Human rights violation in Germany (homeschooling issue)

[Husar]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,674312,00.html


A family of evangelical Christians who said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs in Germany have been granted political asylum in the US. The couple fled to Tennessee so they could home-school their five children, which is illegal in Germany.

So, we haven't had this topic for a while and I found it quite funny that someone from Germany would need, and get, political asylum elsewhere on a violation of human rights, usually you assume that applies to people from dictatorships or other very restrictive countries with harsh laws, then you find out your own country is like that, or isn't it?

Personally, I'm a bit divided on the issue, on one hand I think the public education is quite okay here, of course it could be improved but which education couldn't? On the other hand I think parents should be allowed a bit more leverage with their children as long as they don't really hurt them. Yet this couple is completely overreacting IMO, my first reaction to this was laughter, I had a hard time myself at school but in a way it made me stronger and leaving the country over perceived problems etc. seems quite silly to me. Of course school might turn their kids away from their religion but then their religion isn't very convincing I guess. :shrug:

Curious to see what you girls think about this.

[Subotan]

If somebody wants rhe freedom to be stupid, that's fine by me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How does homeschooling work? I assume they are checked up on to make sure they are actually being taught.

[Crazed Rabbit]

How does homeschooling work? I assume they are checked up on to make sure they are actually being taught.

It varies from state to state. In places with more powerful teacher's unions, they'll try to get the state to crack down on homeschooling, like in California, by adding a whole load of requirements and rules for the parents to comply with. I think most states have some required curriculum, others have some requirements for the parent doing the teaching. Testing and the like varies. And that's your super-vague answer for the day.

Making it completely illegal is outrageous.

CR

[Tuuvi]

It is pretty ridiculous to leave one's country over the issue of homeschooling, but what is Germany's reason for making it illegal? I don't see anything wrong with letting someone homeschool their kids.

[Beskar]

Depnds on what you mean by "Home Schooled".

If you are from a very rich family and have private tutor?, that is far different to some backward yokels who give zero-education while they make their kids do chores instead.

[Cute Wolf]

Homeschooling?

Then their kids will be missing a lot of fun on their live!!! No brawls, no chasing girls, no playing pranks, no drunk / smoke together.... come on.... where's the fun eh? :grin:

[Samurai Waki]

My kids would be screwed if it was up to me to teach them. I can teach them basic things like hunting, fishing, and how to drink a beer properly... but I just don't have the patience to teach them the useless crap.

[Ironside]

It is pretty ridiculous to leave one's country over the issue of homeschooling, but what is Germany's reason for making it illegal? I don't see anything wrong with letting someone homeschool their kids.

It's is more that schooling is compulsory and that pure homeschooling can't be evaluated good enough to ensure a decent education. Most people wanting is also belonging to that category who wants to avoid a huge chunk of the education, worsening the issue.

[Meneldil]

Homeschooling is stupid and should be illegal in pretty much any decent state.

Good riddance, enjoy your stay in deleted adjective america. Europe won't miss you.

[Skullheadhq]

Homeschooling?

Then their kids will be missing a lot of fun on their live!!! No brawls, no chasing girls, no playing pranks, no drunk / smoke together.... come on.... where's the fun eh? :grin:
If you would have read the OP's post, you would've known that their parents are religious nutjobs and would kill or excommunicate their children for even thinking about girls or playing pranks.

Luckily for us Europeans religious nutjobs are more accepted in the US.

[Fragony]

Homeschooling is stupid and should be illegal in pretty much any decent state.

Good riddance, enjoy your stay in america. Europe won't miss you.

I usually don't agree with state intervention but in this case yes indeed, have a nice prayer. I know that is a very shaky position to take considering my usual stance on these kind of things but if the parents are religious nutjobs someone has to act.

[Cute Wolf]

If you would have read the OP's post, you would've known that their parents are religious nutjobs and would kill or excommunicate their children for even thinking about girls or playing pranks.

Luckily for us Europeans religious nutjobs are more accepted in the US.

Of course I read them first :wink: I just express my opinion that their children will miss anything that they should get "naturally" in common school. Having isolated from their peers could result in underdeveloped social ability... even chasing girls, playing pranks, and learn to drunk has their own good impact on their later life... as they'll know how to survive in the real wolrd, not just in their "God centered" wolrd. Of course, over lax supervision is wrong by biblical standard, but then, even bible tell us that learning is best by doing... :grin: Remember why Jesus said about "temptation"? You can fall... but God always ready to hold you, and bring you back....

