Germans get political asylum in the US

[ravdin]

A lot of people around the world are robbed, subjugated, tortured, and even murdered by despotic governments and/or totalitarian religious thugs. So it's a fine thing for a free nation to have a tradition of sheltering political refugees who are facing certain imprisonment or death at home for doing nothing more than speaking their minds. It's because of this principle that I'm especially offended by these people:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100302/us_time/09171196809900

In a perverted twist, a US judge has decided to grant political asylum to this German family because they do not want their children to have a secular education.

I say it's time to send this family back where they came from. Where are the teabaggers when we need them?

[I Ratant]

"Your humble masses yearning to be free"...
Is it political persecution when the state declares the parents to be idiots? :)
As long as HSLDA pays the upkeep, and not we honest secular payers, where's the beef?

[ddt]

There was another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165947) on this a month ago, so I asked the mods to merge them.

And yes, I agree with you that this is over the top. When they want their kids to learn religion, send them to Sunday school. It has no (necessary) place in normal school.

And I note that for the price of their Steinway, they could also have easily afforded a private school in Germany instead of moving.

I think it's also offensive of Yahoo to include a link about East Germany. These parents are from Baden Württemberg, near the French border - definitely West-German.

[WildCat]

Is the Stasi after them?

[ddt]

Is the Stasi after them?

There's this island in former East Germany where there's still a handful of Stasi officers spying on each other who are unaware the Berlin Wall came down over 20 years ago.

I hear it's the same island where Hitler tried out his first atom bomb (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167238). ;)

[Ziggurat]

As far as I can tell, the rationale for granting asylum was that they were persecuted for homeschooling their children. Which could apply regardless of the reason the parents wanted to homeschool their children. And it also makes the argument that they could have sent their children to a private school irrelevant. The question is, do parents have a right to homeschool their children? Apparently the government of Germany says no, and the government of the US says yes. I don't see religion having anything to do with the decision to grant asylum. Nor do I have a problem with the US government saying that it's a right.

[ddt]

As far as I can tell, the rationale for granting asylum was that they were persecuted for homeschooling their children. Which could apply regardless of the reason the parents wanted to homeschool their children. And it also makes the argument that they could have sent their children to a private school irrelevant. The question is, do parents have a right to homeschool their children? Apparently the government of Germany says no, and the government of the US says yes. I don't see religion having anything to do with the decision to grant asylum. Nor do I have a problem with the US government saying that it's a right.

Yes, religion has to do with it. It's the reason they wanted to homeschool their children. They took issue with "obscene" words in schoolbooks. The German ministry had suggested to them sending their kids to private school, or even to found their own private school - see the other thread. They preferred instead to play the martyr.

I note that the HSLDA is not just a pro-homeschooling organization, but is staunchly Christian. I have the vague impression that most US homeschoolers do so out of religious reasons, and would be perfectly content if they could send their kids to a school that caters their brand of religion.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, religion has to do with it. It's the reason they wanted to homeschool their children.

You missed my point. There's no reason to think the US cares why they chose to homeschool their children. And my comment was about the US decision, not the decision of the parents.

They took issue with "obscene" words in schoolbooks.

An atheist could do the same.

The German ministry had suggested to them sending their kids to private school, or even to found their own private school - see the other thread. They preferred instead to play the martyr.

They preferred to homeschool their children. Which means private schools are no remedy for them. As far as I can tell, the US doesn't care why they chose to homeschool, nor do I see any reason the US should care. Our government thinks it's a right, that is enough. My freedom of speech protects my right to say stupid things, the fact that something I say is stupid doesn't make it any less of a violation of my rights to keep me from saying it.

I note that the HSLDA is not just a pro-homeschooling organization, but is staunchly Christian.

I note that the ACLU is not just a pro-first-amendment organization, but is staunchly liberal.

So what? That's got nothing to do with the decision of the US government.

I have the vague impression that most US homeschoolers do so out of religious reasons, and would be perfectly content if they could send their kids to a school that caters their brand of religion.

That too is irrelevant. Most people who say, "Jesus is the son of God and my personal savior" do so out of religious reasons. But freedom of speech protects everyone's right to say that, regardless of why they might do so. If people have the right to home school their children, the reasons they might have for choosing to do so are irrelevant to that right.

