steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2010 14:35:45 GMT -8
Josh, Moritz already listed a few positives for mandatory school attendance that were considerations at its inception. In addtion to those, there is currently a problem with certain immigrants who try to prohibit there kids from being educated at school and thus integrated into the society. This is responsible for certain rifts and anomosities in German society. I suppose, depending on your perspective, it's a positive that German government tries to enforce school attendance so as to prevent certain fringe groups from not integrating into society. It's similiar to the american principal of forcing everyone to pay social security tax. It's for your own good, but it feels like an infringement. I'm personally not a big fan of government interference in my life, but I don't think it's a moral issue. It's neither wrong nor right, it simply is the way the germans do it. This is what they voted for. One can always leave if one is not happy with that. My original point is that using the term "religious persecution" is reaching for a misplaced sense of martydom. If they don't like the system, that fine. Just move to Austria, but please let us dispense with such theatrical nonsense.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 1, 2010 8:48:45 GMT -8
I'm personally not a big fan of government interference in my life, but I don't think it's a moral issue. It's neither wrong nor right, it simply is the way the germans do it. This is what they voted for. One can always leave if one is not happy with that. My original point is that using the term "religious persecution" is reaching for a misplaced sense of martydom. If they don't like the system, that fine. Just move to Austria, but please let us dispense with such theatrical nonsense. My thoughts exactly, Steve. Thank you.  Josh: I still see much potential of misunderstanding floating around here. Have you read your way through the thread? Please note that my intention is not to debate whether homeschooling should be allowed or not. I don't feel like I'm informed enough about the pros and cons to give a qualified opinion. I can merely throw in random thoughts and concerns. The discussion of that question makes another thread. What matters to me in this thread is not the fact that there are people who want to teach their children themselves. That's not the farce I was speaking of. It's rather the demagogic exaggeration with which this family is trying to promote their cause. Just look how people like Robin misuse the term "tyrany". A tyrany is a mode of rule in which "one has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power.
The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in turn from the Greek τύραννος, týrannos, meaning "sovereign, master",[1] although the latter was not pejorative and applicable to both good and bad leaders alike.
In modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls."* But Germany is a democracy. The legislative parliament consists of regional representants who are legitimated and voted directly by the people. The way to office is open to everybody. Legislative initiatives are open to everybody. The recourse to the courts is open to everybody. Apart from a few basic human rights, no law is ingraved in stone. If homeschooling is illegal in Germany, it's not because some brute tyrant decided it that way, but because it is the will of the majority**. And the will of the majority isn't engraved in stone either. To speak of persecution in this matter is totally misplaced, and to use the term tyranny positively absurd***. If the Romeikes chose the demagogic way instead of persuading through content, it indicates to me that they assume not to get enough attention and support by other means, which again speaks volumes. PS: I've been informed, that if I use bold type, it looks as if I was yelling. That's pretty much the last thing I want to express though. I want everyone to know, that I use bold type or italic letters solely as a means to distinguish parts of my writings from the rest of the text. I'm definitely not yelling. The written word is weak.  *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant **Or: because there is no significant number of people opposing that law. *** I'd actually say, that it's a slap in the face of everyone who has or had to endure real persecution in a tyrany. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2010 9:29:36 GMT -8
That's definitely not my perspective. CAPS looks like yelling, but bold or italics are perfectly natural ways to communicate, imo, as long as they are used sparingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2010 9:46:33 GMT -8
OK, Mo, I follow you. I agree that on the scale of tyranny or persecution this ranks very low. However, I think the one thing that still remains unclear to me is your insistence that laws must always be obeyed. You didn't really mean that as an absolute did you?
Also, to Steve, the argument you provided about mandatory school as an agent of integration in society makes sense. That was the original point of public school in the states as well- to inculcate a national identity.
However, as a Christian, I can't say I feel wholly comfortable with that however rational it is for a government because it means that the goal of the state educational system isn't merely academic education but civic formation. And there's much a Christian could agree with in typcial civic education but there are also dangerous undercurrents as well with threaten absolute loyalty to the Kingdom of God first and formost. I'm just saying that there will always be a tension between how the State wants to mold our kids and how we as citizens of the kingdom of heaven know we should.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 1, 2010 9:51:11 GMT -8
Hopefully you are aware that the word tyranny can be defined in different ways.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
It seems a bit disingenuous to point out only certain possible definitions that support your view. Perhaps I could have been a bit more precise and used the term Soft Tyranny, but I'm certain that your sensitivities would have caused you to complain about that term as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 1, 2010 15:06:21 GMT -8
Josh,
Perhaps you could explain to me what you would consider this to be, if not persecution. Doesn't this type of law unfairly target people and families for adhering to personal or religious beliefs? These people are not endangering public safety or interfering with the liberties of others. They simply want to educate their children without the influence of the government. Entirely understandable. Punishing these people in such a severe manner is outrageous.
