I assume the German constitution contains clauses for the social rights of education and the protection of family life as well, in accordance to the European Convention of Human Rights.
And I assert that the CHR does not trump natual rights of parents. Nothing can.
The educational rights of children are not violating the protection of family life as the children are enjoying their right to education during the day and providing the possibility for family life after school.
So it is NOT taking away your rights by FORCING you to go somewhere and do government-mandated work for about half of your waking hours every weekday?
The protection of family life has its exceptions, among them the economic benefit of the country
False. The economic benefit of the country does not, in any way or fashion whatsoever, trump the natural rights of parents. If that were the case, then you might as well say parents have no rights at all, as ANYTHING can be said to have economic benefit for the country.
In my view -- and in the view of this country, as expressed in the document that founded it -- the reason governments exist is to secure the individual liberties of the people.
If you decide that parents have some kind of total right to dictate what their children are allowed to know about, then you are deciding to take away those children's rights.
That's only true if it also applies to the public schools... because the public schools also dictate what children are allowed to know about.
Congratulations... everything in your comment was incorrect.
Children are not property. Parents are not owners.
Many people have brought up this straw man. NO ONE has asserted children are property. Give it a rest.
the raising of children is not done in a vacuum
No one implied it is.
and is not a 'right'
False.
We are a society, each of us responsible to act in act in accordance with the social contracts that exist both naturally and that we have developed as a culture.
Yes, and in the U.S., part of that social contract is that parental choices are sacrosanct unless and until they rise to the level of actual, OBJECTIVE, abuse. Which means they cannot merely offend your opinions, but must cause actual identifiable and serious harm.
Under your logic the actions of someone like Josef Fritzl are perfectly acceptable
False.
after all who are you Pudge to say what he can and can't do with his daughter
I am not going to even respond to an argument that compares "teaching a child that evolution is wrong" to "enslaving and raping a child." Please try to bring the level of your debate out of the gutter.
I would argue that 'educating' your children through deliberate omission is highly damaging albeit more subtle
Yes, people who believe government should act as a literal Thought Police tend to have your view. I reject it, however.
What if my family is one of farmers? What if I want to teach my kids to be farmers, too? What if the theory that man descended from a common ancestor of the ape has nothing to do with farming, and I decide that I don't want to teach it to my children? Who the hell are you, or any government, to override my decision?
How can this possibly be considered objective "harm," when to do so would require you to put government in the position of defining philosophical Truth about what is, and is not, important in life?
You could consider it to be objective harm to the STATE, since my hypothetical child would likely not end up being one of the cogs in the state's economic machine. However, the state exists for me, and not vice versa, so that's no argument at all.
You see, it is not just about what is factually true: I could point out the fact we do not have actual evidence that man descended from a common ancestor to the ape (though it is likely based on the wealth of "circumstantial" evidence), or that we are not even close to demonstrating that man has caused significant global warming. But more important than that is the idea that even if those things are true, the parents get to decide what is and is not important to teach.
Maybe I want to spend most of my time teaching about art, or horticulture, or the Civil War. Maybe global warming or the evolution of the species homo sapiens just isn't relevant, in my opinion. For a more concrete example: as a native English speaker who took four years of French and four college semesters of Greek (and did fairly well in both), I see no reason whatsoever why anyone, especially an English speaker, should be forced to learn a second language. You can bring up undeniable benefits of a second language, but I can just respond, "that's all fine, but it takes many, many hours of study, and I think there's more important things we can do with that time."
And you cannot argue against me. You can disagree, but there's no way you can objectively argue that learning Spanish is more important for my family than learning all of the other things we're learning, whether it's computer programming or sculpture or basketball. It's a judgment call, and my judgment counts more than government's does.
Parenting is a very gray area where an adult is directly responsible for the raising of the child, and thus makes a great many decisions that a lifelong impact on the child, but once that child is grown the
at the same time society places limits on that right; if you do things that it considers to be overly detrimental to the welfare of your children then as an ultimate sanction it can and will take them away from you
But society is extremely limited in what limits it can place on that right. And "teaching children in a way I don't approve of" is not a reasonable limit on anyone's behavior. You have to be able to demonstrate (either prima facie, such as awful physical abuse, or with evidence by result of psychological abuse, or somesuch) actual, objective, harm.
You cannot say -- not in a free country -- that engaging in a practice that we know does not directly result in objective harm, is reasonable cause to interfere in someone's life, just to make sure they are not causing harm. So fine, I am homeschooling, you think I might be causing harm... well, you need to provide evidence of actual objective harm in order to do anything about it. And saying that I am teaching my children that Pluto is a planet and man doesn't cause global warming is not objective harm, unless you allow government to determine Truth, which we cannot do in a free society.
I'm not suggesting that you would ever do such a thing of course, but society most certainly does reserve the right to judge what constitutes a healthy upbringing and what does not.
