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

[Hazir]

Our country, the US was founded primarily on the basis of escaping the religious persecution that was taking place in England. Pilgrims made their way to this land where they settled at Plymouth Rock. Now lets advance forward to when we became a government. The Declaration of Independence was written for the protection of our religious beliefs not for the opposing thereof. The separation of Church and state was written as a way to make sure that the government could in no way shape or form have any influence on the church. This was also written in a time when Christianity was the primary religion. We now have countless religions in our country, even some satanic cults claiming that they have the same religious rights as other religions do. So it's very hard to uphold a true separation between church and state in this new society that we have today.

Yes, this highly offensive national mythology is well known in The Netherlands. A country those people really left before they went to the America's. The real reason why they left The Republic was not religious persecution but the fact that they were just one of many denominations tolerated by the Dutch government.

Also, it doesn't hurt to point out that the part of the New World they went to was a part claimed by the English Crown. One has to wonder why people supposedly fleeing English oppression went back to live under English rule.

[Hazir]

hmm. Well at least now your title is clearer. You have a particular disdain for Christian Fundamentalists, and think that if they homeschool their kids, they'll unleash some vile monster on society. So you welcome Germany stepping in to tell families exactly how and where to educate their children.

If that's your opinion you're welcome to it, even tho I think you're overreaching and overreacting a bit. You should probably also change the title to say So, how's that separation of church and state coming along in Germany?

The people who are "dangerous", in general, most likely weren't homeschooled.

Freedom of religion is best served for the individual if the state nor its institutions can be hijacked by any particular religion. Americans are extra-ordinarily oblivious to the risks of religion in politics. There is only one thing wrong with the separation of state and church in Germany and that is that the state is willing to collect a church tax.

In America on the other hand we see that religion uses its ugly power to keep citizens from equal rights as basic as marriage and self-determination.

[GGT]

Freedom of religion is best served for the individual if the state nor its institutions can be hijacked by any particular religion. Americans are extra-ordinarily oblivious to the risks of religion in politics. There is only one thing wrong with the separation of state and church in Germany and that is that the state is willing to collect a church tax.

In America on the other hand we see that religion uses its ugly power to keep citizens from equal rights as basic as marriage and self-determination.

Isn't that crazy blonde fundie guy an elected official in the Netherlands?

I like how you take an asylum issue that started with education, specifically homeschooling (which could apply to anyone regardless of religious affiliation) and bring in gay rights and marriage. And also try to take the "Europe is Better than the US!" position, just to give another wedgie.

A basic difference in our thinking might be stated like this: The US if full of people who believe our rights are something a government can take away, not something the government gives us.

[Being]

A basic difference in our thinking might be stated like this: The US if full of people who believe our rights are something a government can take away, not something the government gives us.

That sounds a little backward considering the U.S. is our landlord.

[Hazir]

Isn't that crazy blonde fundie guy an elected official in the Netherlands?

I like how you take an asylum issue that started with education, specifically homeschooling (which could apply to anyone regardless of religious affiliation) and bring in gay rights and marriage. And also try to take the "Europe is Better than the US!" position, just to give another wedgie.

A basic difference in our thinking might be stated like this: The US if full of people who believe our rights are something a government can take away, not something the government gives us.

That 'blond guy' isn't a fundie at all, he's extreme right and anti-religion. The more extreme anti-religion positions on this board tune in well with the main stream in Holland.

As for 'people thinking'; most people in Europe don't need an anal fixation on a Constitution 200 years old to figure out that human rights aren't given by a government.

[Being]

...
As for 'people thinking'; most people in Europe don't need an anal fixation on a Constitution 200 years old to figure out that human rights aren't given by a government.

Are they ever denied by a government?

[GGT]

That 'blond guy' isn't a fundie at all, he's extreme right and anti-religion. The more extreme anti-religion positions on this board tune in well with the main stream in Holland.

As for 'people thinking'; most people in Europe don't need an anal fixation on a Constitution 200 years old to figure out that human rights aren't given by a government.

What is this, a contest?

I take exception to your attitude of euro-centricism which always comes up. Not that the US doesn't have our problems, but we're not all the knuckle dragging troglodytes you wish to believe. Besides, your country has just as many issues regarding immigration and asylum, as well as "correctedness".

There's a pony in here somewhere

[Khendraja'aro]

hmm. Well at least now your title is clearer. You have a particular disdain for Christian Fundamentalists, and think that if they homeschool their kids, they'll unleash some vile monster on society. So you welcome Germany stepping in to tell families exactly how and where to educate their children.

