down into stifling, cheerless compartments and immoblized at uncomfortable desks for practically their entire waking life. The “socialization” imposed by schooling has only become perceived as normal because enough generations have gone by not to understand how new and peculiar this entire system of public schooling is. How can anyone consider it normal socialization to be forbidden to speak or move freely for 2/3 of the day? How can you be socially deprived when you have the entire day, every day, to meet and connect with anyone you please? As I think I’ve said already, what amazes me most of all is my finding that most people, when encouraged to actually think about it, realize from their own experiences that this is neither normal nor preferable—yet it is either too late for themselves or their children, or they are too frightened of the consequences to consider an alternative.

Yesterday a Brooklyn man was arrested on charges of conspiring to support a terrorist group. Javed Iqbal allegedly provided Hezbollah’s sattelite channel, al-Manar, in the U.S. via his sattelite company.

The U.S. Treasury Department in March designated al-Manar a “global terrorist entity” and a media arm of the Hezbollah terrorist network. The designation froze al-Manar’s assets in the United States and prohibited any transactions between Americans and al-Manar.

...

Mark Dubowitz of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM), which is composed of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and secular organizations, said yesterday he is “saddened” that a U.S. resident was allegedly facilitating the transmission of al-Manar “but pleased that the U.S. is taking the necessary steps to ensure al-Manar’s incitement to violence is stopped.”

Mr. Iqbal, who owns and operates the sattelite company from his home, has been arraigned in federal court, and bail set at $250,000.

We’ve been having some technical difficulties with the website that have delayed the launch of Issue 2.17., but the issue is finally up! We apologize for the delay and any inconvenience!

This Tuesday we will not only be publishing our latest issue of Virtue Magazine, we will also be making an important announcement about our future that you won’t want to miss. In addition, we are planning a special edition for the September 4th issue of Virtue.

In the meantime, check out Sam Ashwood’s new blog post on recent comments from Billy Graham.

Popular evangelist Billy Graham made some disturbing remarks in a recent issue of Newsweek. When asked by managing editor Jon Meacham whether secularists and adherents of religions that reject Christ as Saviour will go to heaven, Graham replied, “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there (in heaven) and who won’t. ... I don’t want to speculate about that.”

Not surprisingly, Meacham hailed Graham’s rejection of what has long been standard Christian doctrine, calling Graham “a resolute Christian who declines to render absolute verdicts about who will get to heaven and who will not.” That may sound good to Meacham, but Graham, a revered evangelist and teacher of Scripture, should know better. What was there to keep him from pointing to Acts 4:12, or John 14:6? What room did John the Baptist leave for speculation when he said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Graham doesn’t need to speculate if he believes the Bible.

For a more involved discussion of Graham’s disturbing statement, check out this page.