Society does not have any right to say that teaching a child that evolution is wrong does not constitute a healthy upbrginging. Society does not have any right even to say that teaching children to be RACIST does not constitute a healthy upbringing. I find both of those things to be anathema, but I cannot see where society has any right whatsoever to deny the rights of parents to teach those views to their children.
To say otherwise is to say that government can tell people how to think. And that is even worse than racism, in my view.
No one thinks that. Not that I have seen in this discussion, anyway. The question is not whether a child is "owned" or has rights, but who the authority is on what the child deserves and needs.
I reject that government is that authority.
... and should be allowed to do with them in whatever way they want.
Short of ACTUAL harm, which we all recognize and I don't need to describe...
It's not that parents should be ALLOWED to teach their children to be, for example, racist. It is that parents HAVE that right and government has NO right to interfere.
It is extremely odd to me that so many people are decrying the "brainwashing" by parents, but then so willingly accept the "brainwashing" by government.
The idea behind enforcing that all children are sent to a school... is that this way, all kids are ensured a chance to get suitable education.
First, that's false. Nothing like that is ensured. We have a massive dropout rate here in my county, in the public schools. And the test scores are terrible.
Second -- and this is somewhat related to the first -- the PARENT gets to define what a suitable education IS. Not government.
If I want to teach my kids that the federal government is evil and that the only good skills you need are farming and shooting, then that's my business, not government's.
And moreover, to have a chance to learn how to socialize with other people, too.
Yeah, this is such a terrible argument. Read my other response to it if you like.
I also don't believe that allowing parents to isolate their children and to indoctrinate them is a good idea
First, I don't think the word "indoctrinate" means anything here. I think you are using "indoctrinate" to mean "teaching something I disagree with," which is something schools do all the time: indoctrinate in favor of global warming, for example. I was falsely told many times in school that we have three coequal branches in the federal government, which is a political viewpoint that I disagree with (and which The Federalist disagrees with).
Second, I would agree isolation of children is not a good idea. But I also think many things are not a good idea. Hannah Montana, for example. I assert that Hannah Montana and Bratz and Barbie and many of these other toys for girls are much more damaging than homeschooling. Funny, though, when someone complains about bad toys for kids, the response is, "be a parent, don't let your kids have those toys." But when parents complain about bad education, the response from many of the same people is, "but you have to."
The foundation of a democracy is mutual understanding and a willingness to cooperate with each other, and I feel that's more important than granting a universal home schooling right, with all its pros and cons.
To paraphrase Frederic Bastiat: banning the latter destroys the former. You cannot have one without the other. Or to quote Publius: "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."
And by the way, I have found that these principles of mutual understanding -- with a real study of what that means and how to achieve it and why it is important -- is far more commonly found in homeschooling than public schooling. I was not homeschooled myself, but almost none of the understanding of history and literature and philosophy that I have t
[Parents] do have a duty as well to make them see, understand and appreciate other ideas.
If you mean LEGAL duty, then obviously not. Not if the First Amendment has any meaning.
I think it is wonderful to teach children to love and be tolerant toward all people. But as soon as I tell any parents they have to do that, it becomes a serious breach of their human rights.
False on both counts. Parenting should NOT be regulated, and -- in the U.S. anyway -- it really is not. At least, not in the same sense "regulation" usually means. There are very few laws that describe what parents (or anyone else) *cannot* do to children, but even fewer that describe what parents *must* do for their children.
There are some exceptions: education, sometimes vaccinations, and so on. But parents are ultimately charged with raising their children, and have the fundamental human right to ignore what the government says on such matters.
I've never believed in the idea that parents somehow "own" their children.
That's a straw man, since ownership is not being pushed by anyone that I've seen. I do not "own" my children, but I do have the right -- and sacred duty -- to raise them how I see fit.
If the parents don't give a neutral, healthly upbringing then the government should step in and take the children away.
That assumes the government has any right or capability to decide what IS "neutral, healthy upbringing." It does not.
And neutral is generally a stupid concept anyway. I do very little that is neutral, and I do not believe neutrality is a rational way to raise children.
There is no "right religion" to choose
False. Of course there is.
they shouldn't brainwash the children into any religion
If by "brainwash" you mean parents cannot teach their children that Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins, then you're wrong. This is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I remember how the initial iPhone presentations talked about how it was running OS X, and how everyone assumed that meant real OS X and open development, not some special crippled version of OS X.
And I remember how MANY people said at the time, "well, no, Apple didn't say it will be open and we can't assume it will be."
More importantly, a phone is not your main computer. And neither will be the iPad for most people, unless all they need is web browsing and email and so on, in which case... good for them.
I also remember last week, when so many people assumed that the Apple tablet would be running OS X.
As I do not read rumor sites, I'll take your word on that, but I have nothing to say to that except that those people were stupid (unless they meant it would run the iPhone variant of Mac OS X, or something similar, which I believe is true).
And I remember how Steve Jobs' original vision of the Macintosh was a sealed box...
Just like it couldn't happen with cell phones right?