If that's your opinion you're welcome to it, even tho I think you're overreaching and overreacting a bit. You should probably also change the title to say So, how's that separation of church and state coming along in Germany?

The people who are "dangerous", in general, most likely weren't homeschooled.

Actually, we don't tell families exactly how and where to educate their children. I don't know where you're getting this particular idiocy from. But have fun spreading that falsehood.

I mean, the EU court recognized that the state's concern for pluralism in conjunction with the readily available options of schools override the parents' wishes in that particular regard. But you're oh so much more wise than them, I guess.

Did you ever look at a German curriculum? Yes, they're so detailed that you don't have any work at all as a teacher. Yeah. I wish.

Do you know the difference between a "regular" school, a Montessori school, a Waldorf school, a Democratic school, a Comenius Projekt school and the countless Alternative schools? Not to mention the Confessional schools. All those schools have variants, of course, e.g. some regular schools concentrate on music, others on science, sports, (dead) languages, you name it.

So, yes, we tell our children exactly where and what to learn. That's why we only have one flavour of schools ... err, wait.

And I have a disdain for Fundamentalists in general, doesn't matter whether they're Christian, Wiccan or Islamic.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yay! Then we can include much of the third world, since they face corruption, more violent police, more religious discrimination etc etc. Let me be more accurate: this definition probably includes more than half of the world's population. That's horse shit. The line should be drawn for existential threats. It's insulting to include "making our kids go to school" with genital mutilation, torture, rape and murder.

One notes that genital mutilation, torture, and rape aren't existential threats. And before you start ranting about semantics, kindly recall we're talking about the law, where semantics is king.

[GGT]

Actually, we don't tell families exactly how and where to educate their children. I don't know where you're getting this particular idiocy from. But have fun spreading that falsehood.

I mean, the EU court recognized that the state's concern for pluralism in conjunction with the readily available options of schools override the parents' wishes in that particular regard. But you're oh so much more wise than them, I guess.

So which is it? You don't tell families exactly how and where, just where? And homes are verboten?

Did you ever look at a German curriculum? Yes, they're so detailed that you don't have any work at all as a teacher. Yeah. I wish.

No, I've never looked at German particulars, but I have looked at some US homeschooling curriculae.

Do you know the difference between a "regular" school, a Montessori school, a Waldorf school, a Democratic school, a Comenius Projekt school and the countless Alternative schools? Not to mention the Confessional schools. All those schools have variants, of course, e.g. some regular schools concentrate on music, others on science, sports, (dead) languages, you name it.

What are you going to ask me next---if I know the differences between Canada's private or public or religious schools? Those are fairly complex in make-up too.

But I went to a Montessori pre-school, I know parents who are active in a Waldorf school, and I've worked at a Lutheran pre-school. I'm not familiar with your other terms. But parochial schools are common here. I also live in an Amish/Anabaptist area, so it's not like I don't know the plethora of options.

So, yes, we tell our children exactly where and what to learn. That's why we only have one flavour of schools ... err, wait.

So why does Germany not recognize at least the potential for homeschooling?

And I have a disdain for Fundamentalists in general, doesn't matter whether they're Christian, Wiccan or Islamic.

So what are you? A government fundie?

[Steely Glint]

I dislike the assumption buried in the post of some of the American that a parent has the right to raise their child in whatever manner they see fit. The rights of the child to, e.g. a comprehensive education, overrides the the rights of the parents to attempt to mold their child's personality and outlook, like some kind of deranged psychology project, based on idealogical whim.

[littlelolligagged]

I dislike the assumption buried in the post of some of the American that a parent has the right to raise their child in whatever manner they see fit. The rights of the child to, e.g. a comprehensive education, overrides the the rights of the parents to attempt to mold their child's personality and outlook, like some kind of deranged psychology project, based on idealogical whim.

I'm an Amerikan, and I support this statement.

[Khendraja'aro]

So which is it? You don't tell families exactly how and where, just where? And homes are verboten?

Where do you get that "exactly" from?

Let me phrase it this way: You have a full spectrum of colours, red to violet. Now I take out the violet. You may choose from the rest. Does that mean I just told you exactly which colour to choose?

No? Weird thing, that. Maybe you should look at your thesaurus once in a while to regain the (not so) hidden meaning behind some words. Like "exactly".

[GGT]

I dislike the assumption buried in the post of some of the American that a parent has the right to raise their child in whatever manner they see fit. The rights of the child to, e.g. a comprehensive education, overrides the the rights of the parents to attempt to mold their child's personality and outlook, like some kind of deranged psychology project, based on idealogical whim.

