German Home-Schoolers Granted Political Asylum in US

[Twerp128]

What do you expect when you imply that the German society is about to heave the next Hitler into power, because it doesn't allow homeschooling?

Just want to clarify, this is the first post referencing Hitler Nazi Germany

Have fun.

 

[shad_68]

Just want to clarify, this is the first post referencing Hitler

That's neither referencing Hitler (but the Goebbels family's murder of their own children), nor has it anything to do with my point.
To clarify, my point is that you shouldn't be surprised when people get tired of constantly having to listen to snide remarks about ones opinion and believes with not-so-subtle references to the ultimate K.O. nazi-past-argument.
Such as...

A mindset of communal, government dictated ethics and morality coming from Germans is, to say the least, ironic.

It is quite amusing to see just how much trust they have in their government.

That type of political belief is quite terrifying to me and many others. Especially coming from Germans, which should know better.

Wouldn't you get annoyed when people would always reference the genocide of the native Americans, or institutional oppression of black people in discussions about anything related to the US?

 

[narf]

In fact not allowing home schooling is one step towards making sure our dark past does not repeat itself. As long as kids go to a real school, be it public or private, they are taught about the past. They also are brainwashed and indoctrinated by telling them said past was bad.

 

[jetsetter]

Wouldn't you get annoyed when people would always reference the genocide of the native Americans, or institutional oppression of black people in discussions about anything related to the US?

My comment was directed more at Europeans in general.

 

[MacGuffin]

Just want to clarify, this is the first post referencing Hitler Nazi Germany

Have fun.

Take a look at the picture of the Goebbels family again, think about the story behind it (I suppose you found out about it by now) and answer my questions please:

1. Do you consider children the property of their parents?

Yes or no?

2. Do you question the birthright of any child for a personal choice about their own future?

Yes or no?

3. How long do you still want to avoid a serious discussion by not recognizing and picking up others' arguments?

 

[idk]

I just learned that in the USA (or at least some states) children at the age of 7 can be charged with crimes and thrown in jail. I find that a bit shocking because I don't think and can't believe children of that age are capable of understanding the nature of a serious crime. That is because they are not able to foresee the consequences of actions or decisions they make. Children are not capable of understanding, that something that they do now can affect their entire future.

This is the part, that correlates with this case. Obviously in America, they don't care too much for their children. Let the adults decides what happens with them. Teach them to be fundamentals, throw them in jail. Who cares. It's just kids. Only the opinion of some specific adults who are in charge over them is worth a penny.

The more I think about it, the more extreme it gets. Hell... young people can't even get a beer before 21. But driving at 16?

No offense please to our Americans. See it as creative criticism please. I just don't get it how proceedings can be so extremely different in modern democracies. Not to mention that our system as it stands was built in big parts by America. We can be very grateful for that. Grateful for the support in building the first real democracy in our nation's history of many thousand years. Clearly some improvements were made by our teachers. Why weren't they taken home and maybe added in some additional amendments or so... Mhhh

 

[Twerp128]

Take a look at the picture of the Goebbels family again, think about the story behind it (I suppose you found out about it by now) and answer my questions please:

I've said my piece, I'm not going to change my mind and it doesn't look like you'll change yours and I am certainly not going to comment on the murders of innocent children in relation to religion.

Just clarifying some points. . .

I just learned that in the USA (or at least some states) children at the age of 7 can be charged with crimes and thrown in jail. I find that a bit shocking

We are obviously not jailing seven year olds, it is a very, very rare case where a child that young can be tried as an adult and of course they aren't thrown in jail with full-grown inmates. :lol:

This is the part, that correlates with this case. Obviously in America, they don't care too much for their children. Let the adults decides what happens with them. Teach them to be fundamentals, throw them in jail. Who cares. It's just kids. Only the opinion of some specific adults who are in charge over them is worth a penny.

Actually religion is not allowed in public schools in any sort of a persuasive sense, religious students are allowed to pray and carry a Bible, Koran, religious literature, wear religious dress, etc. They are not allowed to preach or worship in a way that disrupts the class or others. Of course we have homeschooling, Catholic schools, Islamic schools, but of course their core curriculum must adhere to the state standards with evolution, other religions, etc. And of course no school is allowed to advocate any sort of malicious intolerance through the curriculum.