Who ever said that? Maybe a handful of pundits, but like I care what they say.
If Apple can get away with it they will do it. It's win-win for them, easier and cheaper to provide better service for systems, AND they get to increase profit.
It does not generally increase profit when you lose customers, which they would lose by the millions if this happened.
So, using the same kind of empty reasoning, you must surely be in favor of abortions and corporal punishment.
False on several counts. First, it's not empty reasoning at all, but based on a long and well-established philosophical tradition. Second, the reasoning regarding abortion for pro-life advocates is (obviously) very different. Third, what's wrong with corporal punishment? I didn't realize anyone today is still against that. How quaint.
After all, who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice?
In terms of corporal punishment, yes, exactly. No one has the right to tell a parent to not spank their child. That's inane.
As to abortion, that's -- again, very obviously -- different. If you believe the child in the womb has the same rights as anyone else, noted by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution, then you must therefore believe abortion on demand should be illegal.
This is nothing like homeschooling or corporal punishment: with abortion, there is obvious, known, and INTENDED harm to the child. The very act itself is proof of harm (again, if you believe the life in the womb has those rights). That is -- again, very obviously -- not the case with homeschooling or corporal punishment.
Hint: Children have rights, too.
If you can prove objective harm to the child, fine. But government must obey the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution in the process of proving any harm, and the mere incidence of homeschooling does not void those constitutional rights.
Further, of course, most alleged "harm" done to children by homeschooling is NOT harm, and government has no right to define it as such. Teaching children something the government disagrees with cannot be considered actionable harm, if the First Amendment has any meaning.
I meant for their line of computers, as opposed to "appliances" or "accessories" like an iPhone or iPad. That was the context I intended, although I see why some might have misunderstood me.
It will be up to the consumers whether they decide they want to go toward the more simplified experience of the iPad instead of a normal computer, as opposed to a supplement to it. But it won't happen for quite some time, and if and when it does, consumers will well-understand the implications. It won't be "forced" on them by Apple trying to make a buck, because unless the developers and consumers actually want it, Apple will lose money on it.
Don't the majority of home-schoolers do it because they're afraid of evil secular concepts like evolution and geological history?
No. Most that I know do it because they believe their kids will get a better, more well-rounded, more detailed, and overall far superior education that way. I know some agnostic and atheist homeschoolers, and a majority of the Christian homeschoolers I know are not anti-evolution.
They are, however, pro-Pluto, and I applaud them for this!
And this should be a clue... in the evangelical and protestant tradition, perhaps the most pervasive characteristic of adherents is that of independent thinking. This is, of course, how Protestantism began, and it's not stopped since. So when an arbitrary body of men says, "Pluto isn't a planet anymore," the evangelical Protestant often replies, "who are you to define that for me?" You see this response in marriage rights, too, of course, and it was also the main reasoning behind the Scopes Trial: not that evolution was right or wrong, but who are YOU to push it on us, if we don't want to think about it or believe it?
And of course, this also is seen in homeschooling directly: who is GOVERNMENT to tell me I have to follow ITS rules for MY kids? And we see this throughout American history, from the Mayflower colonists through the War of Independence and even the Civil War.
Not that this is only seen in evangelical Protestantism, but it is more pervasive there than in many other traditions/subcultures/etc.
So this independent streak, combined with the very low quality generally of public schools today, have been the main fuel for the rise in homeschooling in recent years.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as home schooling is used to shelter children from real information, or present it from a "religious perspective", it should be outlawed.
"As far as I'm concerned, as long as free speech is used in ways I don't like, it should be outlawed."
Yeah, no, you're not making sense.
Even with a strict set of rules for curriculum, there will still be parents who give extra qualifying information along with such topics.. ie.. Here's all the nonsense that secularists believe, and here is the real truth according to the Holly Bibble.
That's THEIR choice, not YOURS and not the government's.
You expressly want the government to decide for everyone what Truth is. Down this way lies utter madness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
the kids get indoctrinated at home by parents who are to make sure the kids will never stand a chance in any competitive way in the real world
Now all you have to do is tell us how the government has any better insight than the parents to what "stand a chance in any competitive way in the real world." Of course, you can't.
Now maybe this Judge considers that a 'right' for the parents, but he sure as hell ain't thinking about the kids rights!
The question is: where's the government's right to make these decisions FOR the kids? It doesn't exist.
I don't have a problem with people home-schooling to improve the quality of education. I myself was home-schooled for several years.
I do, however, have a major issue with people pulling their children out of public school so they can be home-schooled according to religious criteria.
So YOUR reasons are OK, but THEIRS are not. Sounds arbitrary, hypocritical, and in violation of the Equal Protection clause to me.
Religious freedom allows you to worship, but it does not in my mind give one free license to program children with it.
Unless you can differentiate between "programming" a child to believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, and "programming" a child to believe that racism is bad... you have no argument here. I believe both sorts of "programming" -- otherwise known as "teaching" -- are good, and I am quite sure you cannot demonstrate I am wrong except to say that you disagree with my religious views, which is, of course, not a real argument.