If you truly believe that, then do you support mandatory state-run boarding school, for all children from the moment they're born until they are properly indoctrinated as the state sees fit? Because there might be some quirk in the family home that can totally undo a comprehensive academic education ya know.

This must be true, since sociopaths, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and even terrorists were predominantly educated and socialized in schools with "other children".

But if you want to explore what "potential harm" means, or how a state defines it, then go ahead.

[']['ear]

Our country, the US was founded primarily on the basis of escaping the religious persecution that was taking place in England. Pilgrims made their way to this land where they settled at Plymouth Rock. Now lets advance forward to when we became a government. The Declaration of Independence was written for the protection of our religious beliefs not for the opposing thereof. The separation of Church and state was written as a way to make sure that the government could in no way shape or form have any influence on the church. This was also written in a time when Christianity was the primary religion. We now have countless religions in our country, even some satanic cults claiming that they have the same religious rights as other religions do. So it's very hard to uphold a true separation between church and state in this new society that we have today.

Why? It's actually easy in practice. The difficulty comes from those constantly trying to insinuate their religion into the fabric of American life.

I actually have quite a few friends that were home schooled. I always thought they were lucky lol!

I hope that's a "Lol I was so stupid to think that back then."

[Khendraja'aro]

So, GGT, you do know Waldorf, Montessori et al and yet ride off on your high horse hollering that the state indoctrinates its citizens' childrens with specific propaganda?

Here's a newsflash for you: Germany has curricula. The US has curricula. Both determine which topics have to be taught. So, if those curricula (according to your logic) determine "exactly" what and where this propaganda is taught, doesn't that mean that the US government is also indoctrinating those poor children in public and private schools alike? Which in turn means that only Homeschoolers are the last bastion of freedom in the US?

Sounds a bit moronic, yet that's the conclusion at which one arrives when applying your logic completely.

[GGT]

So, GGT, you do know Waldorf, Montessori et al and yet ride off on your high horse hollering that the state indoctrinates its citizens' childrens with specific propaganda?

Here's a newsflash for you: Germany has curricula. The US has curricula. Both determine which topics have to be taught. So, if those curricula (according to your logic) determine "exactly" what and where this propaganda is taught, doesn't that mean that the US government is also indoctrinating those poor children in public and private schools alike? Which in turn means that only Homeschoolers are the last bastion of freedom in the US?

Sounds a bit moronic, yet that's the conclusion at which one arrives when applying your logic completely.

Not that I personally agree with it, but the bolded part is where I'm sure the avid Homeschoolers find themselves.

There seems to be a paranoid fear and misunderstanding about what homeschooling is, or can be. There are at least a couple of million families using this venue in the US, and the only real DATA I can find is that these kids end up testing quite high academically compared to their US counterparts (and even internationally).

Their parents for the most part value music, art, civics, and math. They enroll their kids in sports programs and symphonies, and take advantage of college level courses when they can. They get together with other homeschoolers for comprehensive field trips, they have much more freedom to nurture a child's innate interestes and abilities. They go on to be physicians, nurses, teachers, artists, authors...the gamut.


There seems to be some irrational fear that all kids who are homeschooled will end up being Christian jihadist martyrs or something, or that they'll end up like science teachers like biogal, but that's just myth.

I've always said that public schools should teach both sex ed and abstinence, evolution and creationism, and I still believe that. I don't like the Pope supporting any missionary who won't provide condoms, for example, but that's got less to do with homeschooling than global politics and money.

[Steely Glint]

If you truly believe that, then do you support mandatory state-run boarding school, for all children from the moment they're born until they are properly indoctrinated as the state sees fit? Because there might be some quirk in the family home that can totally undo a comprehensive academic education ya know.

This must be true, since sociopaths, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and even terrorists were predominantly educated and socialized in schools with "other children".

But if you want to explore what "potential harm" means, or how a state defines it, then go ahead.

*sigh*

GG, do try and remember that there are intelligent people reading this.

Let's just break just that down. First sentence: "If you truly believe that then do you support a mandatory state running boarding school" - non-sequitur. It does not follow at all from what I said that I would support mandatory state run boarding schools. False dichotomy; the idea that it's this or letting parents treat children as their own person play things. And a straw-man attack - based on a easier to attack characterization of what I actually said.

"indoctrinated as the state sees fit" - so education is indoctrination, in your eyes?

"because there might be some quirk in the family home that can totally undo a comprehensive education" - vague and meaningless. What 'quirks' do you have in mind?