The more I think about it, the more extreme it gets. Hell... young people can't even get a beer before 21. But driving at 16?

This is a combination of things. In many parts of America public transportation is not a viable option because of sheer distance, thus the 16 driving age. Of course there are regulations that vary from state, like permits, must drive with an adult for set span of time, no minors in car with a beginner driver, etc. This system has served us quite well and there are little to no criticisms of the driving age here.

As for the drinking age we tried 18 and it didn't work, too many problems with drunk driving, public drunkenness, too many youth being hurt and killed. So we changed it to 21, plenty of people disagree with this but lets just say the last generation dropped the ball for this generation. Too many kids lack respect for alcohol.

Why weren't they taken home and maybe added in some additional amendments or so... Mhhh

I think most Americans would protect the right of homeschooling under the first amendment of free speech and religious right.

 

[AiR]

Amongst the reasons homeschooling is forbidden is that parents are not qualified teachers. I see quality control as a major problem with home schooling, how is that enforced where homeschooling is allowed?

 

[idk]

We are obviously not jailing seven year olds, it is a very, very rare case where a child that young can be tried as an adult and of course they aren't thrown in jail with full-grown inmates. :lol:

Well, I admit, this one isn't 7, but still... :?

http://www.eji.org/eji/node/244 A life sentence??? Here a minor can't get more than 10...

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/10/11/united-states-thousands-children-sentenced-life-without-parole

This one wasn't convicted, but still charged.. a 10 year old

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/01/arson.child/index.html

8 year old:

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/n...f-dad-in-Northern/2u49krYw_keIro-XkmckkQ.cspx

& & &

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php...erwear-comments-please&catid=3:news&Itemid=40

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497986,00.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN7643378320070709

http://fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2010/012010/11-year-old-charged-in-dogs-shooting

.
.
.

 

[Steve Levin]

But freedom begins with the birthright of any human child to grow up inside a tolerant, manifold, liberal and open-minded society, that offers them any possibility of self-realization. They might still decide to follow the footsteps of their fundamentalist parents as adults -- but they have to be given that choice!

Yet again, your argument boils down to "choice is important and since the public education system provides choice, I support enforcement through public education."

I could go on and on, but the fact is...you just don't get freedom. Freedom to you means "free to believe in what I support" and nothing more.

Steve

 

[Interrobang]

Amongst the reasons homeschooling is forbidden is that parents are not qualified teachers. I see quality control as a major problem with home schooling, how is that enforced where homeschooling is allowed?

It?s mostly "enforced" in a way that if you don?t teach your kids well, your kids will get poor grades and fail in life ... but that won?t be the case so often. You will not take the decision to homeschool your children to then neglect them, won?t you (there will be some cases, but nothing is perfect)? I wouldn?t suspect homeschooled children to have worse grades statistically than children in schools. For the less intelligent children this may even be a very good thing because they get 300times more help if they need it.

[...]you just don't get freedom

... even if you?re not talking to me there, I?d like to respond that I think you don?t understand that it?s not about freedom and never was to start with. It?s about children and what is good for them and what not. So it?s all about oppression of the children. They?d rather play all day ... but we force them to do otherwise because we know it?s better for them (wich is better for society, and therefor better for ourselves in return). Forcing somebody to do something they rather didn?t, isn?t freedom, please stop using that bullshit retoric. We?re not talking abot freedom here. We are talking about who should be oppressive here. A democratic elected goverment representing the whole society or every single parent as they see fit ... or rather who to what degree. There?s no freedom for the children in there anywhere.

