|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 27, 2010 9:05:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 27, 2010 10:24:43 GMT -8
Whats so funny about it?
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jan 27, 2010 12:12:47 GMT -8
I think using the word "persecution" is a bit strong here. There are good and valid reasons why the German government requires school attendance which have nothing to do with religious persecution. One is welcome to attend a Christian school if one wishes.
I think it's fine if homeschooling is that important to you, to move to another country which does not have such a law. But calling it persecution is a bit over the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 27, 2010 14:24:13 GMT -8
It’s funny in a sarcastic kind of way. It’s ridiculous. It’s so obviously targeting public attention and it’s just as obviously exaggerated to the point of being bizarre. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of homeschooling, everyone must acknowledge that laws have to be complied with. One doesn’t have to agree with every law. There’s a variety of options one can consider in order to change a law legally. But to break the law and then pretend to be the victim is bold. People in Germany are free to choose between many different kinds of schools: Public schools, private schools, religious schools, alternative schools, etc. Compulsory school attendance was actually introduced in order to guarantee everybody an education in times when education was still a privilege of few. Germans also enjoy freedom of movement. If they can’t conform themselves with the existing legal order, they are free to leave. Nobody is going to hunt them down, lock them away, torture or even kill them. Nobody is interested in keeping those people down. All that is required is that they play by the rules as everybody else! To speak of persecution is the living end. The law applies for everyone, not only for minorities. And apparently the vast majority here doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. Since members of the European Union enjoy freedom of movement within the E.U., this family could easily have moved to neighbouring countries where homeschooling is legal (Austria for instance, even German speaking) and where they wouldn’t have to go through much bureaucracy. The fact that they are instead asking for political asylum in the USA, where their cause is likely to find stronger pressure groups and media attention (at least more than in Germany) is perfide. They probably know that Germany has been struggling to rid itself of its Nazi image. Now they are deliberately portraying Germany as a prosecutor again. Perhaps they want to damage the reputation of Germany in order to gain momentum for their individual self-interest. If it were a cause of plenty, I wouldn't even complain. But in this case? It’s as if a U.S. citizen was applying for political asylum in the Netherlands because they won’t let him sell his marihuana* at home... *If dealing with dope is legal in the USA, cross marihuana and insert harder drug. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 27, 2010 16:14:35 GMT -8
I don't see it as you do. Its no little thing for these folks to have the government come into their home and force their children to attend a public school against their wishes, and then have to leave their country in order to raise their children as they feel convicted. You may see these people as petty because you agree with the law, but I can assure you they are not. There could very well be a revolt in this country if the Federal or State Government required parents to send there children to designated schools approved by the State. Do you really feel comfortable with this statement? I don't feel comfortable with it, and I'm not even from Germany. Your countries history alone should give you pause before making such a statement. Perhaps your being a bit too sensitive. Remember, its the parents with everything to lose here. Their government was willing to take away the children, and toss the parents in prison for not educating their kids the way that the government dictates. I certainly find myself sympathizing with the family, and not Germany's reputation. I see. Because there is no difference between selling drugs and wanting to educate your children at home.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 28, 2010 8:21:16 GMT -8
I don't see it as you do. Its no little thing for these folks to have the government come into their home and force their children to attend a public school against their wishes, and then have to leave their country in order to raise their children as they feel convicted. I never said it was a little thing for them. Read carefully. I can totally relate to their frustration. A couple of months ago, Steve K. and I had a conversation about the American (or let's at least say the conservative American) conviction to keep the government out of the individual choices of the people. There are pros and cons to this and naturally risks involved no matter which way, but I found his argument partly compelling. I have difused my opinion on homeschooling, which I displayed in a discussion with Christopher over a year ago on this board. If I imagine the situation vice versa, that the government would force me to put my kids in a religious school, it is easy for me to relate to the troubles of the Romeikes. However, in Germany there's a wide variety of different schools (including religious ones) where parents can send their childre. It's not likere was the one state doctrine that has to be hammered into the citizens. You may see these people as petty because you agree with the law, I don't see people as petty just because they disagree with a law I happen to agree with. In this case, it is the tactic these people are using I find outrageous. As I already said, there are many ways to promote the change of a law. Laws are being changed all the time, as a matter of fact. If there was a wide support for their special interest, they could lobby for it and put the legislative under pressure in a non polemic fashion. They had to move in order to "be