5 ms·

I have made friends with a German family that homeschooled their children. They had to escape Germany (early 2000s) because the German government was going to t

I have made friends with a German family that homeschooled their children. They had to escape Germany (early 2000s) because the German government was going to take their children from them. They successfully applied for political asylum in the US. Germany is hardly a bastion of freedom some may think.

pintxo 7y ago
Depending on your definition of freedom. Regarding the case of home schooling, the German position is that the state is required legally to ensure equal opportunity education for everyone. Parents therefore are legally required to send their kids to (public/approved/registered) schools. While debatable, I‘d vote that‘s a good thing, as it ensures a minimum level of education for every kids.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Are you saying state sponsored kidnapping (Germany) is preferable to state monitored home schooling (US)?
  - dakna 7y ago
    A democratic society agrees on laws, that can be changed through a certain process. Germany decided that not only the parents are responsible for the education of the next generation, but also the government. Therefore the equivalent to the US child protective service has the right to enforce that law, just like in the US, where kids are separated from their parents if they break the child protection law. This has nothing to do with kidnapping.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      From the US perspective, where the refugees fled to, it is exactly state sponsored kidnapping. >Germany decided that not only the parents are responsible for the education of the next generation, but also the government. Not long ago Germany "decided" to make other laws that were used against Jews, were these just laws? Do you support the laws in Brunei that allow certain people to be killed based on their sexual preferences? These are not hypothetical situations, this is reality for people. A refugee family from modern Germany was granted asylum in the US based on US definition of freedom, not Germany's, which is historically horrific.
      - aries1980 7y ago
        That “refugee” family could have moved to any European country without restriction. If the kids education is the main concern, Estonia or Finland could have been their main target: http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-math-science-reading http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of... Calling any European state with “horrific” freedom is an exaggeration.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Yes, they could have, but they had to leave everything behind, and they just happen to have help from the government in the US. Not every country will help people. And if you don't think Germany's recent past is horrific, I suggest you read about the holocaust and some recent wars. Not an exaggeration at all. Germany's WWII era leader is considered to be one of the worst in known history.
        dakna 7y ago
        Germany's recent past was the wall coming down and beeing reunited. That was already 30 years ago. Stop watching US shows about that time. Watch some footage from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and think about what you can do to prevent totalitarian groups from gaining more ground, if you really want to be free. On a side note: Germany took in almost one million refugees from the war zone in Syria in _one_ year. It is about 1.5 million in total. Have fun looking up the number for the US per year. From what I remember it has only 5 digits. So much about not helping people.
      - dakna 7y ago
        Ah, Godwins law again. The US perspective matters only in the US. That is my point. I'm also sure protecting children from the harmful actions of their parents has nothing to do with killing people. Children should have someone on their side if things go wrong, and they can't hire someone. That is where child protection laws come in. See also Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    All I am saying is that kids have rights too. And it's society as a whole who defines those rights and provides government with the rights and means to ensure those rights are provided to the kids, even if this means to separate them from their parents.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    Just a side note on state sponsored kidnapping: > While a court order in June 2018 required the Department of Health and Human Services to reunite more than 2,700 children in its custody with their parents, that number is only a "subset" of the overall separations, said Ann Maxwell, an inspector at the HHS inspector general’s office. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/number-of-children-separated-at-border-still-unknown-u-s-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/number-of...
- geebee 7y ago
  It makes me nervous. Public schools and attempts at mandatory attendance have been weaponized against ethnic and religious minorities in the US. I think it’s fair to say English only laws and corporal punishment for speaking languages other than English in Louisiana schools, along with laws of dubious constitutionality requiring kids to attend these schools, are partly why French will be functionally extinct in Louisiana soon.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Depending on your definition of freedom. There aren't many definitions of freedom that include state control of your children. > I‘d vote that‘s a good thing, as it ensures a minimum level of education for every kids. Whether that's good or bad depends on what that "minimum level of education" is. I know nothing of German schools, but in the US, public schools can (at least in some places) provide a "minimum level of education" that is much more "minimum" than it is "education". It also can be very unsafe. It also depends on what the "education" is. Imagine that it's 1940 in Germany, or 1970 in East Germany. You have to send your children to public school so that they can receive their education. But the education in question is going to include a fair amount of indoctrination. When you can't opt your children out of being indoctrinated, it's pretty clear that you're not free. Note well: I'm not claiming that current German education is indoctrination. What I am claiming is that totalitarian regimes make the same argument, and in their case, it is clear that mandatory public education is part of the totalitarian control. So the argument that this gives "opportunity to everyone" is at least suspect, because it may be the "opportunity" to be controlled and indoctrinated.
  - aries1980 7y ago
    > What I am claiming is that totalitarian regimes make the same argument, and in their case, it is clear that mandatory public education is part of the totalitarian control. I think the recent totalitarian regimes and their education clearly defines how this is not possible. Many of Nobel Prize-winners, army of scientists who raged against the regime or fled are from totalitarian countries. But even if they didn't rebel, still they could have been a remarkable scientist or just a decent human being.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    > There aren't many definitions of freedom that include state control of your children. There are some: freedom from violence in the family, freedom from mistreatment, child labor, indoctrination, ... Essentially this is about balancing the freedoms of the parents to raise their children according to their rules against the freedoms of the children to receive a certain kind of education. I am quite happy this is something I do not have to do, as I fear it’s a very delicate decision to make. And I doubt anyone involved takes such a decision lightly. > When you can't opt your children out of being indoctrinated, it's pretty clear that you're not free. True, but then indoctrination of your children might be the least of your problems.