[KukriKhan]

As Crazed Rabbit pointed out, the tolerance of home-schooling varies state-by state. Tennessee (http://www.state.tn.us/education/homeschool/)'s requirements are fairly loose, compared to say, California's.

My biggest surprise was the Immigration Judge granting asylum to a western European family. If the Romeike's are merely renting out their Bissingen home while under asylum in the US, is their plan to home-school in Tennessee for 10-11 years (the kids look 6, 7, 8 years old to me), then return to Germany? Or to stay here? What if the kids, having reached age 18, want to stay in Tennessee, or return to Germany in defiance of their parents?

[Fragony]

They obviously want to make a point over the back of their children, and that is just sick. How many friends did they leave behind in Germany because their parents wanted to make a point, how very selfish. I wish these parents a long walk on a flat earth, any direction will do as long as they fall from it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, as for me, I am likewise against home-schooling in this case. Namely, because I know so many Southern Baptist or Independent Baptist nutjobs around my area (no offence to the more sober and balanced Southern Baptists on this forum). I live in Northwest Florida, where the Baptists are the strongest denomination. The problem is, they make my insides boil while I struggle to present an appearance of a courteous person.

These Baptists are generally the worst of the fundamentalists you can find. They are chock-full of conspiracy theories regarding liberal plots, they do not believe in vaccinations, most modern medicine, climate change (that would be forgiveable if they also did not believe in all the other things), evolution, a planet Earth older than 6,000 years (yep, Young Earth creationists), etc, etc. They also have their schools where everything is sex-segregated, where girls are taught to be subservient to men, where the girls cannot wear anything but long dresses, where girls and boys are not allowed any physical contact, and even staring at each other is discouraged (I am not kidding, check out PCA and PCC - a school and a college in Pensacola).

OK, so the list goes on, but the problem is, so many of these utter nuts either homeshool or take their kids to PCA (Pensacola Christian Academy) - which the students only half-jokingly named 'Prison Camp of America'. The problem with this is that the filth which permeates the minds of the parents is passed on, and the kids are ruined just as their parents were, and turned into intolerant, ignorant, religious fanatics. I swear, this is child abuse. I have not even mentioned half the stuff they do to the children. If I had my way, and the resources, I would either ban them from having children, or take their children away, and let another family adopt them while the children are still toddlers.

That is why I am against homeschooling. Sometimes it is used for noble purposes, but in US, the majority of homeschooling, IIRC, are such people as I described.

[Viking]

All I know is that homeschooling is allowed here (and rightfully so); but I doubt that it is ideal for the kids.

[Major Robert Dump]

ALL U GUYS WHO ARE HATING ON HOMESCHHOL NEED TO STFU BECAUSE I WAS HOMESCHOOLED AND ENDED UP JUST FINE AND WAS VALEDICTORIAN WHEN I GRADUATED


All of you guys who are so "offended" by homeschooling cracks me up.

You are equating a public education to the likes of some human rights issue. WE MUSt TEACH YOUR KIDS WE MUST WE MUST WE MUST.

Of course, this does not suprise me in the least considering Germany's freedom of expression laws.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I hope you are not referring to me, among the others, MRD, because I clearly stated I dislike homeschooling due to the fact it is abused by religious crackpots fearing the 'secular' and 'worldly' influences of the public school systems. I do not have a prejudice against regular homeschooling. So, if this is not too private, why were you homeschooled, MRD?

Even so, homeschooling is simply not the same as real schooling. . Especially regarding group projects, the socialisation part - y'know, 'people' skills, etc. Also, the deadlines, the large projects, and all the other stuff that only the best homeschooling mothers (or fathers) can achieve.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, I hope you are not referring to me, among the others, MRD, because I clearly stated I dislike homeschooling due to the fact it is abused by religious crackpots fearing the 'secular' and 'worldly' influences of the public school systems. I do not have a prejudice against regular homeschooling. So, if this is not too private, why were you homeschooled, MRD?

Even so, homeschooling is simply not the same as real schooling. . Especially regarding group projects, the socialisation part - y'know, 'people' skills, etc. Also, the deadlines, the large projects, and all the other stuff that only the best homeschooling mothers (or fathers) can achieve.

I was kidding, I wasn't homeschooled, it was a joke (valedictorian of a one-person class, get it, heh?)

I know veryintelligent people who were homeschooled by a dedicated, intelligent parent who did it as a full-time job.

I also know people who were homeschooled by nutjob parents who couldn't even pay their utility bills, and homeschooling had as much to do with not having to use gas for school transportation, not having to buy school clothes and supplies, not having to pay for lunches etc as it did with getting a quality education.

