I really hope that when I point out the fact that the First Amendment does not merely protect speech, but religious practice, that you are going to feel a bit embarrassed by your retort.
Oh, so the religious whine "freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion" when atheists want to not be bombarded by Christian mythology
It's not whining, it's obvious truth.
but when it comes to schools, then it's suddenly the freedom from religions of those evil Muslims and such.
I never said or implied government CANNOT teach about Islam in a school. My answer to atheists who do not want to learn about Christianity in schools is the same as my defense of Christians who do not want to learn about Islam in schools: either get with the school board to change it, opt out of that portion of the education, or leave the school.
There's no double standard here: my answer is the same in both cases.
Every law out there is forcing the will of the government on your family
Why do you say that as though it justifies any further forcing of the government's will?
"Securing liberty" is something you claim they should be aspiring to.
It's the reason government exists, as the Declaration of Independence says.
But that's a load of bullshit. You want them to force your morality on others.
Once again, you're just making things up. That's a complete fabrication; a total lie.
You hate the government in your house if you want to shield your children from a balanced education. But what about if the question is a woman and a doctor in a room ending a pregnancy? Are you for the liberty of those adults in that room?
No moreso than I am for the liberty of a parent to beat their child to a pulp, no. I believe the biologically distinct and unique human life in the womb has the same unalienable rights as any other human life, and therefore the government exists to secure the liberty of that life in the womb, too.
There's a hierarchy of rights, and they are ordered properly in the Declaration of Independence: life first, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness. The woman is claiming the right to liberty in destroying the human life within her. But the child's right to life trumps that, just as the slaveowner's right to property is trumped by the slave's right to liberty.
And if they should intervene there to secure its future, why do you turn around and think the opposite when the government wants to intervene to secure the future of a student-aged child?
Not to secure its future, but to secure its right to life. And you're question-begging again (see, you really need to work on your apologetic skills) in assuming that government has any right to determine, instead of the parent, what IS "securing the future" for a student-aged child.
We know the life in the womb is being killed. There's no question of that. It's well-understood biological fact. But what is best for a child's future is not objective truth; it's determined by the decisions of the parents.
You don't come up with logic, then decide personal issues logically.
False. You just didn't UNDERSTAND the clear and unassailable logic.
You have morality, and try to force others to your will, then use logic to justify it after.
Nope. Quite the opposite. If that were the case, I would be, for example, against gay unions: after all, I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful. But on the contrary, I am a supporter of full equality for gay unions (I would, if I could, remove government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with "civil unions" for everybody, and let marriage be defined purely by social institutions, allowing any two people to join into such a union, for any reason).
You are stating what I'm implying, which you are wrong about.
Shrug. It's clear you believe that this "invisible friend" is not real. It's further clear that BECAUSE you think it is not real, that THEREFORE you think it is a sign of a "mental illness."
To an outsider, an "invisible friend", whether real or not, will appear exactly the same.
Um. So now you are agreeing that my statement of what you implied was, in fact, correct.
it's curious that those that apparently believe in such invisible friends are first to mock others that believe in different ones
Once again, you're completely making things up. That's facially untrue.
I know yours isn't in psychology, or you'd have remembered that they like the Roman numerals, for some unknown reason
What "they" like is irrelevant. Many people use Arabic, and it's perfectly accepted. I also often use the word "gov't" even though "they" spell it out! ZOMG.
you tell us some of what it says
About what? About schizophrenia? Why would I waste my time? I could also look to see if the Grey's Anatomy shows any similarities between religion and colon cancer... but why would I? No one has given anyone any reason to believe there's a connection, that would warrant such an act.
You are obviously incapable of looking at it with an open mind.
Tripe. I do not look at whether 1+1=3 with an "open mind" because I have enough knowledge to understand that it's obviously false. And unless someone gives me a reason to think it might be true, I won't bother considering what I've already learned more than enough about.
I told someone else, now I tell you: give me ONE example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia. Just one.
The burden is not on me here, and you should stop pretending that it is.
If you can't at least understand what the other person is saying, you'll never win an argument.
Tripe. Again, if I don't understand why someone thinks 1+1=3, I'll still easily win the argument that it is not true.
Perhaps you should spend more time on the Apologetics.
That's MY line to YOU. Honestly... you're harping on me for denying what is obviously false, and for which no evidence was presented. That is piss-poor argumentation on your part.
You could also, I suppose, to improve your skills, dispense with your incessant ad hominem attacks about what degree I may or may not have. That only weakens your case when you focus on that instead of the facts. I repeat: one example. Just one.
Sorry to say, but you're the one appearing stupid, for thinking that I lied.
You assume that they have to break in to test whether your children are receiving an education.
No, I assumed no such thing. You simply do not understand the Fourth Amendment. If I am walking down the street and a government agent forces me to tell him what I ate for breakfast (unless he has a warrant, or probable cause), that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is likened, in the law, and in caselaw, to entering someone's home and rifling through their possessions.
I am using the same language that is commonly used for discussing abortion rights, where we say the government cannot come into someone's bedroom. Do you think abortions literally happen in someone's bedroom? Of course not. It's figurative language referencing the Fourth Amendment right of privacy.
I am sorry for you that your lack of understanding caused you to think ill of me.
No, it's job is to protect society. Protect it, advance its interests, etc. Rights are only part of the picture, and they're the smaller part.
Nope. Rights are THE reason government exists. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Of course, you don't have to agree with Thomas Jefferson. But I do, and purportedly so does most of the U.S.A. Although they often don't act like it.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons is no different than denying it because of whim.
That's self-evidently false.
It's abuse
No, it's not.
There's no such thing as spiritual damage.
It's nice for you to have that belief, but the First Amendment guarantees that government can't force that belief on me.
the state should not give them special privilege because of their beliefs
You have it backward. The state should not TAKE AWAY their rights just because it DISAGREES WITH their beliefs.
You're basically denying that there is a right to freedom of religion.
having a uniform legal code means relying on a secular notion of truth
"Secular" does not mean "anti-religious," and there's no reason a secular code cannot leave room for people to make decisions for religious reasons.
any mystical additions that people might have must simply be ignored by the state when constructing either the justice system or advancing the public good
Nonsense. You say that but you give no reason for it other than that you dislike religion.
hence the reason we consider equivalent the parent who doesn't get medical treatment for their child because they don't feel like it and the parent who doesn't because they're crazy
But we don't consider those to be equivalent at all.
(not all religious folk are nutjobs, of course, just typically your "evolution is a big hoax" sorts).
Shrug. Those people are no nuttier than Al Gore proclaiming that we know man caused global warming and "the debate is over."
Homeschooling is not intrinsically abuse, true. I brought up abuse to suggest that a parents rights approach cannot be absolute.
I understand that, but unless you can show that homeschooling actually IS abusive or neglectful, you don't have a real point.