Children are not property.
Of course not. What they are is a sacred trust given to the parents, and parents must do what they believe is best for those children, and damn the government if it gets in the way.
Religious conflict with a secular school is not a valid reason for home-schooling.
False. In fact -- and the First Amendment backs me up here -- it's one of the best reasons. Maybe THE best one.
Further, home schooled children should be subject to, at the very least, the same aptitude tests and subject material criteria as public school children.
False. Government has no right to come into my home (literally or virtually) and see whether I am educating my children, according to my fundamental rights and obligations, in accordance with their arbitrary criteria, which has no rational force over me or my family.
I know what is best for my children; government does not.
How do you address the social aspects of school? A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly.
In my experience -- and as a "geek" I am sure many people here share it -- is that the social aspects of public school suck in pretty much every way. They teach you to be afraid of being yourself; teach you how to NOT interact with people honestly and straightforwardly; and -- if, like me, you had some bad teachers -- teach you how to DISrespect authority.
Thankfully, I made a conscious decision in the sixth or seventh grade to simply disregard people who didn't like me ("if you don't like me or treat me badly, you are not worth my time"). But most kids can't or won't do that, and many end up much worse off for it.
I do not accept this modern notion that throwing our children to the sharks at a young age is the best way to teach them how to handle sharks as an adult. I find, through experience, that a much more nurturing environment pays off into a more well-adjusted adult later on.
It's not like homeschool kids are sheltered. Overwhelmingly, of them have regular activities with kids and adults of all ages, most of whom are wondeful people, all of whom are flawed people. In fact, homeschool kids often have MORE exposure to broader ranges of people, because they don't spend so many hours a week with the same people, week after week after week. They have more opportunity for diversity in their activities, and often take advantage of that.
I know a lot of homeschool kids, and most of them are some of the nicest and most social kids you'll ever meet, and they are perfectly capable of working with people who are "difficult."
There's the occasional family that completely shelters their kids, but that's an exception. The norm is much, much different.
there needs to be a check and balance to ensure that the kids are being taught the same or better than kids in a regular school
False. This violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. You cannot come into my home and check to see how I am teaching my kids without a warrant and probable cause, without following due process.
Maybe there should be standardized testing, and recommended curriculum, for all schools including home schools.
Nope. I will educate my kids, and you will not be privy to the details or results. It's literally none of your business, nor the government's.
Otherwise what is to stop someone from brainwashing their kids under the guise of homeschooling?
In a free society, what business is it of yours? Who decides what "brainwashing" is? Today teaching anti-evolution science is "brainwashing" to many people; tomorrow maybe teaching anti-global warming will be. Perhaps it will be "brainwashing" to teach kids that homosexuality is sinful. You and I will disagree with some or all of those things, but how can government reasonably step in and decide them for a free people?
Government has no role here. Not in a free society.
The only stipulation here is that the kids are taught in a classroom setting by certified teachers according to a strict curriculum.
Your stipulation is considered and rejected.
Parents have plenty of rights, but the right to destroy their kid's future by teaching them anti-science and borderline racist interpretations of history ought not be one.
The logical error you are perpetrating here is that gov't is an adequate judge of what "destroys" a kid's future, what is "anti-science," or what is a "racist" interpretation of history. It's not. I am a much better judge than government of what is, and is not, a good education for my children; and more to the point, perhaps, government has no right whatsoever to tell me otherwise.
We have whole states here in the US that are filled with nincompoops because of homeschooling.
You are, of course, making that up. When you invent something like that in this context, it certainly doesn't help your argument about what education for children should be.
Homeschooling begets more homeschooling in an endless cycle.
There's not much evidence of this, actually, since it's only a recent phenomena on a significant scale. So again, you're making it up. (Although since you've not in the least bit demonstrated that homeschooling is bad in any way whatsoever, you also give no one any reason to think this purported "cycle" is a bad one.)
When you try to push morals and religion into education you end up with none of the above.
Oh come on. That doesn't even make a lick of sense. You're literally saying that morals and religion can't be taught.
Slashdot Mirror
People "choose" to buy products with DRM too, by that logic.
Of course they do.
We need to speak up against poor computing solutions
Saying it's poor doesn't make it so.
I assume the German constitution contains clauses for the social rights of education and the protection of family life as well, in accordance to the European Convention of Human Rights.
And I assert that the CHR does not trump natual rights of parents. Nothing can.
The educational rights of children are not violating the protection of family life as the children are enjoying their right to education during the day and providing the possibility for family life after school.
So it is NOT taking away your rights by FORCING you to go somewhere and do government-mandated work for about half of your waking hours every weekday?
The protection of family life has its exceptions, among them the economic benefit of the country
False. The economic benefit of the country does not, in any way or fashion whatsoever, trump the natural rights of parents. If that were the case, then you might as well say parents have no rights at all, as ANYTHING can be said to have economic benefit for the country.