Wjile I tend to think only quality parents who have their lives in order should homeschool, it is one thing to think it and another to make it outright illegal.

I know, I know "ITS 4 TEH CHILDREN" Yeah, lamest battle cry ever. Honestly, if some half-wit wants to homeschool their kids I could really care less unless we are talking a case of outright, obvious and dangerous abuse. People have a right to raise their kids, and those kids have a right to grow up hating their parents because they homeschooled them. At the least, Germany should at least let the kids choose, because there are some kids, believe it or not, who would like to be homeschooled.

In case you haven't noticed, public education isn't always the bastion of efficiency, and if I can totally understand a parent wanting to forgoe certain typical school subjects to focus rather on something more practical. Certain "social" subjects at the grade school and middle school level are so whitewashed and watered down they really serve no purpose.

And while the above Baptist examples you gave are silly and archaic and not in touch with reality or youth, I see nothing there that should be made illegal. If people want to go to Bible camps or send their kids -- not my problem.

[Skullheadhq]

ALL U GUYS WHO ARE HATING ON HOMESCHHOL NEED TO STFU BECAUSE I WAS HOMESCHOOLED AND ENDED UP JUST FINE AND WAS VALEDICTORIAN WHEN I GRADUATED


All of you guys who are so "offended" by homeschooling cracks me up.

You are equating a public education to the likes of some human rights issue. WE MUSt TEACH YOUR KIDS WE MUST WE MUST WE MUST.

Of course, this does not suprise me in the least considering Germany's freedom of expression laws.

Homeschooling is ok, but when religious nutjobs do it, it isn't. Because when he's 18, he might know everything about jesus, but nothing about things that really matter.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Heh, I thought there was something unusual about your sensational beginning of your post, but I usually automatically assume people are serious here, so some quips slip by me. :beam:



And while the above Baptist examples you gave are silly and archaic and not in touch with reality or youth, I see nothing there that should be made illegal. If people want to go to Bible camps or send their kids -- not my problem.
I see you point, and as an American, you may be a dedicated supporter of freedom, but my idea of government is a bit more authoritarian, more in line with what they have in germany on tis issue. Edducation decides the future of a child and it is not to be entrusted to someone who is not accountable at all. And about the Baptists, (while I feel that while I am sounding quite totalitarian here, and my reasoning, if it ever leads to a law, may provide a precedent for more government control), I still think all kids should be educated in a reasonably tolerant and neutral environment. Kids begin exceedingly easily impressionable, and the sort of moulding those nuts impose on their offspring rather perturbs me.

Those children have been brainwashed, conditioned to automatically support a certain radical viewpoint. That is quite unethical, to take advantage of their trust to impose your own views on your kids. In public schools, there is a taboo against the teachers spreading their personal agenda in any manner, or disclosing their political affiliations. Now, some may attempt to do it covertly, but that is unlikely, and I have yet to see that. Sure, it exists, but most teachers are dedicated to their profession enough so they understand the importance of avoiding influencing the children. Once again, I know there is no way to avoid influencing, both in public schools and while the child is raised by his/her own parents, but public schools do well enough of a job in this field. They also usually counterbalance any unusual views the children may pick up from their parents (unless the parents are really hell-bent on the indoctrinating).

Anyway, that was probably enough to give you a taste of my viewpoint, and as much as I would like it, I will not ramble on any longer in this post.

[Major Robert Dump]

Homeschooling is ok, but when religious nutjobs do it, it isn't. Because when he's 18, he might know everything about jesus, but nothing about things that really matter.

But why is this your concern? Must you save everyone?

What about kids who go to public school and either drop out or graduate unable to read? Are you trying to save them, too? Let's make illiteracy illegal, while we are at it. If you cannot read or recite your nations history then you will be arrested and sent to jail school.

What about school districts where there is violence and gang problems?

Again, why is this such a big deal that the state must intervene and make it illegal, rather than simply regulating it? Do yousee what this caused????????????????? Now they live in Tennessee, a fate worse than any Germany could have offered them. God help these poor kids if they end up in the Memphis Public Schools

[Aemilius Paulus]

But why is this your concern? Must you save everyone?
Look, he is necessarily trying to 'save everyone' - he is merely suggesting a more advantageous alternative. I agree with Skullheadhq. Your attitude is not very constructive in the previous post of yours, MRD.