It *can* amount to neglect though if the parent intentionally hampers their child's mental development (which some parents do, for religious reasons)
And government has no right to take any action unless it has EVIDENCE OF abuse or neglect. And that includes forcing the parent or child to reveal the nature of their schooling, which in this country is protected by the Bill of Rights.
It's not easy to draw the line in these cases (and I don't envy the job of social workers in needing to deal with these tricky situations)
It's not a difficult job at all: unless you have evidence of wrongdoing, you don't do anything. If you do have evidence, you follow it according to the laws of due process.
I think a mandatory universal education is often best for the child if the parent is sufficiently nuts
If you can, following due process, prove the parent is "sufficiently nuts," fine. But you cannot force the parent to submit to investigation without evidence of wrongdoing of some kind.
you could think of that as my asserting that the rights of the child to a good education are more important than any rights claims the parents might lay to manage their child's life
Except, of course, that -- again -- the parent has the right to decide what a "good education" is.
A "real-world education" would enable the children to be able to be in some kind valuable to other people in order to survive
Which could mean any of a million different things.
The reasoning for removing Romeikes kids from the school here was solely in order to prevent the whole rest of society from showing them that there is a life outside of religion
Their choice, not yours, not the government's.
Not that I believe your inane characterization anyway, but even if it's true, it's irrelevant.
It absolutely had nothing to do with any kind of education _quality_.
False. It is precisely about the quality of education. They see the education their kids were getting as low quality, because of its many flaws. You're committing the question-begging fallacy, pretending that your view of quality is the right one.
Obviously religion doesnt trump children rights everywhere
No childrens' rights are being violated, so it's irrelevant to talk about any childrens' rights being "trumped."
by your vile and ignorant words against reason
Where? Can you show any? (No, you can't.) On the contrary, you are the one who hates reason, continually throwing out false claims against religion, and many other fallacies that I continue to identify for you.
What if you lived in a theistic nation, where government decided to force everyone to follow a certain religion?
How exactly is that different from parents deciding to force all their children to follow their religion and in order to prevent real-world contamination, incarcerate them for life josef fritzl style?
Um. Are you not following along? You are arguing for government control, for the absolute right of government to force families to accept the teaching of the government. Would you argue for that if the government were going to force religion on your children?
Can you answer that question, honestly?
But [government] decides if you try to prevent your kids to get a education they need to survive once they (shock) decide to leave your walled religion garden.
More question-begging fallacies. Why is YOUR view or GOVERNMENT'S view of "an education they need to survive" the correct one?
And again... what if government decided that an "education they need to survive" includes forcing all children to pray to God? Would you accept that? If you don't answer the question, you're not being honest. If you say you WOULD NOT accept it, you're a hypocrite. And if you say you WOULD accept it, then you're an extremely poor excuse for a parent, allowing the government to overrule your own beliefs.
There's no evidence that teaching your children to follow your religion screws them up in any way.
Forcefully removing them from school, contacts other (different) kids, books, knowledge and so on _does_ screw them up.
Shrug. Prove it. Show me ANY evidence that removing kids from school damages them. Any at all. As to keeping your kids away from certain books and knowledge, almost EVERY parent and EVERY society does this. Most parents don't show porn to their kids; don't show Holocaust pictures to young children; and so on. This is not screwing them up in any way.
As to keeping your kids from contacting "different" kids, if those kids are a bad influence, sure. Again, almost all parents do this. It's irrational to NOT do it.
The only question is whether certain kids, books, and knowledge are a bad influence. And guess who gets to make that decision? THE PARENTS. Whether the parents are right or wrong doesn't matter, because they are the parents and they get to make the decision.
One is done to improve the education of the child, and the other is done specifically to limit it.
That's obviously incorrect. In both cases, it is to improve the education of the child. You just disagree that one will result in improving the education of the child.
False. In fact -- and the First Amendment backs me up here -- it's one of the best reasons.
No one ever said you couldn't tell them anything you want. It's not a speech issue.
I really hope that when I point out the fact that the First Amendment does not merely protect speech, but religious practice, that you are going to feel a bit embarrassed by your retort.
You are arguing for the right to purposefully restrict knowledge... that's child abuse.
It has never, in any nation's law, or widely practiced cultural tradition of any kind, been considered "child abuse" to purposefully restrict knowledge.
You claim false all the time.
You make it so easy.
Not to mention you are the one that is wrong.
False.
You assume that testing a child requires sending in government agents into your home.
I said "literally or virtually." In the same way that making abortion illegal is considered by many to be government going into one's bedroom.
And the government has rational force over you.
Only when the point of that force is to secure rights. Otherwise, it has no rational force against me.
You take from the government, they take from you. It's the social contract...
The social contract is that I give to government what is required for it to secure liberties, and nothing more. And it does nothing to force me beyond what is required for the same purpose.
and every society on earth has it, so no need to argue that it isn't natural or whatever.
No one argues that a "social contract" is not natural. What is not natural is that government enforces its will on me and my family when the purpose is to shape society to certain people's whims, rather than to secure liberty.
I know what is best for my children; government does not.
Every parent believes that. Many are wrong.
Almost all are correct.
So how do we know you aren't one of the wrong ones?
As I have stated: we use the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We cannot take away someone's rights just because they MIGHT be harming their children. This violates due process. We cannot go into their homes (literally or virtually) and force them to reveal their curriculum without some evidence of harm, because this is unreasonable search and seizure.
Stating it loudly and repeatedly doesn't convince anyone.
A person that believes Abraham Lincoln talks to him is going to meet some definition of a mental illness. But replace that invisible friend with a more popular invisible friend, and it's suddenly not a mental illness?
You are implying that by calling it an "invisible friend" that it is therefore not real. You are committing the question-begging fallacy, and I summarily reject it.
I'll humor you though: give me one example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia.
Read the current version of the DSM, paying attention to the schizophrenia entry.
In other words, you can't give one example.
If you don't know what the DSM is, then you aren't competent to doubt him.
That's obviously not true, because even if I didn't have a copy of DSM4 on the bookshelf and three psychology degrees in my immediate family, I could still understand the fact that no one has ever demonstrated a belief in God to be irrational, and that therefore such a belief is not demonstrative of any mental illness.
... the state is the state. Its job is to protect society.
Close. Its job is to secure rights. Not quite the same thing.
When parents abuse their kids, the kids are taken away
Again, close. What really happens is that the parental rights are reduced. Sometimes this results in the kids being taken away, sometimes other remedies are enacted. In every case, however, FIRST comes the parental abuse, THEN comes the state using due process to reduce the parental rights.
It is, of course, not quite analogous to say that things that are properly child abuse (e.g. when a Christian Scientist or Scientologist denies medical treatment to their kids because of their stupid beliefs) are analogous to this.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons is absolutely the right of the parents, and is not abuse.
Surely, you and I would reject witch doctor treatments for our children, and defy a government that tried to force it on us. Just because you're RIGHT that a treatment will work, doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to force it on a child against the wishes of the parent... especially since you might be WRONG that it doesn't cause spiritual damage to the child.