Second paragraph. Red herring. I'm not talking about sociopaths or murderers or anything else. I'm talking about parents willfully denying education to their children, because they're stupid cunts for religious reasons. It's really no different to parents denying health-care to their children, because they're stupid cunts for religious reasons. Yet I do not see you yammering about HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT TELL PARENTS HOW TO TREAT ILLNESSES DOWN TO EVERY LAST DETAIL BLAH BLAH... or do I?

Third paragraph - "But if you want to explore what "potential harm" means, or how a state defines it, then go ahead." No, I actually don't because that isn't anything to do with what I was talking about, which is whether or not parents have the right to put the well-being of their children at risk for the sake of ideology (hint: they don't).

[GGT]

*sigh*

GG, do try and remember that there are intelligent people reading this.

Let's just break just that down. First sentence: "If you truly believe that then do you support a mandatory state running boarding school" - non-sequitur. It does not follow at all from what I said that I would support mandatory state run boarding schools. False dichotomy; the idea that it's this or letting parents treat children as their own person play things. And a straw-man attack - based on a easier to attack characterization of what I actually said.

"indoctrinated as the state sees fit" - so education is indoctrination, in your eyes?

"because there might be some quirk in the family home that can totally undo a comprehensive education" - vague and meaningless. What 'quirks' do you have in mind?

Second paragraph. Red herring. I'm not talking about sociopaths or murderers or anything else. I'm talking about parents willfully denying education to their children, because they're stupid cunts for religious reasons. It's really no different to parents denying health-care to their children, because they're stupid cunts for religious reasons. Yet I do not see you yammering about HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT TELL PARENTS HOW TO TREAT ILLNESSES DOWN TO EVERY LAST DETAIL BLAH BLAH... or do I?

Third paragraph - "But if you want to explore what "potential harm" means, or how a state defines it, then go ahead." No, I actually don't because that isn't anything to do with what I was talking about, which is whether or not parents have the right to put the well-being of their children at risk for the sake of ideology (hint: they don't).

They're not denying their children an education tho Steely. Read my previous post about DATA. If you really think these parents are harming their children (by denying them an education) then provide proof.

They're not saying they want to keep the kids at home eating PopTarts and reading the Bible. And it's a red herring to compare this to health care, because homeschoolers aren't all Christian Scientists or LDS who don't believe in vaccinations, chemotherapy, or blood transfusions.

You can find those folks in public and/or private schools.

[Steely Glint]

I'm not talking about these particular couple, but about the general principle expressed by many in these thread that parents can educate their kids however they like. You say they don't want to keep their kids at home eating PopTarts and reading the Bible. Fine. But what if they did? Would that be their 'right'?

I bring health-care into this as an illustrative example against the Parents Can Do Whatever They Like With Their Kids Because They're Their Parents argument, not as an attack on homeschooling. Indeed, there are arguments for and against homeschooling. Not really the issue I was trying to address.

[GGT]

etc etc

Indeed, there are arguments for and against homeschooling. Not really the issue I was trying to address.

As I said earlier, and trying very hard not to get sucked into the tangents, I AM trying to keep this to Home Schooling. Germany says it has no place in their nation, the US says yes it does. It's even become an asylum issue.

[Steely Glint]

You probably shouldn't have replied to my post, then?

[GGT]

You probably shouldn't have replied to my post, then?

Whyevernot? You're trying to lead into a debate about values and parenting, or dominance and wisdom of the state, or religion (as Khen tried with his title, and Hazir tried with his tangents).

I'm trying to wind this back to the original needle in the haystack: the "right" to homeschool one's children.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's nice that you think that way. However, the fact that HSLDA lawyer Mike Donnelly pulled a Godwin paints a slightly different view.

http://www.hslda.org/hs/internationa.../201001260.asp

I read the article. I see absolutely nothing in there that resembles a reference to Nazi Germany, which merits declaring a Godwin. The remark placing Germany in with China bears a remarkable resemblance to comments you've made about the US regarding the death penalty, and as such I really can't see justification for your outrage, except that you can't take your own medicine, a bit of hypocrisy I have no sympathy for. 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.

[Hazir]

I'm an Amerikan, and I support this statement.

I'm not Amerikan and I also support that statement, as does the highest court in my land/continent.

What they say is quite clear and logical; the right of a child to education is one that must be guaranteed by the state. That means by definition the state is at least partially responsable for the education of a child. The state can not free itself from this obligation. The right of the parent to choose a place of education is to be understood as existing only because the child has a right to education. And the state will still have the obligation and right to set rules.