What about kids who go to public school and either drop out or graduate unable to read?
Those kids come from quite disadvantaged families, as a rule. Public schools are not perfect, everyone knows that. But if you are suggesting homeschooling is a more viable alternative, you are either joking or simply have not though on this matter long enough. If the kids already come from a ghetto and/or have poor parents, they will not receive any sort of homeschooling from their legal guardians. School is ineffective, but anything else would be a straight-up nightmare.


Are you trying to save them, too? Let's make illiteracy illegal, while we are at it. If you cannot read or recite your nations history then you will be arrested and sent to jail school.
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
At least you could make your logical fallacy more subtle... Really, that is an absolute misrepresentation of Skullhead's argument, and you know it. There is no clear solutions to such problems, but public schooling is the best we have. We are not trying to save everyone, but simply choosing the best solution - homeschooling not among them. The situations in which homeschooling is effective generally involve such families and children that would be just as well off in public schools. Students problematic in regular schools normally have such problems which homeschooling could only make worse, and not remedy.



What about school districts where there is violence and gang problems?
I'd expect a better argument from you, as this one is built on sand, at the best. The vast majority, if not nearly absolutely every one of the people living there cannot homeschool their own children. They already have a load of problems. A great majority not only cannot homeschool, but also do not want do so, and homeschooling would lower the chances of student success from 'unlikely' to 'impossible'.

The whole idea of public schooling is that the children can be provided with an education which answers to certain standards, that is somewhat equal for all children, regardless of what background the attending students are. Your argument flushes that down the toilet. I know the public schools in those districts also have problems, but they are better than home-schooling. If the children are educated by their parents, then the circle of poverty will be reinforced with appalling ease, naturally, with no intervention. You had to be joking when you wrote your post, right?


Again, why is this such a big deal that the state must intervene and make it illegal, rather than simply regulating it?
Because regulation is difficult, expensive, and inefficient. Regulating homeschooling is a nightmare, I must imagine. Test scores cannot measure what propaganda the parents shoved down their children's throats, or how the social/teamwork skills of the children have been affected by not being in normal schools.


Do yousee what this caused????????????????? Now they live in Tennessee, a fate worse than any Germany could have offered them. God help these poor kids if they end up in the Memphis Public Schools
Joke aside, I would rather have those children educated in Tennessee than by their religious-nutjob parents. Just think: how hardcore are those :daisy: parents if they moved to another country just to educate their children? But of course, the parents will probably homeschool their children in US, so...

[Fisherking]

While most people who home school do it for religious reasons, that is not the only reason and many of the children who are home schooled do better than public school students.

Germany is very, very restrictive on education issues and quite paranoid on a verity of religious issues.

I actually know of two people in Germany who were home schooled but so far as I know they are the only two in recent history.

Germany is not exactly the freest nation on earth...they have too many rules, regulations, and laws for that, but as a general rule it is not such repressive place either.

Now as to the rights of nut-jobs! If you restrict the rights of one person you restrict the rights of everyone.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It seems to two parents in this case were fundamentalist despite going through the public school system.

[Strike For The South]

I really don't care what they do with there kids, as they are, there kids. I do find it odd Germany has its panties in a buch about this, I don't see why it's any of the states buisness. Besides public schools here are horrid places. They are really just vessels for early pregnancy and substance abuse.

Not to mention, Tennesse? Why there?

The baptists I know (including myself) run the gambit of religous piety, and most of the rumors made up about us are just plain wrong in 2010. The only reason I say this is AP is the fourth member to dust off dated veiws and generalzations about baptists in the past few months.

We're really not that intresting

[Aemilius Paulus]

The only reason I say this is AP is the fourth member to dust off dated veiws and generalzations about baptists in the past few months.

I swear on my honour, dignity, and my mother everything I said was completely true and without any exaggerating in that post concerning Baptists. I live in Pensacola, FL, and have to deal with those types of people every day. I hate it. I am sick of this place. Well, to be accurate, I am sick of the people in this place, and generally older people, older than the age of 30 - they being the ones most likely to be the radicals. We have the PCA and PCC, both of them catering to specifically the fundamentalists - which is a good indication of how many we have. Go to their websites, and you will see all that crap I was speaking of in their rules.

I swear, once again, that I am not repeating some old stereotypes. BELIEVE ME :cry:. Hell, come over to Pensacola, the religious nutjobs are driving me mad, all the more because my parents associate themselves with those people. I mean, the people my parents are friends with, ironically, are very intelligent and generally congenial, but it is impossible to have a conversation with them without having them stray into their ignorant views on any of those subjects I mentioned. Please, believe me, SFTS, I am desperate.