That aside, though, for the sake of argument, let's say that's abuse, and we therefore disallow it.
Actually, the German government *does* have that right, since all rights exist solely by consensus. If a German citizen doesn't like that, they are free to leave, or lobby for radical change in their government. The system is working as designed.
Nonsense. If you subscribe to this view, that government can do anything the that consensus exists for... killing six million Jews, for example. Individual rights do not exist by consensus.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
This argument disturbs me greatly.
Excellent. Because someone who is disturbed by this probably needs a lot more disturbing.
in your world view children are nothing more then property or pets
Not remotely, and I said nothing that implied that.
Is it a parent's right to feed a child into ultra-obesity/diabetes/immobility? Yep.
No. No one, not even a parent, has the right to cause direct and significant physical harm to their child.
Is it a parent's right to remove a child from any meaningful social interaction in the interest of 'values'?
You're committing the question-begging fallacy: obviously the parent you describe doesn't believe those social interactions are positively "meaningful," so you're the one pushing your values here. That said, almost all homeschoolers do get plenty of social interaction that even you would find to be meaningful.
Is it a parent's right to force a child into an ultra-religious home-school where "Evolution is just a theory?" Yep. SHOULD it be? No!
Evolution of man, in fact, is "just a theory." It has little direct evidence backing it. The commonalities in DNA are the best evidence, but there's always the possibility that this could be the result of some other factor.
I think it is more likely true than not, but anyone who looks at the evidence has to recognize that we just don't have enough information to demonstrate it. If you're open and honest about it, you must agree with me there.
However... I presume you are talking about people who deny much more than I've stated. Who believe evolution is a lie and that God created Adam 6,000 years ago from the dust. Why shouldn't people have the right to teach this to their homeschooled child? What's so damned almighty important about the "proper" view of evolution that it justifies taking away the right of parents to teach their kids?
Does having the "proper" view of evolution change the lives of the overwhelming majority of people who have that view? Not in the slightest. A "proper" view of evolution is so meaningless and insigificant it boggles the mind why anyone would care what someone else's view is... that is, if you take it at face value. Of course, the real point is that people like you, who bring it up like this, use it as a sort of shibboleth, a way to separate the US from the THEM. If you don't believe in evolution, then you are the problem with this country! The reason why we have poor people and unemployment and why North Korea hates us! Of course, many on the other side, creationists and so on, do the same thing too.
My view is that we should be tolerant, including being intolerant of each others' intolerances. If someone doesn't think like I do... fine. Good, even.
In my experience most ultra-religious people I've met are very ill equipped to TEACH anything open and honest about natural science.
In my experience -- whichis vast -- people like you who make such statements don't have much experience.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
Who? The person who has to live in the society their kids are being launched into.
That's a load of crap. By the same argument, I could say that TV should be banned. Look, it turns people into zombies who only care about what Jay Leno said last night! I have to live with these people! Let's ban everything I don't like!
Nope. We live in a free society. You don't get to tell me how to raise my kids.
And who the hell are YOU to act as if kids are their parents' property
I never did that, in fact.
it IS a thorny issue, and you can't simply dismiss things by essentially reducing this to a question of the parents' liberty, without any regard for the kids.
No, because it is specifically WHO GETS TO DECIDE what is best for the kids that is at issue. I am not saying the well-being or rights of children should be disregarded; I am saying the parents get to make that decision.
In fact, isn't one point made by those in favor of homeschooling that kids are entitled to a decent education (and that since the state is unable to provide one, homeschooling is necessary)?
Yes, but the PARENT gets to decide what IS a decent education.
If you accept that children ARE entitled to this, however, then you must also accept that not everyone might agree about how to ensure a decent education.
Sure. Hence, homeschooling.
(In fact, as others have pointed out, it appears that in Germany, homeschooling IS legal as long as those doing it have the necessary qualification, something that, one imagines, is squarely intended to make sure exactly that: that the education the children are getting will in fact be decent).
Except as I already noted, government does not have the right to overrule the parent on what is a "decent" education, so they have no right therefore to force the parent to go through anything to supposedly ensure the education is "decent."
Of course, you could also opt to believe that children are not entitled to a decent education
Nope. I am just saying government doesn't have the right to define for a family what a "decent education" is.
Perhaps the point is that the kids aren't given a choice?
No, that is not the point at all. If it were, it would apply equally to the parents and to the government: in the German system, the kids get no choice either, because the government decides.
So first they get indoctrinated into a religion almost from birth
You say "indoctrinate," I say "teach." Shrug.
then their parents can exercise their 'right' to pull them out of school and any other situation where they might be exposed to outside thought
Shrug. Whatever works for them. I am tolerant. Why aren't you?
Note that for my part, I am exposed to, and plan to expose my kids to, all sorts of other views. This is the norm among homeschoolers. What you apparently don't know is that most homeschoolers love knowledge and learning, especially learning about how different people think.
By the time that kid moves out of home, they'll most likely no longer be capable of evaluating any information that conflicts with what they were taught.
No offense, but you're completely ignorant. This is not representative of homeschooling at all.
Perhaps I'm missing the upsides to freedom of religion...
How about the fact that freedom of religion also gives atheists the right to NOT be religious? Is that enough upside for you?
This is a fundamental human right: to raise your children as you see fit.
Except it isn't if you're removing your children from the society, culture and from knowledge they need to later live in and as a part of this society.
False.
You do not own your children.
No one ever implied anyone owns anyone's children... well, except for the people who essentially imply the government owns everyone. Which has been a lot of people in this discussion.
Their right to a real-world education trumps your right to pass your religion virus onto them, forcefully.
The question is who gets to decide what a "real-world education" is. And it's not government.
You are apparently, by your vile and ignorant words against religion, an atheist. What if you lived in a theistic nation, where government decided to force everyone to follow a certain religion? Government doesn't get to make those choices. It does not get to decide if our kids are of a certain religion, or if they learn Spanish, or if they learn about evolution or global warming. If you give government the power to force ANY of that on our kids, you give government the right to force ALL of that on our kids.
its in no way your right to fuck them up totally and completely alienate them from society on purpose in order to ensure that this society will later reject them so hard, that they even as grown ups will never be able to leave your religion because the have no other place to go.
There's no evidence that teaching your children to follow your religion screws them up in any way. You're being competely irrational, and you're just making things up.
Which is funny because as the religious one here, the (untrue) stereotype is that I am supposed to be the irrational one.
So... what you're saying is... by going to public school you learned how to deal with other assholes at a young age? I'm sorry, thats not very good for supporting your argument.
Of course it is. You're assuming that it is a good thing to go through those lessons at a young age. There's no evidence to support that view.
In my experience, they are also the easiest to con.
If you believe the child in the womb has the same rights as anyone else
Let's be honest here: it's a fetus.