In my view -- and in the view of this country, as expressed in the document that founded it -- the reason governments exist is to secure the individual liberties of the people.
Children are people, not property.
No one disagreed with this, in any way.
Children have rights too.
No one disagreed with this, in any way.
If you decide that parents have some kind of total right to dictate what their children are allowed to know about, then you are deciding to take away those children's rights.
That's only true if it also applies to the public schools ... because the public schools also dictate what children are allowed to know about.
Congratulations ... everything in your comment was incorrect.
Children are not property. Parents are not owners.
Many people have brought up this straw man. NO ONE has asserted children are property. Give it a rest.
the raising of children is not done in a vacuum
No one implied it is.
and is not a 'right'
False.
We are a society, each of us responsible to act in act in accordance with the social contracts that exist both naturally and that we have developed as a culture.
Yes, and in the U.S., part of that social contract is that parental choices are sacrosanct unless and until they rise to the level of actual, OBJECTIVE, abuse. Which means they cannot merely offend your opinions, but must cause actual identifiable and serious harm.
Under your logic the actions of someone like Josef Fritzl are perfectly acceptable
False.
after all who are you Pudge to say what he can and can't do with his daughter
I am not going to even respond to an argument that compares "teaching a child that evolution is wrong" to "enslaving and raping a child." Please try to bring the level of your debate out of the gutter.
I would argue that 'educating' your children through deliberate omission is highly damaging albeit more subtle
Yes, people who believe government should act as a literal Thought Police tend to have your view. I reject it, however.
What if my family is one of farmers? What if I want to teach my kids to be farmers, too? What if the theory that man descended from a common ancestor of the ape has nothing to do with farming, and I decide that I don't want to teach it to my children? Who the hell are you, or any government, to override my decision?
How can this possibly be considered objective "harm," when to do so would require you to put government in the position of defining philosophical Truth about what is, and is not, important in life?
You could consider it to be objective harm to the STATE, since my hypothetical child would likely not end up being one of the cogs in the state's economic machine. However, the state exists for me, and not vice versa, so that's no argument at all.
You see, it is not just about what is factually true: I could point out the fact we do not have actual evidence that man descended from a common ancestor to the ape (though it is likely based on the wealth of "circumstantial" evidence), or that we are not even close to demonstrating that man has caused significant global warming. But more important than that is the idea that even if those things are true, the parents get to decide what is and is not important to teach.
Maybe I want to spend most of my time teaching about art, or horticulture, or the Civil War. Maybe global warming or the evolution of the species homo sapiens just isn't relevant, in my opinion. For a more concrete example: as a native English speaker who took four years of French and four college semesters of Greek (and did fairly well in both), I see no reason whatsoever why anyone, especially an English speaker, should be forced to learn a second language. You can bring up undeniable benefits of a second language, but I can just respond, "that's all fine, but it takes many, many hours of study, and I think there's more important things we can do with that time."
And you cannot argue against me. You can disagree, but there's no way you can objectively argue that learning Spanish is more important for my family than learning all of the other things we're learning, whether it's computer programming or sculpture or basketball. It's a judgment call, and my judgment counts more than government's does.
Parenting is a very gray area where an adult is directly responsible for the raising of the child, and thus makes a great many decisions that a lifelong impact on the child, but once that child is grown the
I think you are fully aware that a very large and vocal part of the population believes that a 2 year old should be rationalized with.
I like to think the number of such people is shrinking. It makes me able to sleep better at night.
Seriously, as I get older, and I know fewer and fewer people without kids, I run into this view less and less.
at the same time society places limits on that right; if you do things that it considers to be overly detrimental to the welfare of your children then as an ultimate sanction it can and will take them away from you
But society is extremely limited in what limits it can place on that right. And "teaching children in a way I don't approve of" is not a reasonable limit on anyone's behavior. You have to be able to demonstrate (either prima facie, such as awful physical abuse, or with evidence by result of psychological abuse, or somesuch) actual, objective, harm.
You cannot say -- not in a free country -- that engaging in a practice that we know does not directly result in objective harm, is reasonable cause to interfere in someone's life, just to make sure they are not causing harm. So fine, I am homeschooling, you think I might be causing harm ... well, you need to provide evidence of actual objective harm in order to do anything about it. And saying that I am teaching my children that Pluto is a planet and man doesn't cause global warming is not objective harm, unless you allow government to determine Truth, which we cannot do in a free society.
I'm not suggesting that you would ever do such a thing of course, but society most certainly does reserve the right to judge what constitutes a healthy upbringing and what does not.
Society does not have any right to say that teaching a child that evolution is wrong does not constitute a healthy upbrginging. Society does not have any right even to say that teaching children to be RACIST does not constitute a healthy upbringing. I find both of those things to be anathema, but I cannot see where society has any right whatsoever to deny the rights of parents to teach those views to their children.
To say otherwise is to say that government can tell people how to think. And that is even worse than racism, in my view.