Over here most of us hold the belive that parents tend to control their children in ways that the children have few choices what to do with their lives when it comes to education and jobs.
And that this is a bigger evil than a state-enforced curriculum to (most of) us. We therefore strip the parents of their chance of total control about the child in order to give him or her a bit of control about his/her life after school.
In america (and a lot of other countries) that weighting get?s a different result, giving the parents more control if they want it. But it?s still in the same ballpark concerning "freedom" (or rather the lack of it).

btw, I know what I?m talking about ... I come from a familiy where my parents tried to push me very hard into a direction that they thought I should go in. If it weren?t for public schools and the compulsory schooling, I would have never been able to do my A-levels and go to university afterwards. My parents just wouldn?t have let me because they had other plans for me, and as so many other parents have with their children that they want to take over the family buisness later, just don?t see the profits of a higher education (just the cost), don?t think women should be anything more than wifes ... etc. I?m 32 ... I?m not talking about 1950 here, this is not a ye olde times problem. These were the 90ies where this kind of stuff was found quite a lot around here. I?ve been to school with a lot of people who have these kind of problems with their parents and would (prob) have not been able to go their own ways if homeschooled by them.

 

[CD82]

Or, to stick with the freedom-thing:

Giving parents the freedom to teach their children what they deem necessary may take away a considerable amount of freedom from the children in the long run.

On the other hand, offering children all kinds of possibilities and different educations gives them more freedom (but takes some away from the parents), because later on they can decide what to do with their lives and aren't forced into a certain way of life by their parents.

So it really depends on who you want to grant more freedom - the parents in the short run, by allowing them to be in direct control of their children's education - or the children in the long run, by giving them more choice through (sort of) standardized public education.*


*When parents are capable of offering comparable education that's fine, but how many parents are capable of teaching the higher education needed to go to university for instance?

 

[MacGuffin]

Yet again, your argument boils down to "choice is important and since the public education system provides choice, I support enforcement through public education."

I could go on and on, but the fact is...you just don't get freedom. Freedom to you means "free to believe in what I support" and nothing more.

Steve

So freedom to you is, when parents have absolute control over their children?

I have the impression that you jump to conclusions without really thinking about or trying to understand what others and I wrote in this thread. I feel like writing into a vacuum.

I have told it about 5 times already but it keeps being ignored, so I say it again: In this particular case we're talking about here, the parents are the ones who act suppressive. They deny their children freedom.

The German state said: "Sorry but your children have rights, that outweigh your rights as parents. Children are fragile and suggestible and mustn't be a victim of indoctrination or propaganda. Therefore we have to step in for their protection."

What the state of Tennessee (and, I understand, the USA in general) says, is "Yes, parents, you're welcome to deny your children freedom, because we think your rights as adults are more important, than the rights of your helpless, undeveloped and manipulable offspring".

Basically what our state says to adults is this:
"As soon as you have children, the freedom of those children becomes more important, than the personal freedom of you as a parent. Children have to be given the possibility to develop into any direction and not only the direction the parents see fit. If you reproduce and create new members of our society, you have to agree to the terms and conditions of this society and make sure that your children become mentally healthy, convinced, free-thinking, uninhibited and untraumatized members of this society, who can think and decide for themselves. Because that is their birthright and because we don't want parallel societies and subcultures, that come up with their own rules and morals. If you grow your children into social outcasts, you might lose the right to bring them up."

It's all about child protection here, while across the Atlantic it seems to be all about parent protection.

And no, the parents do not always know best what's good for their offspring. If you'd leave every decision about the future of your children with the parents, girls wouldn't grow up as equals to boys for example.

If you're the advocat of unlimited parental freedom, you propagate a society with fixed role allocations, where nobody can break out from without isolating themselves from their families or communities. Our whole concept of every person, male or female, being able to decide what to do with their lives, would be reduced to absurdity. It'd be back to the Middle Ages.

 

[idk]

Basically what our state says to adults is this:
"As soon as you have children, the freedom of those children becomes more important, than the personal freedom of you as a parent. Children have to be given the possibility to develop into any direction and not only the direction the parents see fit.

Yes!

It goes even that far, that the parents HAVE to pay/support a university education!
They are forced to pay alimony (I'm not sure if that is the correct word for that matter... but I hope it's understandable).

The rights of children/offspring goes that far, that they can say: I want to have good chances, I want a proper education, I go to university, if you like it or not, dear parents.

The play card: You have to pay it for yourself doesn't exist. If the parents really can not afford to pay for the education, the young people will be supported by the state. But if they can, they have no choice but to support their children, If the children want that.

Of course this is a bad situation in the parents view... And a loss of freedom. But for the children it's a very good thing, you can't argue that. Isn't it fair to say that by giving birth to a child you have to sacrifice some of your individual freedom for the sake of the child?