A fetus, which is biologically a distinct and unique human life. I call it what people have called it for millennia: a child in the womb. There's no reason to reject that word here, unless you want to deemphasize the indisputable fact that it is a biologically distinct and unique human life.
that conclusion is not based on a universally accepted premise.
Of course, which is why I worded it the way I did.
Freedom is not 100% anywhere in the world. Society defines acceptable limits to freedom.
Those limits MAY ONLY, in a free society, be those that are necessary to protect rights.
Taking away the right of parents to teach their children at home, to not send them to a separate school, does not protect anyone's rights... including the child's. For you to argue that, you'd have to argue that homeschooling is significantly more likely to produce uneducated or maladjusted children, which... you can't do. On the contrary, homeschooling is significantly more likely to produce better-educated children, who are as or more well-adjusted than their public school counterparts.
Even in america children are required to be educated, with a specific minimum set of requirements.
Yes, and America also has the abomination known as the military draft, which is nothing more than indentured servitude.
It isn't THEIR choice because WE as a society said 'there are limits to this level of freedom as WE believe the children themselves have some rights which the parents DON'T get complete control over, and education is one of them.
Nope. Liberty doesn't work that way. In a free society, the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority by fiat.
Do you think the parents have the right to abuse their children as well?
It depends, of course, what you mean by abuse. If you mean "spank," then damn straight, parents have the right to "abuse" their children. If you mean something everyone agrees is abuse, then obviously no. But you cannot demonstrate that homeschooling is, or is more likely to result in, abuse.
Freedom has its limits, otherwise it would be anarchy and there would be no laws at all.
Except that in my perspective, those limits are precisely those necessary and sufficient to prevent anarachy. The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. The problem is, you cannot demonstrate that homeschooling is akin to, or significantly more likely to result in, abuse or anarchy or anything at all bad for the child.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any parents -- to deprive the children of their right to a standard education?
The parent, that's who. What you call a "right" to a standard education, to me is SUBstandard. And being the parent, that is the choice for me, and no one else, to make.
The issue here is precisely whether the parental interest in making decisions for the family or the state interest in providing a standard education and inculturation for its people is more important.
No, it is not about what is "more important" or whether the state has an "interest." What's important to many of these statists -- such as creating little cogs to put in the machine of society -- is not important to me at all. It's whether the government has any right to take away my parental rights... and no one yet has provided a single rational argument that it does.
Government MUST have a role here to set a minimum standard of child care for education. Basically because some people are too stupid to leave it unchecked.
Who gets to decide who is too stupid? Government? On what basis is government even capable of this? Except in the extreme cases, where someone is retarded, government literally has no basis for this.
If you physically abuse your child, or refuse to feed them, give them proper basic care, the government does (and should) have the right to step in and correct it. Standard of education should be the same thing.
Except that it is self-evidently NOT the same thing.
Let's just say it as it is: I want a free country, and you don't. You want a country that conforms to YOUR ideas. I want a country that is free for ALL ideas. Which also means that I should not be forced into your ideal health insurance system, but that I get to choose any private insurance I want to -- regardless of how much or little coverage it offers -- or none at all.
Protecting people from harm is the main job of the government.
Incorrect. Securing liberty is the reason government exists. That is the view the United States was founded on, and it's a view that goes back centuries earlier in Europe, especially, of course, in Great Britain.
government DOES have a right to say that TOLERANCE towards other should be taught
To be pedantic, it's not the "should" that is the problem, it's the "shall." Government saying I *should* teach something is an annoying waste of money to engage in propaganda. Government saying I *shall* teach something is an infringement on my right to choose what to teach.
Because in the long term, tolerance towards others is the main thing that makes our society work.
That's fallacious. I could say that religion is what makes society work, so government can teach everyone to be a Christian. There are many things that can make society work, but ultimately what makes society work is individuals living freely, and government securing those freedoms. I don't need to be tolerant of you, as long as I am not allowed to cause harm to you.
By reading the case material...
I don't care. I am not talking about them in particular.
To them, government school TEACHING ABOUT OTHER RELIGIONS is unacceptable because it's not christian enough - they're THAT intolerant of others.
So what? I know tons of intolerant people... most of them products of the public schools, most of them liberals, most of them atheists. To them, teaching about every religion EXCEPT Christianity is acceptable... unless, of course, Christianity is portrayed in a negative light.
Note that I am not putting down intolerance. Quite the opposite: I love tolerance so much that my tolerance even extends to the intolerant. It goes without saying that yours does not.
Since you decided to psychoanalyze the American mindset, allow me to return the favor: I understand that intolerance is anathema to most Germans due to its history, especially before and during WWII. But there's a difference between personal intolerance, and taking actions against other people.
And while I'm at it, I'll note that while your shared hatred of intolerance is understandable given your history, your trust of government -- given that same history -- is not understandable at all.
The judge who granted asylum is either very, very politically/religiously motivated, or had to follow a truly horrifying set of laws.
Or he just recognized the fact that parents have the right to choose how to teach their children as they see fit.
all they needed was getting a basic teaching license, which would have them go courses about how to teach
Government has no right to interfere in such a way with parental rights.
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
False.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public or whether traffic is on the left or right side of the road.
The former is clear: we do have that fundamental right. The latter, not being about rights at all, is irrelevant to this discussion.
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control.
False.
But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
False.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society.
False.
Governments exist to secure liberties, not to take them away. They literally have no right to do it.
Just FYI, an attitude like that is pretty short-sighted.
False.
Say I started off a post stating "certain information can travel faster than light", well it has become common knowledge now that that is most likely false.
If this were about something possible for you to prove, fine. It isn't. There is no possible way to prove that religion is a form of schizophrenia, any more than it is possible to prove that 1+1=3. They aren't related in any way.
This is just an idiotic and inept (or grossly ignorant) attempt by the original poster to imply that people who think differently than he does are somehow dysfunctional. And it is precisely this attitude, that when generalized among a population can become detrimental to all forms of liberty, that we must guard against by allowing people to choose their own paths, whether they be religious, atheistic, homeschooling, or anything else that doesn't cause direct, objective, actual harm to other people.
Also, I don't see how your response was at all insightful.
-1, Offtopic
he did provide some modest evidence.
False. I can say this with confidence without reading his post, because I know there is no possibility of any serious evidence to support his claim.
I'll humor you though: give me one example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia. Just one. I guarantee that it will either misrepresent religion, schizophrenia, or both; or be simply untrue. Or, I suppose, not be actually relevant. But it will not be evidence to support the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
I really hope that when I point out the fact that the First Amendment does not merely protect speech, but religious practice, that you are going to feel a bit embarrassed by your retort.
Oh, so the religious whine "freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion" when atheists want to not be bombarded by Christian mythology
It's not whining, it's obvious truth.
but when it comes to schools, then it's suddenly the freedom from religions of those evil Muslims and such.