Turning to Steve's point about integrating cultures into German society. I think Germany do well to consider other avenues. I would think that this type of forced assimilation would result in greater animosity between the classes and cultures. You can't have one ruling class force its will upon a minority without some backlash. Forcing a very religious Muslim culture into a secularized German society could create a significant rift between to two. I'm curious what would happen if Government authorities entered Muslim neighborhoods and started taking custody of children and tossing parents in jail for the same reasons?
Not exactly. I can tell you it's not for our own good. Social security is the worlds largest ponzi scheme. It makes Bernie Madoff look like a street corner hustler. Very few of us under the age of 45 will ever see a penny of social security. Most of that money is pent elsewhere. Usually on some politicians pet project aimed at getting themselves re-elected. This is the problem with letting the government decide on what is good for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 1, 2010 20:16:11 GMT -8
Well, I said it was low on the scale of persecution, so that actually implies I think it is persecution to some degree.
Probably the best word for it is discrimination, though.
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Feb 2, 2010 7:24:35 GMT -8
Gentlemen, I beseech thee. The term Persecution should not be confused with enforcing the law. There is no intent on the part of the German government to supress any religious opinion or group. Our Chancelor herself is a devout Christian. Germany is a free republic and is very tolerant of diverse viewpoint. As a collective democratic entity, they created a law which requires public school attendance. It was not imposed by some elite ruling class, or dictatorial regime. It was employed by free political process. Some may argue that it is very nearly the scene in Star Wars were chancelor Palpatine refuses to relinquish control of the republic, but I think that is going considerably further than the metaphor allows. I myself am not a proponent of big government. I think it weighs down the economy, stifles growth, and can go down that slippery slope to 1984, but this example, of which we are speaking, is still well within the bound of morality and reason. (is this a runon sentence?) That is why I say it is not a moral issue. One may complain about it and say that one does not like it, but to say that it is persecution is simply not true. Robin: I don't like social security either. I would not however go so far as to call it a ponzi scheme, but rather a somewhat lackluster product which should be rethought, restructured or abolished. But the intent of social security is to provide a net for everyone in hardtimes and old age. It is solidarity-minded. It may be riddled with problems, but it is not diabolical. Also, While your theory, concerning the muslim contingent in Germany is plausible, it simply isn't the case. The tension between racial, and religious groups in germany is a result of certain kids getting left behind in school because they don't have the parental, linguistic and social support outside of school. This in turn leave them with fewer and fewer prospects of success in society and therefore makes them targets for extremist recruiters. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Feb 2, 2010 17:41:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 3, 2010 8:24:00 GMT -8
However, the quote you sited was followed by this sentence.
In my opinion the ruling is questionable. I sympathize with the parents who lost their child, and at a minimum I would say that the government has abused it's power. I have a real problem with the government stepping into a religious matter and dictating which beliefs are acceptable and which ones are not. Perhaps the next step is for the government to make illegal certain religious beliefs that they consider to be dangerous. Don't you see where this could lead? Are you comfortable with the government having this kind of power over religious institutions?
I also find it a little odd that the court has found that a woman has a right to kill her un-born child and there is a right to privacy that protects her from legal action. Conversely, the government has decided that this mother and father can be sent to prison for not seeking adequate medical treatment for their son. Do you see an inconsistency here? I do. Why doesn't the law protect the privacy of religious people as it does for the pregnant woman seeking an abortion? Can you explain the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Feb 3, 2010 9:28:09 GMT -8
Exactly Robin.....the court should be sentencing all the women who have abortions to time in prison then....and those who assist someone in suicide.
One man who was interviewed after the ruling on the Beagleys said he was glad they ruled that way because "they were taking a life from someone who wanted it".....can we say abortion any louder? Blindness and stupidity.... But I must say those parents should have sought medical help.....sad for them cuz I know they thought they were having faith. In my opinion it's like another culture trying to save their people from some illness through their methods and the people dying.....they didn't want the people to die, they just didn't use the right method in that moment.....but they thought they were doing something right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Feb 3, 2010 18:50:42 GMT -8
I am more uncomfortable with religious institutions having power over government.
I see the inconsistancy you are describing, and, although I do not believe this to be the case, abortion laws are based in the perception that life does not begin until birth, as opposed to conception. Therein lies the difference.
The German parents gave up their right to privacy when they made it a public issue. Had they sent their kids to school, they still could have educated their children privately after school was dismissed, as they should anyway. (This is re-hashing the "Kids singing praises to Obama" thread)
I am willing to sacrifice personal "liberty" for the greater good of the society. Liberty is in quotes because my liberty is found within since I possess free will, and can choose it anytime. The only threat is to the level of convenience in which I practice that liberty.
Yes, Germany should allow home-schooling, and I do not know why they do not, but the point here is whether the family should recieve political asylum. No, they should not. If they want to immigrate here legally, I am fine with that. But to claim persecution because they do not want to follow (even an unjust) law? Absurd, IMO.
We were created to live in community, not be isolationists. In a democracy, they can fight for change. Until then, follow the law, and quit whining about being persecuted.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 3, 2010 22:45:26 GMT -8
Who's endorsing this notion? Certainly not me.
Whoever believes that life does not begin until birth is either an idiot or blinded by ideology. Also, I believe you are mistaken. Abortion laws are based on a right to privacy.