Well, religion, being a form of schizophrenia
False.
I won't bother to read the rest of your post, if you make such a fundamental error right at the beginning.
No, it's not "THEIR" choice.
Yes, it is.
Children are no property
No one said they were.
... they are humans. And that means they have human rights.
Rights best protected by their parents, who best know how they should be educated.
This is borderline child-abuse
False.
... and should be treated as such
Then you need to follow due process, find probable cause, and execute a warrant, so you can get evidence proving any "abuse."
Depriving your children of an education
No one is doing that. If you used that line to get your warrant, you would end up having the whole case thrown out, including any evidence gathered.
I don't think that parents "own" their children
No one thinks that. Not that I have seen in this discussion, anyway. The question is not whether a child is "owned" or has rights, but who the authority is on what the child deserves and needs.
I reject that government is that authority.
... and should be allowed to do with them in whatever way they want.
Short of ACTUAL harm, which we all recognize and I don't need to describe ...
It's not that parents should be ALLOWED to teach their children to be, for example, racist. It is that parents HAVE that right and government has NO right to interfere.
It is extremely odd to me that so many people are decrying the "brainwashing" by parents, but then so willingly accept the "brainwashing" by government.
The idea behind enforcing that all children are sent to a school ... is that this way, all kids are ensured a chance to get suitable education.
First, that's false. Nothing like that is ensured. We have a massive dropout rate here in my county, in the public schools. And the test scores are terrible.
Second -- and this is somewhat related to the first -- the PARENT gets to define what a suitable education IS. Not government.
If I want to teach my kids that the federal government is evil and that the only good skills you need are farming and shooting, then that's my business, not government's.
And moreover, to have a chance to learn how to socialize with other people, too.
Yeah, this is such a terrible argument. Read my other response to it if you like.
I also don't believe that allowing parents to isolate their children and to indoctrinate them is a good idea
First, I don't think the word "indoctrinate" means anything here. I think you are using "indoctrinate" to mean "teaching something I disagree with," which is something schools do all the time: indoctrinate in favor of global warming, for example. I was falsely told many times in school that we have three coequal branches in the federal government, which is a political viewpoint that I disagree with (and which The Federalist disagrees with).
Second, I would agree isolation of children is not a good idea. But I also think many things are not a good idea. Hannah Montana, for example. I assert that Hannah Montana and Bratz and Barbie and many of these other toys for girls are much more damaging than homeschooling. Funny, though, when someone complains about bad toys for kids, the response is, "be a parent, don't let your kids have those toys." But when parents complain about bad education, the response from many of the same people is, "but you have to."
The foundation of a democracy is mutual understanding and a willingness to cooperate with each other, and I feel that's more important than granting a universal home schooling right, with all its pros and cons.
To paraphrase Frederic Bastiat: banning the latter destroys the former. You cannot have one without the other. Or to quote Publius: "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency."
And by the way, I have found that these principles of mutual understanding -- with a real study of what that means and how to achieve it and why it is important -- is far more commonly found in homeschooling than public schooling. I was not homeschooled myself, but almost none of the understanding of history and literature and philosophy that I have t
You seem to forget that Germany has an outstanding education system and thinking you can educate your kids better is well...
Factual.
However, in case you really can offer better education you can! But... your kids will have to take and pass the national exams...
Not in a free country, no.
[Parents] do have a duty as well to make them see, understand and appreciate other ideas.
If you mean LEGAL duty, then obviously not. Not if the First Amendment has any meaning.
I think it is wonderful to teach children to love and be tolerant toward all people. But as soon as I tell any parents they have to do that, it becomes a serious breach of their human rights.
No one ever implied they were. Why does this idiotic straw man persist?
Parenting should and is regulated.
False on both counts. Parenting should NOT be regulated, and -- in the U.S. anyway -- it really is not. At least, not in the same sense "regulation" usually means. There are very few laws that describe what parents (or anyone else) *cannot* do to children, but even fewer that describe what parents *must* do for their children.
There are some exceptions: education, sometimes vaccinations, and so on. But parents are ultimately charged with raising their children, and have the fundamental human right to ignore what the government says on such matters.
I've never believed in the idea that parents somehow "own" their children.
That's a straw man, since ownership is not being pushed by anyone that I've seen. I do not "own" my children, but I do have the right -- and sacred duty -- to raise them how I see fit.
If the parents don't give a neutral, healthly upbringing then the government should step in and take the children away.
That assumes the government has any right or capability to decide what IS "neutral, healthy upbringing." It does not.
And neutral is generally a stupid concept anyway. I do very little that is neutral, and I do not believe neutrality is a rational way to raise children.
There is no "right religion" to choose
False. Of course there is.
they shouldn't brainwash the children into any religion
If by "brainwash" you mean parents cannot teach their children that Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins, then you're wrong. This is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I remember how the initial iPhone presentations talked about how it was running OS X, and how everyone assumed that meant real OS X and open development, not some special crippled version of OS X.