pintxo 7y ago

Depending on your definition of freedom. Regarding the case of home schooling, the German position is that the state is required legally to ensure equal opportunity education for everyone. Parents therefore are legally required to send their kids to (public/approved/registered) schools. While debatable, I‘d vote that‘s a good thing, as it ensures a minimum level of education for every kids.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
Are you saying state sponsored kidnapping (Germany) is preferable to state monitored home schooling (US)?
- dakna 7y ago
  A democratic society agrees on laws, that can be changed through a certain process. Germany decided that not only the parents are responsible for the education of the next generation, but also the government. Therefore the equivalent to the US child protective service has the right to enforce that law, just like in the US, where kids are separated from their parents if they break the child protection law. This has nothing to do with kidnapping.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    From the US perspective, where the refugees fled to, it is exactly state sponsored kidnapping. >Germany decided that not only the parents are responsible for the education of the next generation, but also the government. Not long ago Germany "decided" to make other laws that were used against Jews, were these just laws? Do you support the laws in Brunei that allow certain people to be killed based on their sexual preferences? These are not hypothetical situations, this is reality for people. A refugee family from modern Germany was granted asylum in the US based on US definition of freedom, not Germany's, which is historically horrific.
    - aries1980 7y ago
      That “refugee” family could have moved to any European country without restriction. If the kids education is the main concern, Estonia or Finland could have been their main target: http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-math-science-reading http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of... Calling any European state with “horrific” freedom is an exaggeration.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Yes, they could have, but they had to leave everything behind, and they just happen to have help from the government in the US. Not every country will help people. And if you don't think Germany's recent past is horrific, I suggest you read about the holocaust and some recent wars. Not an exaggeration at all. Germany's WWII era leader is considered to be one of the worst in known history.
        dakna 7y ago
        Germany's recent past was the wall coming down and beeing reunited. That was already 30 years ago. Stop watching US shows about that time. Watch some footage from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and think about what you can do to prevent totalitarian groups from gaining more ground, if you really want to be free. On a side note: Germany took in almost one million refugees from the war zone in Syria in _one_ year. It is about 1.5 million in total. Have fun looking up the number for the US per year. From what I remember it has only 5 digits. So much about not helping people.
    - dakna 7y ago
      Ah, Godwins law again. The US perspective matters only in the US. That is my point. I'm also sure protecting children from the harmful actions of their parents has nothing to do with killing people. Children should have someone on their side if things go wrong, and they can't hire someone. That is where child protection laws come in. See also Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- pintxo 7y ago
  All I am saying is that kids have rights too. And it's society as a whole who defines those rights and provides government with the rights and means to ensure those rights are provided to the kids, even if this means to separate them from their parents.
- pintxo 7y ago
  Just a side note on state sponsored kidnapping: > While a court order in June 2018 required the Department of Health and Human Services to reunite more than 2,700 children in its custody with their parents, that number is only a "subset" of the overall separations, said Ann Maxwell, an inspector at the HHS inspector general’s office. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/number-of-children-separated-at-border-still-unknown-u-s-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/number-of...
geebee 7y ago
It makes me nervous. Public schools and attempts at mandatory attendance have been weaponized against ethnic and religious minorities in the US. I think it’s fair to say English only laws and corporal punishment for speaking languages other than English in Louisiana schools, along with laws of dubious constitutionality requiring kids to attend these schools, are partly why French will be functionally extinct in Louisiana soon.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Depending on your definition of freedom. There aren't many definitions of freedom that include state control of your children. > I‘d vote that‘s a good thing, as it ensures a minimum level of education for every kids. Whether that's good or bad depends on what that "minimum level of education" is. I know nothing of German schools, but in the US, public schools can (at least in some places) provide a "minimum level of education" that is much more "minimum" than it is "education". It also can be very unsafe. It also depends on what the "education" is. Imagine that it's 1940 in Germany, or 1970 in East Germany. You have to send your children to public school so that they can receive their education. But the education in question is going to include a fair amount of indoctrination. When you can't opt your children out of being indoctrinated, it's pretty clear that you're not free. Note well: I'm not claiming that current German education is indoctrination. What I am claiming is that totalitarian regimes make the same argument, and in their case, it is clear that mandatory public education is part of the totalitarian control. So the argument that this gives "opportunity to everyone" is at least suspect, because it may be the "opportunity" to be controlled and indoctrinated.
- aries1980 7y ago
  > What I am claiming is that totalitarian regimes make the same argument, and in their case, it is clear that mandatory public education is part of the totalitarian control. I think the recent totalitarian regimes and their education clearly defines how this is not possible. Many of Nobel Prize-winners, army of scientists who raged against the regime or fled are from totalitarian countries. But even if they didn't rebel, still they could have been a remarkable scientist or just a decent human being.
- pintxo 7y ago
  > There aren't many definitions of freedom that include state control of your children. There are some: freedom from violence in the family, freedom from mistreatment, child labor, indoctrination, ... Essentially this is about balancing the freedoms of the parents to raise their children according to their rules against the freedoms of the children to receive a certain kind of education. I am quite happy this is something I do not have to do, as I fear it’s a very delicate decision to make. And I doubt anyone involved takes such a decision lightly. > When you can't opt your children out of being indoctrinated, it's pretty clear that you're not free. True, but then indoctrination of your children might be the least of your problems.