[Chaos]

An atheist could do the same.

Atheists could also burn people at the stake for having the wrong opinions, or bury a girl alive for talking to boys. Yet, funnily enough, they never do so. Nor do they actually object to "obscene language" to the point of claiming political martyrdom.

[Ziggurat]

Atheists could also burn people at the stake for having the wrong opinions, or bury a girl alive for talking to boys. Yet, funnily enough, they never do so. Nor do they actually object to "obscene language" to the point of claiming political martyrdom.

Way to miss the point, Chaos. You can keep harping on religion all you want to, but I note you have remained silent about the German government's position that people should not be permitted to homeschool their children.

[Chaos]

Way to miss the point, Chaos. You can keep harping on religion all you want to, but I note you have remained silent about the German government's position that people should not be permitted to homeschool their children.

I am no more in favor of allowing religious people to ignore the laws against homeschooling that I am in favor of their ignoring any other laws.

I don´t know how things are in the US, but here in Germany, you can vote in an election every couple of years, with different parties in them which have different agendas; you even get to pick the one you like most. The ones that get elected get to make/change/abolish laws. The whole thing is called "representative government".

So, it´s not like religious people cannot influence the laws. They can do that. However, they canNOT simple ignore the laws they don´t like.

On the surface, the issue is homeschooling; below the surface, this is - once again - all about religious fanatics putting their faith above the law.

[Ziggurat]

I am no more in favor of allowing religious people to ignore the laws against homeschooling that I am in favor of their ignoring any other laws.

Again, you missed my point. The issue is the laws themselves. Are the laws justified? If they are not, then granting asylum was the right thing to do, regardless of the motives of that family.

I don´t know how things are in the US, but here in Germany, you can vote in an election every couple of years, with different parties in them which have different agendas; you even get to pick the one you like most. The ones that get elected get to make/change/abolish laws. The whole thing is called "representative government".

Ever heard the phrase, "tyranny of the majority", Chaos? Does a majority have the right to do anything to you? Surely not. What, then, are the limits? And why do you refuse to even address this issue? I am left to conclude it's because you cannot form an argument. You are happy to stick it to these folks because they're the sort you don't like, doing something you don't approve of. But you can't actually justify it.

[I Ratant]

I think the state has a vested interest in the education of its citizens.
Informed citizens make good voters.
If there's a standard for home schooling that home schools must adhere to, then OK, toss in the woo -in addition-.
If home schooling graduates dummies, then home schooling needs reviewing.
I do believe the German method comes from long experience with schooling and the pitfalls of no schooling.. that which has no standards to meet.
My Aero Professor, an antique German, told of the way even the marginally capable in Germany were taught the "times 2" tables to permit them to be functional in commerce.
Our less structured society can apparently permit the less well educated for reasons of freedom of the indivdual, but right now, the state schools aren't shining examples of scholarship, with its "peer promotions" based on time in school, not what has been learned.
A comprehensive test of home schooling looking at the various ways its done and the results would be worthwhile.
Any home-schooled rocket scientists? :)

[Chaos]

Again, you missed my point. The issue is the laws themselves. Are the laws justified? If they are not, then granting asylum was the right thing to do, regardless of the motives of that family.

Of course the law is justified. It is in accord with our constitution. Just because a tiny minority of religious fanatics doesn´t like it, that doesn´t mean it is not justified.

Ever heard the phrase, "tyranny of the majority", Chaos? Does a majority have the right to do anything to you? Surely not. What, then, are the limits? And why do you refuse to even address this issue? I am left to conclude it's because you cannot form an argument. You are happy to stick it to these folks because they're the sort you don't like, doing something you don't approve of. But you can't actually justify it.

Cut the nonsense. You can´t trot out "tyranny of the majority" every time you don´t like something. A crucial part of being part of a society is the willingness to accept decisions you do not like. There are protections for minorities, but you cannot simply cry foul whenever something not covered by these exceptions goes against your wishes.

What should we do? Allow Nazis to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into goose-stepping racist morons? Allow Muslim extremists to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into suicide bombers?

And why stop there? Why not legalize child porn, because after all the people who consume such stuff don´t like the laws against it? If "tyranny of the majority" is a legitimate argument, you cannot deny pedophiles the right that you demand for religious fanatics.