free", that's a bummer. But unlike most political refugees, they were free to leave. Instead of moving and organizing their resistance from a neighbouring country, where no visa, no political asylum, no bureaucracy was required they chose to play victim and stigmatize the state. This tactic is old and has been used many times by many people in all kinds of interests. Just a couple of days ago, a group of students occupied a university building here in Frankfurt, in order to protest against the reform of the educational system. They damaged pieces of art by spraying graffitti over them and damaged furniture. After a few days of failed negotiations and in the light of ongoing vandalism, the university had the building evacuated by the police. That, of course, was exactly the plan of the students. They wanted a confrontation and when they were carried out by the police, they yelled and screamed and pretended to be harrassed by the bad bad cops of this bad old repressive regime, while the poor victims where only peacefully protesting (vandalism, they argued, was a legitimate way of expressing protest). Such a tactic is a farce, no matter how legitimate the reason for the protest is! Do you really feel comfortable with this statement? I don't feel comfortable with it, and I'm not even from Germany. Your countries history alone should give you pause before making such a statement. My country’s history... hahaha. Well, that's exactly what they wanted. To awaken ressentiments against Germany because of its history. Hm, I actually doubt that you know much about Germany. Sorry. The implicit comparison of todays Germany and Nazi Germany is tremendously ridiculous. Of Course I feel comfortable with the statement I made and I don't believe for a minute that you really disagree with it. Laws are there to organize the coexistence in a society. They guarantee certain liberties and duties. The alternative to my conviction, that laws must be complied with and - if one disagrees with the law - challanged in the legal democratic process, is anarchy. Everyone follows the laws he likes and ignores the laws he doesn't like. Are you trying to give me that? I've read enough of your input on diverse issues to believe that you are not.  Perhaps your being a bit too sensitive. Remember, its the parents with everything to lose here. Their government was willing to take away the children, and through the parents in prison for not educating their kids the way that the government dictates. You are being manipulative in your style of putting things. One could also say that the State went all the way of issuing caution over and over again, seeking comunication through its institutions (the youth welfare office), trying means of persuasion first, before it had to move to more determined steps in order to make sure that its legitimate laws aren't being broken. There is always this this truth:  and that truth:  It's all a matter of how you spin it. And besides: A man who believes that war is a legitimate way to enforce a countries interests and to imprison people (I'm being manipulative for the fun of it here as well) without a trial (the party I'm speaking of is you), shouldn't pretend that putting someone into jail because this person broke the law is Nazi behavior. Perhaps I'm oversensitive, as you say. Or maybe the Romeikes could just have enrolled their children in a Christian school and live in peace. And now we'll move to the core of it: I see. Because there is no difference between selling drugs and wanting to educate your children at home. So what's the essential difference in your opinion? That homeschooling is harmless while selling drugs isn’t? That’s merely a subjective opinion. I know enough people who disagree with both assertions* (there are probably more stoners than homeschoolers in the USA and Germany though that’s just a guess). It all comes down to this: if we apply to the logic of this case, everybody who breaks a law and is being held responsible for it is a victim of state repression. This goes for the murderer as well as for the homeschooler. Objectively speaking that is correct. Yet every child can see, that peaceful coexistence in a social community can only be established by rules. Freedom is impossible without rules, because in anarchy the stronger is always likely to impose his will on others. Hence, absolute freedom is impossible for everybody. The question is, which rules are good rules, and which rules are bad rules? This is largely a very subjective question. I’m not interested in debating whether homeschooling should be legal in Germany or not. It is an issue of at best secondary importance in my opinion. The UN Charta of basic human rights presents the consensus of the international community and I can’t find a right to homeschool children there. If political asylum is granted to everyone who has beef with whatever laws of his country, then the idea of political asylum is reduced ad absurdum. Then every Mor(m)on can seek political asylum in a Muslim country, where Polygamy is legal and accuse the USA of being a Nazi country. At the heart of it, I see no difference between the concern of the homeschoolers and the marihuana dealers. Both insist on their autonomy of choice and action. *I know the argument, that homeschooling does harm children and I know the argument that marihuana is all in all harmless. I say this without siding with on assertion or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Jan 29, 2010 1:45:41 GMT -8