[Khendraja'aro]

I read the article. I see absolutely nothing in there that resembles a reference to Nazi Germany, which merits declaring a Godwin. The remark placing Germany in with China bears a remarkable resemblance to comments you've made about the US regarding the death penalty, and as such I really can't see justification for your outrage, except that you can't take your own medicine, a bit of hypocrisy I have no sympathy for. 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.

So, inability to read as well?

This is simply about the German state trying to coerce ideological uniformity in a way that is frighteningly reminiscent of past history.

If that is not a reference to Nazi Germany, then I don't know what is. Moron. I even quoted it.

And the US government does not take children away when they're abused? Good to know.

Not that I personally agree with it, but the bolded part is where I'm sure the avid Homeschoolers find themselves.

There seems to be a paranoid fear and misunderstanding about what homeschooling is, or can be. There are at least a couple of million families using this venue in the US, and the only real DATA I can find is that these kids end up testing quite high academically compared to their US counterparts (and even internationally).

Their parents for the most part value music, art, civics, and math. They enroll their kids in sports programs and symphonies, and take advantage of college level courses when they can. They get together with other homeschoolers for comprehensive field trips, they have much more freedom to nurture a child's innate interestes and abilities. They go on to be physicians, nurses, teachers, artists, authors...the gamut.


There seems to be some irrational fear that all kids who are homeschooled will end up being Christian jihadist martyrs or something, or that they'll end up like science teachers like biogal, but that's just myth.

I've always said that public schools should teach both sex ed and abstinence, evolution and creationism, and I still believe that. I don't like the Pope supporting any missionary who won't provide condoms, for example, but that's got less to do with homeschooling than global politics and money.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you advocated teaching creationism you lost all credit and should bugger out of this discussion. Creationism has no merit to be taught in school at all. None. Zip. Zilch.
The same goes for the moronic abstinence notion. Does not work as your country regularly demonstrates.

And you still did not get the difference between your run-of-the-mill homeschoolers in the US and these idiots. Homeschooling on religious grounds is not something I want to see here. This is a secular country.

[GGT]

So, inability to read as well?

If that is not a reference to Nazi Germany, then I don't know what is. Moron. I even quoted it.

And the US government does not take children away when they're abused? Good to know.

Fuzzy isn't a moron.

I'm sorry, but as soon as you advocated teaching creationism you lost all credit and should bugger out of this discussion. Creationism has no merit to be taught in school at all. None. Zip. Zilch.
The same goes for the moronic abstinence notion. Does not work as your country regularly demonstrates.

And you still did not get the difference between your run-of-the-mill homeschoolers in the US and these idiots. Homeschooling on religious grounds is not something I want to see here. This is a secular country.

You're not "sorry" at all. You want to support your state and its judges. You even misconstrue my words and claim I advocate creationism, when in fact I simply suggest it should taught as one belief that many have, as comparison and contrast. Same as saying abstinence is an option, which it IS. I'd rather give kids all the info, even the ugly things, and encourage them to make rational decisions. They'll decide that evolution and birth control are scientific reasonings, but it won't be rammed down their throat.

But I'll just bugger out now, since you not only don't want to see homeschooling in your country, you also don't want honest repartee in this forum. Compromise isn't really something you comprehend. No wonder that family applied for asylum in the US.....

[LittleFuzzy]

So, inability to read as well?



If that is not a reference to Nazi Germany, then I don't know what is. Moron. I even quoted it.

I know you quoted it, I read it there and in the article and I think you're being hypersensitive and reading too much into it.

And the US government does not take children away when they're abused? Good to know.

The threat of ripping families apart because those families are engaging in an educational option we allow and consider unobjectionable strikes me as something perfectly worthy of asylum. If you feel that happens to unfairly characterize your country as wrongheaded and a human-rights abuser, tough shit. It's not like your creation and exploitation of multi-generational second-class citizens doesn't already put you in that boat.

[Flixy]

They wanted to Home-school their kids. Germany doesn't allow that. So they go to the U.S where they can.

Seems like a sound case for asylum to me.:/

Not necessarily.

Just because you don't agree with a certain law in itself isn't enough reason for asylum. It can be a reason to migrate to another country, sure, but asylum? That is meant for persecution, and I wouldn't consider this persecution. It apaprently won't set a legal precedent, but it does seem to lower the bar for asylum seekers.

[Loki]

Not necessarily.

Just because you don't agree with a certain law in itself isn't enough reason for asylum. It can be a reason to migrate to another country, sure, but asylum? That is meant for persecution, and I wouldn't consider this persecution. It apaprently won't set a legal precedent, but it does seem to lower the bar for asylum seekers.

Is losing custody of your child for breaking a law that is not considered to be valid in many other similar countries a valid reason to claim asylum elsewhere?