[ponderingturtle]

Ever heard the phrase, "tyranny of the majority", Chaos? Does a majority have the right to do anything to you? Surely not. What, then, are the limits? And why do you refuse to even address this issue? I am left to conclude it's because you cannot form an argument. You are happy to stick it to these folks because they're the sort you don't like, doing something you don't approve of. But you can't actually justify it.

So what is the limit of what parents should be required to have their children learn? You get the state also interfearing in so called child abuse, when all the parents are doing is disciplining their kids.

[Ziggurat]

Of course the law is justified. It is in accord with our constitution.

Being in accord with your constitution makes it legal. That isn't the same thing as being justified.

Cut the nonsense. You can´t trot out "tyranny of the majority" every time you don´t like something.

I'm not trotting it out because I don't like something, Chaos. I'm trotting it out to demonstrate that your "democracy" argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. Don't make false arguments, and I won't have to counter them.

A crucial part of being part of a society is the willingness to accept decisions you do not like.

Up to a point, yes. And if someone cannot tolerate those decisions, well, isn't leaving that society rather an appropriate response? Seems like you should be happy that we took these folks off your hands. And yet, you aren't.

What should we do? Allow Nazis to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into goose-stepping racist morons?

Do you really think that would be a problem? If so, well, that says something very damning about German society, and I'm sorry to see that you're getting so worked up about Christians when you've got so many Nazis in your midst.

Not to mention, there's more than a little irony in appealing to the dangers of a collectivist authoritarian ideology to argue against allowing individualist actions.

Allow Muslim extremists to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into suicide bombers?

Parents are generally not the ones who turn muslim children into suicide bombers. And it happens without homeschooling, so I see little reason to think homeschooling would change the problem.

If "tyranny of the majority" is a legitimate argument, you cannot deny pedophiles the right that you demand for religious fanatics.

You're clueless, Chaos. "tyranny of the majority" is a valid argument, it's just not an absolute one. And unlike your earlier attempts to appeal to democracy, I never claimed it was either. Of course there's a balance between personal rights and the boundaries society can impose. But you have yet to form an effective argument demonstrating why homeschooling falls on one side of the line and not the other. Pointing out that some things fall on one side doesn't mean this thing does. And your references to Nazis and muslim suicide bombers are not exactly very convincing either.

[Alt+F4]

What should we do? Allow Nazis to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into goose-stepping racist morons? Allow Muslim extremists to homeschool their kids, so they can turn them into suicide bombers?

We already allow this, in the U.S. at least. When children are home schooled we really don't know what they are being taught. Parents have every right to indoctrinate their children into whatever their political or religious leanings are. Just don't ask my tax dollars to pay for it in a public school.

[Architect]

In Scotland, parents are permitted to home school however the law is quite clear; if the local education authority has reason to believe that the education provided is not sufficient for his (or her) needs then they have a duty to intervene. The Scottish Government recommends that there be an annual review of the education provided, although this is not a legal obligation.

This is not, of course, just about a parent's right to educate their children in whatever way they see fit but rather to ensure that the child gets an education adequate to allow them to survive/get employment/make the most of themselves. It seems to me that those who see the parents as having an unfettered right to do what they want rather overlook this aspect.

[Alt+F4]

This is not, of course, just about a parent's right to educate their children in whatever way they see fit but rather to ensure that the child gets an education adequate to allow them to survive/get employment/make the most of themselves. It seems to me that those who see the parents as having an unfettered right to do what they want rather overlook this aspect.

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.

[Architect]

And under those circumstances my understanding is that the Scottish educational system would not, in fact, be entitled to intervene. If, however, you were to set up a school espousing such values then the Scottish Government would most certainly come to pay you a visit.

[Ziggurat]

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.

A child placed in a public school can still be indoctrinated by the parents. So that problem is not peculiar to homeschooling, and it is not fixed by public schooling either. But it does raise the question of what the role of schools should be. If schools are merely intended to teach children a set of skills and a base of knowledge (reading, mathematics, etc) that are considered requirements for effective integration into society as adults, then homeschooling appears to be a success, and many public schools utter failures. And if you want schools to do more than that on a compulsory level (optional activities like sports are a separate issue), you need to figure out what else you think they need to do, and why making it compulsory is justified. And then, if you want to argue against allowing homeschooling, why homeschooling cannot be trusted to provide it.

