So, how's that separation of church and state coming along in the US?

I don't know, to be honest. What if the US allows spanking (not sure if they do or not), and another country has banned spanking (not sure if Germany bans that or not). In the other country this would be considered child abuse, and if the parents refuse to change their ways, child protection services would take away custody of the child after a while. Would that be grounds for asylum?

Or what about that girl who wanted to sail solo around the world in the Netherlands a while back? Child protection is monitoring the case, but if they would not allow it and the parents allow it anyway, they would lose custody too. Would that be grounds of asylum, based on persecution? I think not.

The main difference is that homeschooling per se, or spanking, or allowing solo sailing around the world, aren't basic human rights. In some countries they are rights, in some they aren't. But it's not a human right. All they have to do to keep custody, is follow the laws and not homeschool. Or with the spanking example, to stop spanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And granted, this is an advocacy organization and their spokesman's words should be taken with a grain of salt, but if the claim regarding Paul-Plett is true, and your government asserts the right to take custody of people's children away for trying to homeschool their kids, then I'm appalled, and think that even by Tear's demand of an existential standard, parents in this situation certainly do deserve to be granted asylum. My foot is nowhere near my mouth. If that claim is true, then this is a human rights abuse.

---

In that case I would agree that it is an asylum issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

In that case I would agree that it is an asylum issue.

---

What about the human right of the child to a proper education? Again, they're arguing on religious grounds which are not valid. Thus their case is not valid.

Are we now bowing to every moronic notion some pie in the sky deity hands down to us? Again, do you bow to the demands of Muslism who want to introduce the Shari'a? You don't? Who'd have guessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

What about the human right of the child to a proper education? Again, they're arguing on religious grounds which are not valid. Thus their case is not valid.

Are we now bowing to every moronic notion some pie in the sky deity hands down to us? Again, do you bow to the demands of Muslism who want to introduce the Shari'a? You don't? Who'd have guessed.

---

I think here we have the core of the problem, the US doesn't recognize the right of the child to education. Thus it is more prone to give in when people make claims on the basis of freedom of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

What about the human right of the child to a proper education? Again, they're arguing on religious grounds which are not valid. Thus their case is not valid.

---

But your government plainly thinks that homeschooling can provide an adequate education *even if they're not happy about it*, or they wouldn't already make an exception for families which have to travel a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

But your government plainly thinks that homeschooling can provide an adequate education *even if they're not happy about it*, or they wouldn't already make an exception for families which have to travel a lot.

---

Which makes it all that more funny that the judge in the US awarded the claim. All they needed to do was gest themselves a nice ship to travel up and down the Rhine (for example) and they'd have a legitimate reason to keep their children out of the school system. But that's probably not what this was about anyway, because even outside the school system these people would have to answer to the state where results were concerned.

And then you get that biting fact that they'd still have to teach their children about evolution theory and sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Which makes it all that more funny that the judge in the US awarded the claim. All they needed to do was gest themselves a nice ship to travel up and down the Rhine (for example) and they'd have a legitimate reason to keep their children out of the school system.

---

Actually it makes the judge's decision easier, it makes it clear that Germany is engaging in a discriminatory process, which is a substantial help in requesting the protection of asylum.

Quote:

---

But that's probably not what this was about anyway, because even outside the school system these people would have to answer to the state where results were concerned.

---

Aww, such endearing presumption. There isn't a single jurisdiction in the US where people homeschooling their kids don't have to answer to the state, though the methods by which homeschooling is permitted and monitored differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making any attempt to speak about of comprehensively *the only method our forum-goers understand* either futile or way too much effort than it's worth,.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Actually it makes the judge's decision easier, it makes it clear that Germany is engaging in a discriminatory process, which is a substantial help in requesting the protection of asylum. ,.

---

How so? It's obviously not dependent on one's religion if you're allowed to homeschool or not in Germany. Also, I would dare claim that in no country 'house-dwellers' count as a protected category.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us...chool.html?hpw

I guess that leaves them right where they belong.