I never said or implied government CANNOT teach about Islam in a school. My answer to atheists who do not want to learn about Christianity in schools is the same as my defense of Christians who do not want to learn about Islam in schools: either get with the school board to change it, opt out of that portion of the education, or leave the school.
There's no double standard here: my answer is the same in both cases.
Every law out there is forcing the will of the government on your family
Why do you say that as though it justifies any further forcing of the government's will?
"Securing liberty" is something you claim they should be aspiring to.
It's the reason government exists, as the Declaration of Independence says.
But that's a load of bullshit. You want them to force your morality on others.
Once again, you're just making things up. That's a complete fabrication; a total lie.
You hate the government in your house if you want to shield your children from a balanced education. But what about if the question is a woman and a doctor in a room ending a pregnancy? Are you for the liberty of those adults in that room?
No moreso than I am for the liberty of a parent to beat their child to a pulp, no. I believe the biologically distinct and unique human life in the womb has the same unalienable rights as any other human life, and therefore the government exists to secure the liberty of that life in the womb, too.
There's a hierarchy of rights, and they are ordered properly in the Declaration of Independence: life first, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness. The woman is claiming the right to liberty in destroying the human life within her. But the child's right to life trumps that, just as the slaveowner's right to property is trumped by the slave's right to liberty.
And if they should intervene there to secure its future, why do you turn around and think the opposite when the government wants to intervene to secure the future of a student-aged child?
Not to secure its future, but to secure its right to life. And you're question-begging again (see, you really need to work on your apologetic skills) in assuming that government has any right to determine, instead of the parent, what IS "securing the future" for a student-aged child.
We know the life in the womb is being killed. There's no question of that. It's well-understood biological fact. But what is best for a child's future is not objective truth; it's determined by the decisions of the parents.
You don't come up with logic, then decide personal issues logically.
False. You just didn't UNDERSTAND the clear and unassailable logic.
You have morality, and try to force others to your will, then use logic to justify it after.
Nope. Quite the opposite. If that were the case, I would be, for example, against gay unions: after all, I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful. But on the contrary, I am a supporter of full equality for gay unions (I would, if I could, remove government recognition of "marriage" and replace it with "civil unions" for everybody, and let marriage be defined purely by social institutions, allowing any two people to join into such a union, for any reason).
I would
You are stating what I'm implying, which you are wrong about.
Shrug. It's clear you believe that this "invisible friend" is not real. It's further clear that BECAUSE you think it is not real, that THEREFORE you think it is a sign of a "mental illness."
To an outsider, an "invisible friend", whether real or not, will appear exactly the same.
Um. So now you are agreeing that my statement of what you implied was, in fact, correct.
it's curious that those that apparently believe in such invisible friends are first to mock others that believe in different ones
Once again, you're completely making things up. That's facially untrue.
I know yours isn't in psychology, or you'd have remembered that they like the Roman numerals, for some unknown reason
What "they" like is irrelevant. Many people use Arabic, and it's perfectly accepted. I also often use the word "gov't" even though "they" spell it out! ZOMG.
you tell us some of what it says
About what? About schizophrenia? Why would I waste my time? I could also look to see if the Grey's Anatomy shows any similarities between religion and colon cancer ... but why would I? No one has given anyone any reason to believe there's a connection, that would warrant such an act.
You are obviously incapable of looking at it with an open mind.
Tripe. I do not look at whether 1+1=3 with an "open mind" because I have enough knowledge to understand that it's obviously false. And unless someone gives me a reason to think it might be true, I won't bother considering what I've already learned more than enough about.
I told someone else, now I tell you: give me ONE example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia. Just one.
The burden is not on me here, and you should stop pretending that it is.
If you can't at least understand what the other person is saying, you'll never win an argument.
Tripe. Again, if I don't understand why someone thinks 1+1=3, I'll still easily win the argument that it is not true.
Perhaps you should spend more time on the Apologetics.
That's MY line to YOU. Honestly ... you're harping on me for denying what is obviously false, and for which no evidence was presented. That is piss-poor argumentation on your part.
You could also, I suppose, to improve your skills, dispense with your incessant ad hominem attacks about what degree I may or may not have. That only weakens your case when you focus on that instead of the facts. I repeat: one example. Just one.
Oh, you aren't stupid, you are a liar.
Sorry to say, but you're the one appearing stupid, for thinking that I lied.
You assume that they have to break in to test whether your children are receiving an education.
No, I assumed no such thing. You simply do not understand the Fourth Amendment. If I am walking down the street and a government agent forces me to tell him what I ate for breakfast (unless he has a warrant, or probable cause), that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is likened, in the law, and in caselaw, to entering someone's home and rifling through their possessions.
I am using the same language that is commonly used for discussing abortion rights, where we say the government cannot come into someone's bedroom. Do you think abortions literally happen in someone's bedroom? Of course not. It's figurative language referencing the Fourth Amendment right of privacy.
I am sorry for you that your lack of understanding caused you to think ill of me.
No, it's job is to protect society. Protect it, advance its interests, etc. Rights are only part of the picture, and they're the smaller part.
Nope. Rights are THE reason government exists. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Of course, you don't have to agree with Thomas Jefferson. But I do, and purportedly so does most of the U.S.A. Although they often don't act like it.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons is no different than denying it because of whim.
That's self-evidently false.
It's abuse
No, it's not.
There's no such thing as spiritual damage.
It's nice for you to have that belief, but the First Amendment guarantees that government can't force that belief on me.
the state should not give them special privilege because of their beliefs
You have it backward. The state should not TAKE AWAY their rights just because it DISAGREES WITH their beliefs.
You're basically denying that there is a right to freedom of religion.
having a uniform legal code means relying on a secular notion of truth
"Secular" does not mean "anti-religious," and there's no reason a secular code cannot leave room for people to make decisions for religious reasons.
any mystical additions that people might have must simply be ignored by the state when constructing either the justice system or advancing the public good
Nonsense. You say that but you give no reason for it other than that you dislike religion.
hence the reason we consider equivalent the parent who doesn't get medical treatment for their child because they don't feel like it and the parent who doesn't because they're crazy
But we don't consider those to be equivalent at all.
(not all religious folk are nutjobs, of course, just typically your "evolution is a big hoax" sorts).
Shrug. Those people are no nuttier than Al Gore proclaiming that we know man caused global warming and "the debate is over."
Homeschooling is not intrinsically abuse, true. I brought up abuse to suggest that a parents rights approach cannot be absolute.
I understand that, but unless you can show that homeschooling actually IS abusive or neglectful, you don't have a real point.
It *can* amount to neglect though if the parent intentionally hampers their child's mental development (which some parents do, for religious reasons)
And government has no right to take any action unless it has EVIDENCE OF abuse or neglect. And that includes forcing the parent or child to reveal the nature of their schooling, which in this country is protected by the Bill of Rights.
It's not easy to draw the line in these cases (and I don't envy the job of social workers in needing to deal with these tricky situations)
It's not a difficult job at all: unless you have evidence of wrongdoing, you don't do anything. If you do have evidence, you follow it according to the laws of due process.