Now I'm confused. I thought we were discussing the Beagley's case.
You can choose liberty, or as you call it "free will" any time? If to are incarcerated, can you simply walk out of prison anytime you want? Also, if you sacrifice you liberty, are you not still exercising your liberty even then? You describe sacrificing liberty as if it is always a personal choice, but we know this not to be true. I don't think you would speak so glowingly of sacrificing liberty if you were being forced worship God in a manner that you personally objected to, even if society believe it to be best.
Well, as a parent I disagree.
I believe we were created to be free. It is my right to be an isolationist if I so choose. I wonder if you would have been so cold hearted to African American's who were fighting for their civil rights. Probably not. Would you tell Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. to stop whining about persecution and follow the law?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Feb 4, 2010 11:04:06 GMT -8
I wasn't claiming you did. It was simply my response to the question. Yes, but the reason for the inconsistency is the perception of when life begins, or at least a woman's choice of whether or not she wants another life to begin. Again, I do not like this rationale, but believe it logically explains the conflict here. I was just trying to bring the discussion back on topic. I think the Beagley's and the German's situations are similar in their quest for personal choice. I would be very inconvenient for me to do so, but I could try and I would understand the consequences. My point is that freedom is a spirtual attribute, not a physical one. I can be free in prison, or in the midst of torture. It would just be extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant. It is easy for me to conjecture about this, but yeah, placed in a tough situation my feelings might change. Who could do that? They could try, but would be unable to see my heart and thoughts. They could make life difficult for me and ultimately kill me, but in my head I would still be free. (see the end of Braveheart ) I'm trying to make a distinction between liberty and convenience. Persecution does not quench liberty, it only makes it more difficult to live with. Do I want to freely, openly, and easily display my beliefs? Sure. But if I am not allowed to, I still hold those beliefs...that has not changed. You know what? I respect that. Agreed. True, we all possess the ability to survive alone, and if that is what you want, great. However, at some point we all rely on other people in some regard. Everyone has a mother. We have neighbors that we are commanded to love (this involves interaction!) This stands to reason that we are meant to be in community...however that could be defined. In order for a society to be successful, individuals must sacrifice some things for the betterment of the society. What things? That's the rub. We all have different priorities and agendas. That is what discussion and interaction is for! Demonstration and civil disobedience is part of the democratic process. They practiced it and made societal change. They didn't run to another country and complain about their woes..they acted! They changed public opinion. Did they completely eliminate the problem? No. However, I do not see a connection between the civil rights movement and this. The German parents, as I stated above, could have taught their children as they saw fit after school was dismissed. Their convenience to do so may have been threatened, but not their liberty to do so. MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks disobeyed yet accepted the consequences of their disobedience, as are the Beagley's (or so it seems). The German parents could have done the same. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 5, 2010 14:51:34 GMT -8
Are you not being inconsistent here? Isn't civil disobedience breaking the law? And what did the German family do? They acted! Just not as you would have them act out. who are you to Judge this family and what they choose as the best course of action in order to raise their children freely? You act as if this families suffering means nothing when compared to the rule of law in Germany, and Germany's poor and fragile reputation.  So you would prefer to have their children taken by the state and the parents be sentence to serve time in prison? Is that what you would have preferred happen to this family? I have troubles believing that. But if that is how you feel, then I'm very sad for you because you lack basic compassion. I'm happy for this family, for the fact that they are still together and the children have their mom and dad who were willing to give up their home and country in order to do what is best for them. These parents deserve our admiration, and not abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Feb 5, 2010 15:47:19 GMT -8
I have been sounding inconsistant. I guess I just think it is silly to claim "political asylum" for this. I do not see this issue as persecution or suffering in any way. I think this is the biggest roadblock between you and I on this issue. The parents should just send their kids to school, and then educate them at home after school is dismissed if they do not like how the school teaches. Yes, the family did act, but only to benefit themselves and what they wanted. I am sure there are others in Germany who want home schooling rights...why not organize and start a movement? They would not have had to leave home and country! I am sure the German government would have got the message if enough people demonstrated, protested, and civilly disobeyed! You are right, the family did give up home and country for what they thought was right, and I suppose that is admirable. Personally, though, I think it is a silly thing to give up home and country for. I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I am not a parent. This whole situation just seems ridiculous to me. However, there are things I would stand up for, and maybe leave my home and country for that you would find ridiculous. I love arguing with you Robin. You rock. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 5, 2010 18:40:42 GMT -8
I'm so glad we live where it's legal to homeschool.
Kirby, one thing to keep in mind, it's not just about the outcome, it's also about the journey, and the bonding that happens with the kids.
I'd be very sad if my boys had to go off to school for the majority of one of my days off (Mondays).
Having said that though, it may be a bit of stretch to say it's "persecution". I do think it's unfair and I don't fault the parents for seeking an environment that not only allows homeschooling, but is very supportive of it. Maybe they went too far to seek political asylum, but maybe it was the only way to get an extended visa for that long. I don't know.
|
|