And I remember how MANY people said at the time, "well, no, Apple didn't say it will be open and we can't assume it will be."
More importantly, a phone is not your main computer. And neither will be the iPad for most people, unless all they need is web browsing and email and so on, in which case ... good for them.
I also remember last week, when so many people assumed that the Apple tablet would be running OS X.
As I do not read rumor sites, I'll take your word on that, but I have nothing to say to that except that those people were stupid (unless they meant it would run the iPhone variant of Mac OS X, or something similar, which I believe is true).
And I remember how Steve Jobs' original vision of the Macintosh was a sealed box...
Shrug. Jobs was wrong about a lot of things.
Just like it couldn't happen with cell phones right?
Who ever said that? Maybe a handful of pundits, but like I care what they say.
If Apple can get away with it they will do it. It's win-win for them, easier and cheaper to provide better service for systems, AND they get to increase profit.
It does not generally increase profit when you lose customers, which they would lose by the millions if this happened.
So, using the same kind of empty reasoning, you must surely be in favor of abortions and corporal punishment.
False on several counts. First, it's not empty reasoning at all, but based on a long and well-established philosophical tradition. Second, the reasoning regarding abortion for pro-life advocates is (obviously) very different. Third, what's wrong with corporal punishment? I didn't realize anyone today is still against that. How quaint.
After all, who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice?
In terms of corporal punishment, yes, exactly. No one has the right to tell a parent to not spank their child. That's inane.
As to abortion, that's -- again, very obviously -- different. If you believe the child in the womb has the same rights as anyone else, noted by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution, then you must therefore believe abortion on demand should be illegal.
This is nothing like homeschooling or corporal punishment: with abortion, there is obvious, known, and INTENDED harm to the child. The very act itself is proof of harm (again, if you believe the life in the womb has those rights). That is -- again, very obviously -- not the case with homeschooling or corporal punishment.
Hint: Children have rights, too.
If you can prove objective harm to the child, fine. But government must obey the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution in the process of proving any harm, and the mere incidence of homeschooling does not void those constitutional rights.
Further, of course, most alleged "harm" done to children by homeschooling is NOT harm, and government has no right to define it as such. Teaching children something the government disagrees with cannot be considered actionable harm, if the First Amendment has any meaning.
Are you sure its not Apple's primary OS already?
I meant for their line of computers, as opposed to "appliances" or "accessories" like an iPhone or iPad. That was the context I intended, although I see why some might have misunderstood me.
It will be up to the consumers whether they decide they want to go toward the more simplified experience of the iPad instead of a normal computer, as opposed to a supplement to it. But it won't happen for quite some time, and if and when it does, consumers will well-understand the implications. It won't be "forced" on them by Apple trying to make a buck, because unless the developers and consumers actually want it, Apple will lose money on it.
Don't the majority of home-schoolers do it because they're afraid of evil secular concepts like evolution and geological history?
No. Most that I know do it because they believe their kids will get a better, more well-rounded, more detailed, and overall far superior education that way. I know some agnostic and atheist homeschoolers, and a majority of the Christian homeschoolers I know are not anti-evolution.
They are, however, pro-Pluto, and I applaud them for this!
And this should be a clue ... in the evangelical and protestant tradition, perhaps the most pervasive characteristic of adherents is that of independent thinking. This is, of course, how Protestantism began, and it's not stopped since. So when an arbitrary body of men says, "Pluto isn't a planet anymore," the evangelical Protestant often replies, "who are you to define that for me?" You see this response in marriage rights, too, of course, and it was also the main reasoning behind the Scopes Trial: not that evolution was right or wrong, but who are YOU to push it on us, if we don't want to think about it or believe it?
And of course, this also is seen in homeschooling directly: who is GOVERNMENT to tell me I have to follow ITS rules for MY kids? And we see this throughout American history, from the Mayflower colonists through the War of Independence and even the Civil War.
Not that this is only seen in evangelical Protestantism, but it is more pervasive there than in many other traditions/subcultures/etc.
So this independent streak, combined with the very low quality generally of public schools today, have been the main fuel for the rise in homeschooling in recent years.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as home schooling is used to shelter children from real information, or present it from a "religious perspective", it should be outlawed.
"As far as I'm concerned, as long as free speech is used in ways I don't like, it should be outlawed."
Yeah, no, you're not making sense.
Even with a strict set of rules for curriculum, there will still be parents who give extra qualifying information along with such topics.. ie.. Here's all the nonsense that secularists believe, and here is the real truth according to the Holly Bibble.
That's THEIR choice, not YOURS and not the government's.
You expressly want the government to decide for everyone what Truth is. Down this way lies utter madness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
the kids get indoctrinated at home by parents who are to make sure the kids will never stand a chance in any competitive way in the real world
Now all you have to do is tell us how the government has any better insight than the parents to what "stand a chance in any competitive way in the real world." Of course, you can't.