I think a mandatory universal education is often best for the child if the parent is sufficiently nuts
If you can, following due process, prove the parent is "sufficiently nuts," fine. But you cannot force the parent to submit to investigation without evidence of wrongdoing of some kind.
you could think of that as my asserting that the rights of the child to a good education are more important than any rights claims the parents might lay to manage their child's life
Except, of course, that -- again -- the parent has the right to decide what a "good education" is.
A "real-world education" would enable the children to be able to be in some kind valuable to other people in order to survive
Which could mean any of a million different things.
The reasoning for removing Romeikes kids from the school here was solely in order to prevent the whole rest of society from showing them that there is a life outside of religion
Their choice, not yours, not the government's.
Not that I believe your inane characterization anyway, but even if it's true, it's irrelevant.
It absolutely had nothing to do with any kind of education _quality_.
False. It is precisely about the quality of education. They see the education their kids were getting as low quality, because of its many flaws. You're committing the question-begging fallacy, pretending that your view of quality is the right one.
Obviously religion doesnt trump children rights everywhere
No childrens' rights are being violated, so it's irrelevant to talk about any childrens' rights being "trumped."
by your vile and ignorant words against reason
Where? Can you show any? (No, you can't.) On the contrary, you are the one who hates reason, continually throwing out false claims against religion, and many other fallacies that I continue to identify for you.
What if you lived in a theistic nation, where government decided to force everyone to follow a certain religion?
How exactly is that different from parents deciding to force all their children to follow their religion and in order to prevent real-world contamination, incarcerate them for life josef fritzl style?
Um. Are you not following along? You are arguing for government control, for the absolute right of government to force families to accept the teaching of the government. Would you argue for that if the government were going to force religion on your children?
Can you answer that question, honestly?
But [government] decides if you try to prevent your kids to get a education they need to survive once they (shock) decide to leave your walled religion garden.
More question-begging fallacies. Why is YOUR view or GOVERNMENT'S view of "an education they need to survive" the correct one?
And again ... what if government decided that an "education they need to survive" includes forcing all children to pray to God? Would you accept that? If you don't answer the question, you're not being honest. If you say you WOULD NOT accept it, you're a hypocrite. And if you say you WOULD accept it, then you're an extremely poor excuse for a parent, allowing the government to overrule your own beliefs.
There's no evidence that teaching your children to follow your religion screws them up in any way.
Forcefully removing them from school, contacts other (different) kids, books, knowledge and so on _does_ screw them up.
Shrug. Prove it. Show me ANY evidence that removing kids from school damages them. Any at all. As to keeping your kids away from certain books and knowledge, almost EVERY parent and EVERY society does this. Most parents don't show porn to their kids; don't show Holocaust pictures to young children; and so on. This is not screwing them up in any way.
As to keeping your kids from contacting "different" kids, if those kids are a bad influence, sure. Again, almost all parents do this. It's irrational to NOT do it.
The only question is whether certain kids, books, and knowledge are a bad influence. And guess who gets to make that decision? THE PARENTS. Whether the parents are right or wrong doesn't matter, because they are the parents and they get to make the decision.
If I were making things up
There's no "if."
One is done to improve the education of the child, and the other is done specifically to limit it.
That's obviously incorrect. In both cases, it is to improve the education of the child. You just disagree that one will result in improving the education of the child.
False. In fact -- and the First Amendment backs me up here -- it's one of the best reasons.
No one ever said you couldn't tell them anything you want. It's not a speech issue.
I really hope that when I point out the fact that the First Amendment does not merely protect speech, but religious practice, that you are going to feel a bit embarrassed by your retort.
You are arguing for the right to purposefully restrict knowledge ... that's child abuse.
It has never, in any nation's law, or widely practiced cultural tradition of any kind, been considered "child abuse" to purposefully restrict knowledge.
You claim false all the time.
You make it so easy.
Not to mention you are the one that is wrong.
False.
You assume that testing a child requires sending in government agents into your home.
I said "literally or virtually." In the same way that making abortion illegal is considered by many to be government going into one's bedroom.
And the government has rational force over you.
Only when the point of that force is to secure rights. Otherwise, it has no rational force against me.
You take from the government, they take from you. It's the social contract ...
The social contract is that I give to government what is required for it to secure liberties, and nothing more. And it does nothing to force me beyond what is required for the same purpose.
and every society on earth has it, so no need to argue that it isn't natural or whatever.
No one argues that a "social contract" is not natural. What is not natural is that government enforces its will on me and my family when the purpose is to shape society to certain people's whims, rather than to secure liberty.
I know what is best for my children; government does not.
Every parent believes that. Many are wrong.
Almost all are correct.
So how do we know you aren't one of the wrong ones?
As I have stated: we use the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We cannot take away someone's rights just because they MIGHT be harming their children. This violates due process. We cannot go into their homes (literally or virtually) and force them to reveal their curriculum without some evidence of harm, because this is unreasonable search and seizure.
Stating it loudly and repeatedly doesn't convince anyone.
That's MY line to YOU.
A person that believes Abraham Lincoln talks to him is going to meet some definition of a mental illness. But replace that invisible friend with a more popular invisible friend, and it's suddenly not a mental illness?
You are implying that by calling it an "invisible friend" that it is therefore not real. You are committing the question-begging fallacy, and I summarily reject it.
I'll humor you though: give me one example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia.
Read the current version of the DSM, paying attention to the schizophrenia entry.
In other words, you can't give one example.
If you don't know what the DSM is, then you aren't competent to doubt him.
That's obviously not true, because even if I didn't have a copy of DSM4 on the bookshelf and three psychology degrees in my immediate family, I could still understand the fact that no one has ever demonstrated a belief in God to be irrational, and that therefore such a belief is not demonstrative of any mental illness.
... the state is the state. Its job is to protect society.
Close. Its job is to secure rights. Not quite the same thing.
When parents abuse their kids, the kids are taken away
Again, close. What really happens is that the parental rights are reduced. Sometimes this results in the kids being taken away, sometimes other remedies are enacted. In every case, however, FIRST comes the parental abuse, THEN comes the state using due process to reduce the parental rights.
It is, of course, not quite analogous to say that things that are properly child abuse (e.g. when a Christian Scientist or Scientologist denies medical treatment to their kids because of their stupid beliefs) are analogous to this.
Denying medical treatment for religious reasons is absolutely the right of the parents, and is not abuse.
Surely, you and I would reject witch doctor treatments for our children, and defy a government that tried to force it on us. Just because you're RIGHT that a treatment will work, doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to force it on a child against the wishes of the parent ... especially since you might be WRONG that it doesn't cause spiritual damage to the child.
That aside, though, for the sake of argument, let's say that's abuse, and we therefore disallow it.
However, parental rights are not absolute ...
They are, up until the point of abuse.
Homeschooling is not abuse.