[ZeeGerman]

As far as I can tell, the rationale for granting asylum was that they were persecuted for homeschooling their children. Which could apply regardless of the reason the parents wanted to homeschool their children. And it also makes the argument that they could have sent their children to a private school irrelevant. The question is, do parents have a right to homeschool their children? Apparently the government of Germany says no, and the government of the US says yes. I don't see religion having anything to do with the decision to grant asylum. Nor do I have a problem with the US government saying that it's a right.


The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee

[Alt+F4]

A child placed in a public school can still be indoctrinated by the parents. So that problem is not peculiar to homeschooling, and it is not fixed by public schooling either. But it does raise the question of what the role of schools should be. If schools are merely intended to teach children a set of skills and a base of knowledge (reading, mathematics, etc) that are considered requirements for effective integration into society as adults, then homeschooling appears to be a success, and many public schools utter failures. And if you want schools to do more than that on a compulsory level (optional activities like sports are a separate issue), you need to figure out what else you think they need to do, and why making it compulsory is justified. And then, if you want to argue against allowing homeschooling, why homeschooling cannot be trusted to provide it.

Homeschooled kids don't have the biggest problems facing public school education: parental apathy, transience, absenteeism and limited English. Also, the teacher/student ratio is very low with homeschoolers (unless of course you're a Mormon fundamentalist).

As for homeschooling to be a "sucess" then it depends on your definition of educational success. If sucess is based on high scores on standardized tests, then I guess they are a sucess. If sucess is based on become productive citizen in a democracy then I can't really say.

[Darat]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

...snip...

Have to agree, it seems very strange grounds for granting asylum.

[Chaos]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee

:D

You made my day... or my night, as the case may be.

[Chaos]

Being in accord with your constitution makes it legal. That isn't the same thing as being justified.

How about you tell me what your mysterious "justified" is supposed to mean, then?

I'm not trotting it out because I don't like something, Chaos. I'm trotting it out to demonstrate that your "democracy" argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. Don't make false arguments, and I won't have to counter them.

You´re trotting it out to make a claim. You haven´t demonstrated anything, only repeated Libertarian "representative government I don´t agree with is tyranny" rhetoric.

Up to a point, yes. And if someone cannot tolerate those decisions, well, isn't leaving that society rather an appropriate response? Seems like you should be happy that we took these folks off your hands. And yet, you aren't.

First of all, the appropriate response is to leave instead of breaking the law, not to break the law and then proclaim yourself a martyr once it bites you in the ass.

Do you really think that would be a problem? If so, well, that says something very damning about German society, and I'm sorry to see that you're getting so worked up about Christians when you've got so many Nazis in your midst.

Is that supposed to be a strawman, or do you really believe this nonsense?

Turning kids into religious fanatics by withholding contact to non-fanatics from them harms these children - the same goes for political fanaticism.

Not to mention, there's more than a little irony in appealing to the dangers of a collectivist authoritarian ideology to argue against allowing individualist actions.

How about the danger of a group seeking to institute a fascist dictatorship and commit violent crimes against "the enemy"? Oh, I see, not your problem, right. I suppose you don´t object to foreigners or "ticks" (left-wingers) being beaten up or lynched by those poor persecuted Neonazis?

You're clueless, Chaos. "tyranny of the majority" is a valid argument, it's just not an absolute one. And unlike your earlier attempts to appeal to democracy, I never claimed it was either. Of course there's a balance between personal rights and the boundaries society can impose. But you have yet to form an effective argument demonstrating why homeschooling falls on one side of the line and not the other. Pointing out that some things fall on one side doesn't mean this thing does. And your references to Nazis and muslim suicide bombers are not exactly very convincing either.

You have yet to make your argument that homeschooling falls on the other side. You spoke up against outlawing it - now you make your case.

[Ziggurat]

Is that supposed to be a strawman, or do you really believe this nonsense?

I've got no idea how many Nazis are floating around Germany, waiting to indoctrinate their children as soon as they can get them out of school. So you tell me, you're the one who thinks it's a big enough threat to be relevant in this discussion.