"I see. Because there is no difference between selling drugs and wanting to educate your children at home. " Actually not being educated by a qualified educator can have much worse and more long terms problems than someone Smoking pot. Many people who Smoke pot when they are young turn out to live productive lives, President Bill Clinton smoked it. President Bush refused to confirm or deny that he did drugs which is a sure fire way of saying he did because why would he not just come out and say he never did if he had not. Of course we all know that President Obama also smoked Pot. Clearly the act of smoking pot as a young adult or teenager did not stifle these mens ability to be successful. Having a crappy education from someone who is not qualified to teach advanced subjects such as college prep Math nor having a fully functional lab for science on the other hand could be a major setback. I am sure that there are many parents fully qualified to teach their children, yet if a society at large decides that children should be educated by professionals that meet certain standards I believe that is a the right of the society. In the USA we accept that our Government can do all kinds of things to us without our consent and limit our liberties in favor of its own interest. Why should Germany be substantially different? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 29, 2010 2:21:39 GMT -8
"I see. Because there is no difference between selling drugs and wanting to educate your children at home. " Actually not being educated by a qualified educator can have much worse and more long terms problems than someone Smoking pot. Many people who Smoke pot when they are young turn out to live productive lives, President Bill Clinton smoked it. President Bush refused to confirm or deny that he did drugs which is a sure fire way of saying he did because why would he not just come out and say he never did if he had not. Of course we all know that President Obama also smoked Pot. Clearly the act of smoking pot as a young adult or teenager did not stifle these mens ability to be successful. Having a crappy education from someone who is not qualified to teach advanced subjects such as college prep Math nor having a fully functional lab for science on the other hand could be a major setback. I am sure that there are many parents fully qualified to teach their children, yet if a society at large decides that children should be educated by professionals that meet certain standards I believe that is a the right of the society. In the USA we accept that our Government can do all kinds of things to us without our consent and limit our liberties in favor of its own interest. Why should Germany be substantially different? Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 29, 2010 9:39:07 GMT -8
I'm satisfied with the distinctions that have been made between our differing views. If you're convince, so be it. Just don't complain when it is your family that is being threatened by the government. Also consider this. Who is a greater threat to your family, the individual educated at home (who is statistically smarter than you), or the person stoned out of their mind? When that stoner kills someone you love, I hope you find comfort in knowing that pot is a harmless drug that produces productive citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 11:00:27 GMT -8
Wow. I'm only halfway through this thread and I have some things to say already.
So far I'm resonating very strongly with Robin's perspective this time.
Steve, might I ask what those "good and valid reasons" are?
Mo- how can you say this? There are certainly some laws that must not be obeyed. One example from our US past: the Fugitive Slave law.
Don't you believe that some laws* are immoral and therefor should not be obeyed?
*I'm not talking about the particular law under question necessarily.
As far as this law, I think that the German government should allow homeschooling but I'm not sure what length I would go to oppose it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 29, 2010 16:13:22 GMT -8
What length would you go to support the family being threatened with jail time and losing their children to the State? Would you support them, remain silent, or disparage their efforts and desire to live free from this type of tyranny? Of course I know you wouldn't disparage these people, I just tossed it in for good measure.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Jan 29, 2010 18:31:28 GMT -8
Robin, honestly, how many Pot smokers do you know who act in agression? I take it you do not have any real life experience with someone under the influence of Pot, they basically sit around and wonder why you can pull something with a string but not push it. Now Alcohol which is both legal, and used in many Church's communion service is a dangerous drug, I have both seen and read about many a violent confrontation that had alcohol as a contributing factor. It is true that in the drug trade there is violence, but can you honestly give me and example of someone who was stoned out of their mind on POT who violently attacked someone or did any major act of aggression as a result of their Pot usage? As for your concern about the government coming after me, I am frankly impressed that you did not compare it to the Germans coming after political descendants and people based on their religion. Well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 23:15:38 GMT -8
Robin never spoke of pot induced aggression, just pot related deaths. Would you trust your kid on the road with doobie-smoking drivers over a nice home-schooled boy with impeccable roadside manners? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 23:19:40 GMT -8
krhagan wrote: It's a good thing that everyone who is a teacher is qualified Oh, and are you guys forgetting that homeschool students do have to meet state academic requirements? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 30, 2010 8:27:20 GMT -8
Wow. I'm only halfway through this thread and I have some things to say already. (...) Mo- how can you say this? Hey Josh, I think I already answered that question at lenghts. Take your time to read the thread through and if the question remains unanswered in your opinion, I'll give it another try. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 31, 2010 8:03:01 GMT -8
Although I'm not proud of it, I have probably smoked more than most people have seen in their lifetime. In fact when I was just out of high school I lived with a dealer for 6 months. Don't make a mistake and assume that I am some sort of sheltered prude.
We're getting off subject so I'm going to let this be my last word on the subject, on this thread at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 31, 2010 8:33:46 GMT -8
That'd be me ;D And quite proud of it |
|
and that truth: 