Therefore ...
You assume the worst, then prove it wrong.
No, in fact, that's not what I did.
Actually, the German government *does* have that right, since all rights exist solely by consensus. If a German citizen doesn't like that, they are free to leave, or lobby for radical change in their government. The system is working as designed.
Nonsense. If you subscribe to this view, that government can do anything the that consensus exists for ... killing six million Jews, for example. Individual rights do not exist by consensus.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
This argument disturbs me greatly.
Excellent. Because someone who is disturbed by this probably needs a lot more disturbing.
in your world view children are nothing more then property or pets
Not remotely, and I said nothing that implied that.
Is it a parent's right to feed a child into ultra-obesity/diabetes/immobility? Yep.
No. No one, not even a parent, has the right to cause direct and significant physical harm to their child.
Is it a parent's right to remove a child from any meaningful social interaction in the interest of 'values'?
You're committing the question-begging fallacy: obviously the parent you describe doesn't believe those social interactions are positively "meaningful," so you're the one pushing your values here. That said, almost all homeschoolers do get plenty of social interaction that even you would find to be meaningful.
Is it a parent's right to force a child into an ultra-religious home-school where "Evolution is just a theory?" Yep. SHOULD it be? No!
Evolution of man, in fact, is "just a theory." It has little direct evidence backing it. The commonalities in DNA are the best evidence, but there's always the possibility that this could be the result of some other factor.
I think it is more likely true than not, but anyone who looks at the evidence has to recognize that we just don't have enough information to demonstrate it. If you're open and honest about it, you must agree with me there.
However ... I presume you are talking about people who deny much more than I've stated. Who believe evolution is a lie and that God created Adam 6,000 years ago from the dust. Why shouldn't people have the right to teach this to their homeschooled child? What's so damned almighty important about the "proper" view of evolution that it justifies taking away the right of parents to teach their kids?
Does having the "proper" view of evolution change the lives of the overwhelming majority of people who have that view? Not in the slightest. A "proper" view of evolution is so meaningless and insigificant it boggles the mind why anyone would care what someone else's view is ... that is, if you take it at face value. Of course, the real point is that people like you, who bring it up like this, use it as a sort of shibboleth, a way to separate the US from the THEM. If you don't believe in evolution, then you are the problem with this country! The reason why we have poor people and unemployment and why North Korea hates us! Of course, many on the other side, creationists and so on, do the same thing too.
My view is that we should be tolerant, including being intolerant of each others' intolerances. If someone doesn't think like I do ... fine. Good, even.
In my experience most ultra-religious people I've met are very ill equipped to TEACH anything open and honest about natural science.
In my experience -- whichis vast -- people like you who make such statements don't have much experience.
YEAH! If I want to teach my children to hunt other human beings for sport that is MY RIGHT.
You realize that's an irrational response to what I said, right? Just checking.
Who? The person who has to live in the society their kids are being launched into.
That's a load of crap. By the same argument, I could say that TV should be banned. Look, it turns people into zombies who only care about what Jay Leno said last night! I have to live with these people! Let's ban everything I don't like!
Nope. We live in a free society. You don't get to tell me how to raise my kids.
And who the hell are YOU to act as if kids are their parents' property
I never did that, in fact.
it IS a thorny issue, and you can't simply dismiss things by essentially reducing this to a question of the parents' liberty, without any regard for the kids.
No, because it is specifically WHO GETS TO DECIDE what is best for the kids that is at issue. I am not saying the well-being or rights of children should be disregarded; I am saying the parents get to make that decision.
In fact, isn't one point made by those in favor of homeschooling that kids are entitled to a decent education (and that since the state is unable to provide one, homeschooling is necessary)?
Yes, but the PARENT gets to decide what IS a decent education.
If you accept that children ARE entitled to this, however, then you must also accept that not everyone might agree about how to ensure a decent education.
Sure. Hence, homeschooling.
(In fact, as others have pointed out, it appears that in Germany, homeschooling IS legal as long as those doing it have the necessary qualification, something that, one imagines, is squarely intended to make sure exactly that: that the education the children are getting will in fact be decent).
Except as I already noted, government does not have the right to overrule the parent on what is a "decent" education, so they have no right therefore to force the parent to go through anything to supposedly ensure the education is "decent."
Of course, you could also opt to believe that children are not entitled to a decent education
Nope. I am just saying government doesn't have the right to define for a family what a "decent education" is.
Perhaps the point is that the kids aren't given a choice?
No, that is not the point at all. If it were, it would apply equally to the parents and to the government: in the German system, the kids get no choice either, because the government decides.
So first they get indoctrinated into a religion almost from birth
You say "indoctrinate," I say "teach." Shrug.
then their parents can exercise their 'right' to pull them out of school and any other situation where they might be exposed to outside thought
Shrug. Whatever works for them. I am tolerant. Why aren't you?
Note that for my part, I am exposed to, and plan to expose my kids to, all sorts of other views. This is the norm among homeschoolers. What you apparently don't know is that most homeschoolers love knowledge and learning, especially learning about how different people think.
By the time that kid moves out of home, they'll most likely no longer be capable of evaluating any information that conflicts with what they were taught.
No offense, but you're completely ignorant. This is not representative of homeschooling at all.
Perhaps I'm missing the upsides to freedom of religion...
How about the fact that freedom of religion also gives atheists the right to NOT be religious? Is that enough upside for you?
This is a fundamental human right: to raise your children as you see fit.
Except it isn't if you're removing your children from the society, culture and from knowledge they need to later live in and as a part of this society.
False.
You do not own your children.
No one ever implied anyone owns anyone's children ... well, except for the people who essentially imply the government owns everyone. Which has been a lot of people in this discussion.
Their right to a real-world education trumps your right to pass your religion virus onto them, forcefully.
The question is who gets to decide what a "real-world education" is. And it's not government.
You are apparently, by your vile and ignorant words against religion, an atheist. What if you lived in a theistic nation, where government decided to force everyone to follow a certain religion? Government doesn't get to make those choices. It does not get to decide if our kids are of a certain religion, or if they learn Spanish, or if they learn about evolution or global warming. If you give government the power to force ANY of that on our kids, you give government the right to force ALL of that on our kids.
its in no way your right to fuck them up totally and completely alienate them from society on purpose in order to ensure that this society will later reject them so hard, that they even as grown ups will never be able to leave your religion because the have no other place to go.
There's no evidence that teaching your children to follow your religion screws them up in any way. You're being competely irrational, and you're just making things up.
Which is funny because as the religious one here, the (untrue) stereotype is that I am supposed to be the irrational one.
So ... what you're saying is ... by going to public school you learned how to deal with other assholes at a young age? I'm sorry, thats not very good for supporting your argument.
Of course it is. You're assuming that it is a good thing to go through those lessons at a young age. There's no evidence to support that view.
In my experience, they are also the easiest to con.
I do not believe you have significant experience.