How about the danger of a group seeking to institute a fascist dictatorship and commit violent crimes against "the enemy"? Oh, I see, not your problem, right.

Indeed, it's not my problem. As in, we allow homeschooling, and we don't have that problem. Is Germany just a worse society than the US?

I suppose you don´t object to foreigners or "ticks" (left-wingers) being beaten up or lynched by those poor persecuted Neonazis?

I guess that's a "yes" to my previous question.

[I Ratant]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee
.
Why are we importing crazies?

[Alt+F4]

.
Why are we importing crazies?

I know! It's not like we are running out of them in the U.S. :cyclops:

[Ziggurat]

Homeschooled kids don't have the biggest problems facing public school education: parental apathy, transience, absenteeism and limited English. Also, the teacher/student ratio is very low with homeschoolers (unless of course you're a Mormon fundamentalist).

Indeed. Given these advantages, why should the state prevent it?

As for homeschooling to be a "sucess" then it depends on your definition of educational success.

Which is directly related to my question about the purpose of schools.

If sucess is based on high scores on standardized tests, then I guess they are a sucess.

Indeed.

If sucess is based on become productive citizen in a democracy then I can't really say.

I have seen no evidence that they fail in this regard. In fact, I've seen no evidence that they even perform as badly as inner city schools do.

[ddt]

You missed my point. There's no reason to think the US cares why they chose to homeschool their children. And my comment was about the US decision, not the decision of the parents.
As far as I understand the verdict of the US judge indeed indeed only focused on this question and left religion out of it. So yes, you're right.

However, I'm at a loss - as ZeeGerman aptly pointed out - how this could be grounds for asylum. This is obviously another issue where there are differing views on such rights on both sides of the Atlantic. Admittedly, within Europe, Germany is the most extreme case, with a total prohibition on home schooling, where other European countries have provisions for home schooling but not as liberal as in the US. I note, however, that German parents before have gone to not only the German court, but also to the ECHR, and that the German ban on homeschooling has been upheld there.


They preferred to homeschool their children. Which means private schools are no remedy for them.
Frankly, I can't imagine they couldn't find a suitable school in the Stuttgart area (they live in Bissingen an der Teck). I scoured some German news sites and blogs, and haven't found a definite time line, nor an interview in which they were asked about that. They were approached by the HSLDA, who were eager to establish a precedent of German "refugees".


As far as I can tell, the US doesn't care why they chose to homeschool, nor do I see any reason the US should care. Our government thinks it's a right, that is enough.
However, I think it's stark then to say it's grounds to grant asylum. That the US thinks homeschooling is a right for its citizens/residents, doesn't mean it has to admit anyone from all over the world for that reason.


I note that the ACLU is not just a pro-first-amendment organization, but is staunchly liberal.
I did express myself poorly, or incompletely. The ACLU may be liberal, but it defends communists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, alike - and it restricts itself to 1st amendment issues. Per wiki, the HSLDA shows its colours by advocating Christian causes outside the homeschooling issue.


That too is irrelevant. Most people who say, "Jesus is the son of God and my personal savior" do so out of religious reasons. But freedom of speech protects everyone's right to say that, regardless of why they might do so. If people have the right to home school their children, the reasons they might have for choosing to do so are irrelevant to that right.
Which brings us back to the question whether homeschooling is such a fundamental right that it warrants giving people asylum. And frankly, I think that's overt the top and offends the European courts that didn't rule it as such.

It also doesn't take into account the possibilities the parents had: sending their kids to a "suitable" private school, which are funded in Germany by the state for 70% of the funding public schools get. It also doesn't take into account the reasons they had for pulling their kids from the public school. What I found in this respect were two statements: for one, that they thought their kids heard "obscene" words - not specified which, so I suspect it's just the normal words for sexual body parts. For two, that the school teaches the kids more about witches and vampires than about God - my interpretation: they read Harry Potter in class and not the Bible. Gasp.

[Ziggurat]

Which brings us back to the question whether homeschooling is such a fundamental right that it warrants giving people asylum.

Yes, it does. That is indeed the fundamental question here. This particular court thought it did. And the reasons it thought it did don't appear to have anything to do with religion. Was the court wrong? Perhaps. Does the court decision have anything to do with religion? Not really.