Hell, your government even says it's good to sacrifice your freedom, and human rights for the sake and security of the country (patriot act etc.) So because of some stupid terrorists, that is acceptable, but not for the future of a child?

A Tennessee judge in a democracy with a "patriot act" accusing US (wee ze germans) of a lack of personal freedom and granting political asylum, THAT is ironic, not the fact that we (ze germans) are arguing about that because of our 60 year old past.

I always thought America was the country of "unlimited possibilities". But maybe it's not for everyone. Just parents.

 

[tigger]

I always thought America was the country of "unlimited possibilities". But maybe it's not for everyone. Just parents.

Ah, you missed the disclaimer. It's unlimited possibilities ... if you're raised in a good school district, can afford college, can afford health insurance ...

Unfortunately, like you and MacGuffin have said, in the US the rights of the parent (to decide what's best for their child) supercede the rights of the child. If someone wants their child to grow up to be an obnoxious, socially-dysfunctional religious zealot, that's fine ... as long as they teach them basic reading, writing and arithmetic. That's where the bar is set.

 

[CD82]

The parents in question made the decision to move from a country that forbid them to do certain things to another country which allows them to do these things. That alone is fine, because on the ground of "I'm not satisfied with my government / country" I would do the same. Their reasons and motivations are something completely different. Also the looking-bad part on our side, because these parents had to "flee the country" and were granted "asylum". That's just a bit over the top.

 

[MacGuffin]

The part of the "asylum" is a joke, really. But it fits into the picture, because there have been cases time and again, where U.S. judges ruled in favor of their own countrymen, disrespecting laws or judgements in other countries. And they indeed seem to have the habit of deciding in the interests of the parents, not the children.

Divorces of U.S./German married couples for example come to mind, who used to live in Germany for decades. Saw a documentary about that some time ago. Our courts granted child custody to the mother, based on what's best for the child (having grown up here, going to school here, having friends and social contacts here, etc.).

The American father didn't approve, kidnapped the child (which is a crime here) and fled to the USA, where a judge then ruled in favor of the father, because he thought his rights as an American citizen were violated by a German court.
And it surely must be better for a child to grow up in America anyway, and not in some "underdeveloped part of the world" -- no matter that it was ripped from its social environment by force.
(It wasn't said that explicitely in the documentary but the indications and hints, that such thinking was behnd the judge's decision were totally clear)

It's obvious that at least some U.S. judges don't recognize the judicial systems of other countries -- probably by a lack of knowledge and education --, because they consider the American system superior anyway, so why bother?

And I believe that is also the case with that said Tennessee judge, who granted those parents asylum. I wonder how long it takes, until it becomes a normal habit for criminals to flee to the USA to seek refuge there, based on the fact that what they were doing, is aganst the law here but isn't illegal there in any way (like for example openly being a Swastika-waving Neo-Nazi).

 

[DanRoM]

I'm sorry MacGuffin, but your argument is confused. The very idea of asylum is to ignore the laws of the home country of the asylum seeker. Germany also grants asylum to people whose own government wants to arrest/punish/kill them based on laws we don't recognize here.
It's a question of what laws to recognize, not of ignoring other countries' values and laws out of principle.

 

[MacGuffin]

I assumed we agreed on talking about countries here, that basically share the same views on human rights, freedom and democratic principles in general. And I agree that people who do not benefit from those achievements, need to be protected.

Those parents and especially their children, though, were in no danger of being tortured or killed or something like that and their case had been subject to the highest court decisions here in Europe. In fact it had been going on for years and they were still free enough to buy a ticket and fly to America. I see no oppression there.

So basically what the Tennessee judge said, is this: "I don't give a sh*t about what the European Court for Human Rights decided, I'll make up my own judgement, because those Europeans obviously didn't get the concept of freedom yet."

 

[Steve Levin]

So basically what the Tennessee judge said, is this: "I don't give a sh*t about what the European Court for Human Rights decided, I'll make up my own judgement, because those Europeans obviously didn't get the concept of freedom yet."

Bingo! Of the virtues European nations might have, freedom is not their strongest one. Certainly nowhere near up to par with the US.


Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
-- Louis Brandeis