Right. Show me on any widely accepted declaration of human rights where it says home schooling is a right.
As soon as you demonstrate to me why any declaration of human rights, widely accepted or otherwise, has any bearing on what is actually a human right.
If you believe the child in the womb has the same rights as anyone else
Let's be honest here: it's a fetus.
A fetus, which is biologically a distinct and unique human life. I call it what people have called it for millennia: a child in the womb. There's no reason to reject that word here, unless you want to deemphasize the indisputable fact that it is a biologically distinct and unique human life.
that conclusion is not based on a universally accepted premise.
Of course, which is why I worded it the way I did.
Freedom is not 100% anywhere in the world. Society defines acceptable limits to freedom.
Those limits MAY ONLY, in a free society, be those that are necessary to protect rights.
Taking away the right of parents to teach their children at home, to not send them to a separate school, does not protect anyone's rights ... including the child's. For you to argue that, you'd have to argue that homeschooling is significantly more likely to produce uneducated or maladjusted children, which ... you can't do. On the contrary, homeschooling is significantly more likely to produce better-educated children, who are as or more well-adjusted than their public school counterparts.
Even in america children are required to be educated, with a specific minimum set of requirements.
Yes, and America also has the abomination known as the military draft, which is nothing more than indentured servitude.
It isn't THEIR choice because WE as a society said 'there are limits to this level of freedom as WE believe the children themselves have some rights which the parents DON'T get complete control over, and education is one of them.
Nope. Liberty doesn't work that way. In a free society, the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority by fiat.
Do you think the parents have the right to abuse their children as well?
It depends, of course, what you mean by abuse. If you mean "spank," then damn straight, parents have the right to "abuse" their children. If you mean something everyone agrees is abuse, then obviously no. But you cannot demonstrate that homeschooling is, or is more likely to result in, abuse.
Freedom has its limits, otherwise it would be anarchy and there would be no laws at all.
Except that in my perspective, those limits are precisely those necessary and sufficient to prevent anarachy. The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. The problem is, you cannot demonstrate that homeschooling is akin to, or significantly more likely to result in, abuse or anarchy or anything at all bad for the child.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any parents -- to deprive the children of their right to a standard education?
The parent, that's who. What you call a "right" to a standard education, to me is SUBstandard. And being the parent, that is the choice for me, and no one else, to make.
The issue here is precisely whether the parental interest in making decisions for the family or the state interest in providing a standard education and inculturation for its people is more important.
No, it is not about what is "more important" or whether the state has an "interest." What's important to many of these statists -- such as creating little cogs to put in the machine of society -- is not important to me at all. It's whether the government has any right to take away my parental rights ... and no one yet has provided a single rational argument that it does.
Government MUST have a role here to set a minimum standard of child care for education. Basically because some people are too stupid to leave it unchecked.
Who gets to decide who is too stupid? Government? On what basis is government even capable of this? Except in the extreme cases, where someone is retarded, government literally has no basis for this.
If you physically abuse your child, or refuse to feed them, give them proper basic care, the government does (and should) have the right to step in and correct it. Standard of education should be the same thing.
Except that it is self-evidently NOT the same thing.
Let's just say it as it is: I want a free country, and you don't. You want a country that conforms to YOUR ideas. I want a country that is free for ALL ideas. Which also means that I should not be forced into your ideal health insurance system, but that I get to choose any private insurance I want to -- regardless of how much or little coverage it offers -- or none at all.
Freedom is not obsolete. Freedom matters.
Protecting people from harm is the main job of the government.
Incorrect. Securing liberty is the reason government exists. That is the view the United States was founded on, and it's a view that goes back centuries earlier in Europe, especially, of course, in Great Britain.
government DOES have a right to say that TOLERANCE towards other should be taught
To be pedantic, it's not the "should" that is the problem, it's the "shall." Government saying I *should* teach something is an annoying waste of money to engage in propaganda. Government saying I *shall* teach something is an infringement on my right to choose what to teach.
Because in the long term, tolerance towards others is the main thing that makes our society work.
That's fallacious. I could say that religion is what makes society work, so government can teach everyone to be a Christian. There are many things that can make society work, but ultimately what makes society work is individuals living freely, and government securing those freedoms. I don't need to be tolerant of you, as long as I am not allowed to cause harm to you.
By reading the case material ...
I don't care. I am not talking about them in particular.
To them, government school TEACHING ABOUT OTHER RELIGIONS is unacceptable because it's not christian enough - they're THAT intolerant of others.
So what? I know tons of intolerant people ... most of them products of the public schools, most of them liberals, most of them atheists. To them, teaching about every religion EXCEPT Christianity is acceptable ... unless, of course, Christianity is portrayed in a negative light.
Note that I am not putting down intolerance. Quite the opposite: I love tolerance so much that my tolerance even extends to the intolerant. It goes without saying that yours does not.
Since you decided to psychoanalyze the American mindset, allow me to return the favor: I understand that intolerance is anathema to most Germans due to its history, especially before and during WWII. But there's a difference between personal intolerance, and taking actions against other people.
And while I'm at it, I'll note that while your shared hatred of intolerance is understandable given your history, your trust of government -- given that same history -- is not understandable at all.
The judge who granted asylum is either very, very politically/religiously motivated, or had to follow a truly horrifying set of laws.
Or he just recognized the fact that parents have the right to choose how to teach their children as they see fit.
all they needed was getting a basic teaching license, which would have them go courses about how to teach
Government has no right to interfere in such a way with parental rights.
Well, in fact it is not.
False.
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
False.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public or whether traffic is on the left or right side of the road.
The former is clear: we do have that fundamental right. The latter, not being about rights at all, is irrelevant to this discussion.
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control.
False.
But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
False.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society.
False.
Governments exist to secure liberties, not to take them away. They literally have no right to do it.
Just FYI, an attitude like that is pretty short-sighted.
False.
Say I started off a post stating "certain information can travel faster than light", well it has become common knowledge now that that is most likely false.
If this were about something possible for you to prove, fine. It isn't. There is no possible way to prove that religion is a form of schizophrenia, any more than it is possible to prove that 1+1=3. They aren't related in any way.
This is just an idiotic and inept (or grossly ignorant) attempt by the original poster to imply that people who think differently than he does are somehow dysfunctional. And it is precisely this attitude, that when generalized among a population can become detrimental to all forms of liberty, that we must guard against by allowing people to choose their own paths, whether they be religious, atheistic, homeschooling, or anything else that doesn't cause direct, objective, actual harm to other people.
Also, I don't see how your response was at all insightful.
-1, Offtopic
he did provide some modest evidence.
False. I can say this with confidence without reading his post, because I know there is no possibility of any serious evidence to support his claim.
I'll humor you though: give me one example of evidence that religion is schizophrenia. Just one. I guarantee that it will either misrepresent religion, schizophrenia, or both; or be simply untrue. Or, I suppose, not be actually relevant. But it will not be evidence to support the claim.