It also doesn't take into account the possibilities the parents had

That's irrelevant. If something is a fundamental right, the presence of alternatives isn't sufficient to justify denying that right. And if it's not a right, it can be denied with or without the presence of alternatives.

It also doesn't take into account the reasons they had for pulling their kids from the public school.

That too is irrelevant. Motives don't matter here. The German state doesn't care what the motive is for breaking a German law, and the US government doesn't care about the motive for exercising what this court considered a right. They may matter when you're trying to figure out whether or not you personally sympathize with these folks, but they are beside the point legally, for both German and US courts.

[JWideman]

Homeschooled kids do well on standardized tests because there's a lesson plan homeschoolers can buy. The kids won't learn anything else, but they'll ace those standardized English and Math tests.

[ddt]

Yes, it does. That is indeed the fundamental question here. This particular court thought it did. And the reasons it thought it did don't appear to have anything to do with religion. Was the court wrong? Perhaps. Does the court decision have anything to do with religion? Not really.
I agree with this analysis.

On the question whether the court was right or wrong, I have the feeling we have to settle for "we agree to disagree". :) I'll try anyway. Which amendment to the constitution, or which SCOTUS decision, gives this fundamental right?


That's irrelevant. If something is a fundamental right, the presence of alternatives isn't sufficient to justify denying that right. And if it's not a right, it can be denied with or without the presence of alternatives.
Yep.


That too is irrelevant. Motives don't matter here. The German state doesn't care what the motive is for breaking a German law, and the US government doesn't care about the motive for exercising what this court considered a right. They may matter when you're trying to figure out whether or not you personally sympathize with these folks, but they are beside the point legally, for both German and US courts.
I disagree. The German state, or a German court, will react quite differently to these two cases.

1) Our kid is a cripple, we don't have a car, there's no bus running and the nearest school is 20 kilometers.

2) We don't like our kid hearing the word "penis" in third grade, nor do we like him/her reading Harry Potter.

[Foolmewunz]

Ummm, I'll take "Activists in the Judiciary" for $1000, Alex.


Interesting how the conservative element decries judiciary activism as long as it's of the Berger Court nature.

Gee, now how'd it wind up in the courts in Tennessee? The feds are appealing the decision and rightfully so. The judge is taking an issue - asylum - designed to protect life and limb, and misapplying it to a philosophical lifestyle choice.

I go both ways on homeschooling. But I do not see it as a political asylum issue.

Ziggurat - do you actually believe that homeschooling is one of those basic inalienable rights? I'm searching for it in the Old and New Testaments, the Constitution of the USA, and the State Constitution of Tennessee. It doesn't seem to be there, explicitly or implicitly.

Are you so hellbent on supporting homeschooling that you are willing to apply the political asylum doctrine - in a country not noted for its repression of ideas. Think hard before you just give a kneejerk response, 'cuz I have bad news for you.... homeschooling is illegal in China, and all Chinese education is secular. Now how much room do you think that judge has on his calendar in Speedbump, TN? I've got 235,000,000 children I need to send in applications for.

[Chaos]

I've got no idea how many Nazis are floating around Germany, waiting to indoctrinate their children as soon as they can get them out of school. So you tell me, you're the one who thinks it's a big enough threat to be relevant in this discussion.



Indeed, it's not my problem. As in, we allow homeschooling, and we don't have that problem. Is Germany just a worse society than the US?



I guess that's a "yes" to my previous question.

I´m done with you for now. Come back when you´re ready to debate honestly.

[ponderingturtle]

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.

Maybe, but in this case it seems the parents had issues with specific words being taught. It seems likely they will give the whole sexual reproduction thing a miss in biology class.

[Ziggurat]

On the question whether the court was right or wrong, I have the feeling we have to settle for "we agree to disagree". :)

How do you know I'm not playing devil's advocate? ;)

I'll try anyway. Which amendment to the constitution, or which SCOTUS decision, gives this fundamental right?

I expect the court would probably have considered home schooling something covered by the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I disagree. The German state, or a German court, will react quite differently to these two cases.

1) Our kid is a cripple, we don't have a car, there's no bus running and the nearest school is 20 kilometers.

2) We don't like our kid hearing the word "penis" in third grade, nor do we like him/her reading Harry Potter.