Now maybe this Judge considers that a 'right' for the parents, but he sure as hell ain't thinking about the kids rights!
The question is: where's the government's right to make these decisions FOR the kids? It doesn't exist.
I don't have a problem with people home-schooling to improve the quality of education. I myself was home-schooled for several years.
I do, however, have a major issue with people pulling their children out of public school so they can be home-schooled according to religious criteria.
So YOUR reasons are OK, but THEIRS are not. Sounds arbitrary, hypocritical, and in violation of the Equal Protection clause to me.
Religious freedom allows you to worship, but it does not in my mind give one free license to program children with it.
Unless you can differentiate between "programming" a child to believe in Jesus Christ as their savior, and "programming" a child to believe that racism is bad ... you have no argument here. I believe both sorts of "programming" -- otherwise known as "teaching" -- are good, and I am quite sure you cannot demonstrate I am wrong except to say that you disagree with my religious views, which is, of course, not a real argument.
Children are not property.
Of course not. What they are is a sacred trust given to the parents, and parents must do what they believe is best for those children, and damn the government if it gets in the way.
Religious conflict with a secular school is not a valid reason for home-schooling.
False. In fact -- and the First Amendment backs me up here -- it's one of the best reasons. Maybe THE best one.
Further, home schooled children should be subject to, at the very least, the same aptitude tests and subject material criteria as public school children.
False. Government has no right to come into my home (literally or virtually) and see whether I am educating my children, according to my fundamental rights and obligations, in accordance with their arbitrary criteria, which has no rational force over me or my family.
I know what is best for my children; government does not.
Homeschooling is in no way a human right.
False.
How do you address the social aspects of school? A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly.
In my experience -- and as a "geek" I am sure many people here share it -- is that the social aspects of public school suck in pretty much every way. They teach you to be afraid of being yourself; teach you how to NOT interact with people honestly and straightforwardly; and -- if, like me, you had some bad teachers -- teach you how to DISrespect authority.
Thankfully, I made a conscious decision in the sixth or seventh grade to simply disregard people who didn't like me ("if you don't like me or treat me badly, you are not worth my time"). But most kids can't or won't do that, and many end up much worse off for it.
I do not accept this modern notion that throwing our children to the sharks at a young age is the best way to teach them how to handle sharks as an adult. I find, through experience, that a much more nurturing environment pays off into a more well-adjusted adult later on.
It's not like homeschool kids are sheltered. Overwhelmingly, of them have regular activities with kids and adults of all ages, most of whom are wondeful people, all of whom are flawed people. In fact, homeschool kids often have MORE exposure to broader ranges of people, because they don't spend so many hours a week with the same people, week after week after week. They have more opportunity for diversity in their activities, and often take advantage of that.
I know a lot of homeschool kids, and most of them are some of the nicest and most social kids you'll ever meet, and they are perfectly capable of working with people who are "difficult."
There's the occasional family that completely shelters their kids, but that's an exception. The norm is much, much different.
there needs to be a check and balance to ensure that the kids are being taught the same or better than kids in a regular school
False. This violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. You cannot come into my home and check to see how I am teaching my kids without a warrant and probable cause, without following due process.
Maybe there should be standardized testing, and recommended curriculum, for all schools including home schools.
Nope. I will educate my kids, and you will not be privy to the details or results. It's literally none of your business, nor the government's.
Otherwise what is to stop someone from brainwashing their kids under the guise of homeschooling?
In a free society, what business is it of yours? Who decides what "brainwashing" is? Today teaching anti-evolution science is "brainwashing" to many people; tomorrow maybe teaching anti-global warming will be. Perhaps it will be "brainwashing" to teach kids that homosexuality is sinful. You and I will disagree with some or all of those things, but how can government reasonably step in and decide them for a free people?
Government has no role here. Not in a free society.
The only stipulation here is that the kids are taught in a classroom setting by certified teachers according to a strict curriculum.
Your stipulation is considered and rejected.
Parents have plenty of rights, but the right to destroy their kid's future by teaching them anti-science and borderline racist interpretations of history ought not be one.
The logical error you are perpetrating here is that gov't is an adequate judge of what "destroys" a kid's future, what is "anti-science," or what is a "racist" interpretation of history. It's not. I am a much better judge than government of what is, and is not, a good education for my children; and more to the point, perhaps, government has no right whatsoever to tell me otherwise.
We have whole states here in the US that are filled with nincompoops because of homeschooling.
You are, of course, making that up. When you invent something like that in this context, it certainly doesn't help your argument about what education for children should be.
Homeschooling begets more homeschooling in an endless cycle.
There's not much evidence of this, actually, since it's only a recent phenomena on a significant scale. So again, you're making it up. (Although since you've not in the least bit demonstrated that homeschooling is bad in any way whatsoever, you also give no one any reason to think this purported "cycle" is a bad one.)
When you try to push morals and religion into education you end up with none of the above.
Oh come on. That doesn't even make a lick of sense. You're literally saying that morals and religion can't be taught.