Yes, there's a difference. But the relevant difference for the court is almost certainly not motive, but ability. Just consider what would likely happen if both those conditions applied to the same case. It would be perverse if the state demanded school attendance where it was not possible because the motives were wrong.

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat - do you actually believe that homeschooling is one of those basic inalienable rights? I'm searching for it in the Old and New Testaments, the Constitution of the USA, and the State Constitution of Tennessee. It doesn't seem to be there, explicitly or implicitly.

Do you think the right to privacy is in there, explicitly or implicitly?

Are you so hellbent on supporting homeschooling that you are willing to apply the political asylum doctrine - in a country not noted for its repression of ideas.

Actually, no, I'm not sure it was the right decision. That actually was not really my point. My main point is that the relevant legal questions here are not about religion.

Think hard before you just give a kneejerk response, 'cuz I have bad news for you.... homeschooling is illegal in China, and all Chinese education is secular.

I'm not the one you need to worry about giving knee jerk responses. You should ponder why your example fits exactly what I've been saying.

Now how much room do you think that judge has on his calendar in Speedbump, TN? I've got 235,000,000 children I need to send in applications for.

Don't be silly. China also oppresses its citizens politically with the threat of violence, and we're not going to give them all asylum for that, even though that's exactly what the laws were designed for.

[Ziggurat]

I´m done with you for now. Come back when you´re ready to debate honestly.

I'm taking my ball and going home! :mad:
Come now, Chaos. You're the one who told me that German Nazis were a problem. There's really no point in acting offended, I'm just taking you at your word.

[Chaos]

I'm taking my ball and going home! :mad:
Come now, Chaos. You're the one who told me that German Nazis were a problem. There's really no point in acting offended, I'm just taking you at your word.

You´re the one who keeps misstating what I write.

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

I can't bring myself to sympathise enough with either the nutty evangelical parents or the forced propaganda machine/prison that is compulsory state education to give an opinion one way or the other.

This is one of those situations where you hope both sides lose... Kind of like the Iran-Iraq War. Or England and Australia in cricket.

[Chaos]

I can't bring myself to sympathise enough with either the nutty evangelical parents or the forced propaganda machine/prison that is compulsory state education to give an opinion one way or the other.

This is one of those situations where you hope both sides lose... Kind of like the Iran-Iraq War. Or England and Australia in cricket.

"forced propaganda machine/prison" - WTF? I know it´s all chic and sexy around here for clueless foreigners to paint Germany in the most evil light possible, but let´s at least pretend to pay lip service to reality, okay?

[Foolmewunz]

Do you think the right to privacy is in there, explicitly or implicitly?



Actually, no, I'm not sure it was the right decision. That actually was not really my point. My main point is that the relevant legal questions here are not about religion.



I'm not the one you need to worry about giving knee jerk responses. You should ponder why your example fits exactly what I've been saying.



Don't be silly. China also oppresses its citizens politically with the threat of violence, and we're not going to give them all asylum for that, even though that's exactly what the laws were designed for.

Well, that's the point isn't it? Political Asylum is meant to offer people a hope of safe haven from the likes of, say, North Korea, Myanmar, China - if you want to include it - Idi Amin, Apartheid South Africa, Romanian Madmen, etc... It is not really meant as a refuge for crybabies living in social democracies that have a recent six decades of pretty good history in human rights areas.

And I concur that it's not about religion.

[Bob Blaylock]

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.


And if he is, so what? Is it not the right and responsibility of parents to teach their children right from wrong, according to their beliefs? Or do you think it is the place of government to dictate what values and beliefs are valid, and to compel children to only be taught those values and beliefs that are approved by the government?

And if you want government to make the determination that neither Naziism nor “Mormon Fundamentalism” (which has nothing to do with genuine Mormonism (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/-mormon-fundamentalists)) are valid value systems, and that parents are not to be allowed to teach these to their children; then what will be your reaction when that same government crosses the line of determining that YOUR values and beliefs are invalid, and that you are not to be allowed to teach them to YOUR children?

[I Ratant]

The parents can teach their anything.
What prevents that?
The state has a vested interest in educated citizens.
There's standards for that.
Anything the parents can add, well, that may enhance or detract what the child knows, but the basic curriculum is set by the state for its benefit.