Not to mention, in Pensacola, there are too many Independent Baptists. Southern Baptists are the more liberal, reformed ones. The independent ones are undeniably fundamentalist - they even call themselves as that. They are unreformed, and very old-fashioned. As a matter of fact, during Thanksgiving, my family was invited to the household to a family of really conservative Southern Baptists (like I said, very good people, used to be atheist scientists :dizzy2:, but now overtly religious).

So we came over, and had quite a good time, and closer to the end I got into an about two-hour long conversation with their 40-year old son who was, believe it or not, a fundamentalist (and his elderly parents were the 'moderate' ones). He was a professor at PCC, the fundamentalist college at Pensacola. Now, the conversation we had was amazing, I tell you - he was a real intellectual (although he did believe in the Young-Earth rubbish), and a very interesting as well as sensible person in general, and we talked of history, theology, and such. Closer to the end, we began discussing fundamentalist Baptists, and he was decrying the rampant anti-intellectualism in the ranks of his movement. Quite amusing, I remember, it was to hear him say so. But even he admitted it.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think you are lying, and I realize that NW Florida probably has more crazies than South Texas but I think you'll find any branch of protastents has these same crazies.

This has just been endemic of the backroom since I got here. I had no idea why people were singling poor ol me out and why you talk about religon and politics at the dinner table is forgien to me as well

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't think you are lying, and I realize that NW Florida probably has more crazies than South Texas but I think you'll find any branch of protastents has these same crazies.

This has just been endemic of the backroom since I got here. I had no idea why people were singling poor ol me out and why you talk about religon and politics at the dinner table is forgien to me as well

Well at least AP is talking from some experiences, even if it might seem he's exaggerating the crazies.

But the other folks in this thread ragging on homeschooling don't seem to know much about it; they're just basing arguments on assumptions.

There can certainly be debate about homeschooling; I've argued against it at times. But most of the posters against it in this thread don't have evidence for their views so much as prejudices.

As for Baptists, to me they've seemed hold the title of most old-fashioned practices (about beer and dancing, for example). I certainly don't think all Baptists are like that, it just seems to me, in the information I've absorbed from society growing up, that old-fashioned Baptists do personify old fashioned Protestant religion, or Puritanism, most.
:shrug:
CR

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't think you are lying, and I realize that NW Florida probably has more crazies than South Texas but I think you'll find any branch of protastents has these same crazies.
Then why did you say I was dusting off old stereotypes? I said I lived in NW Florida before you made your initial post.


I had no idea why people were singling poor ol me out
Lulz, do you have the victim complex? :tongue: No one is singling you out, or at least not me. I was not thinking of you when I made that post, nor do I see why I would do so.


and why you talk about religon and politics at the dinner table is forgien to me as well
Heh, I know, but I tell you, it was not me. Living as I am, in P'scola, I quickly learned the futility of debating with the nutjobs on topics which concern them directly. The problem is, those people literally impose that on you. Once he got into politics and global warming - all by himself, I directly stated that I do not wish to talk about that, giving excuses such as me not having enough expertise (sad thing is, he was the dumb one, at least in the scientific viewpoint), and etc.

But he went along. That is one of the reasons why I dislike his kind. They seem to lack even the sense that a 16-year old the likes of me already possesses. They simply seem to lack the understanding that not only is their view quite radical but also, very crucially, that debating with me about it does not help, and only worsens the situation. Sad, yes, they are almost childlike in this regard. Luckily though, our talk strayed away from sensitive science and into theology, which was basically his lecture of the foundations of the fundamentalist Baptists and/or their beliefs since the Reformation - very much interesting it was to me, and not at all controversial or sensitive in any manner.

So actually, the religion in our conversation was harmless, from the point of a dinner table conversation. Nor was it dinner table by then - after the long meal and the talking over the table, the large group broke up into small localised conversations around the living room, porch, and the kitchen.

[Megas Methuselah]

Homeschooling is stupid and should be illegal in pretty much any decent state.

Good riddance, enjoy your stay in deleted adjective america. Europe won't miss you.

Heeeey! You can't just keep sending your rejects to my continent! It ain't fair.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Homeschooling is probably illegal in Germany in the same sense that it is in the Netherlands: if it is not registered as school, and it does not pass the quality checks on inspection then it does not count as a school. At which point the parents are guilty of preventing their children access to a real school; and attendance on some school is required by law until a certain minimum grade has been acquired or until the age of 18 (coming of age). This is criminal negligence at best and will see you loose custody over your children.

This is not ‘human rights’ this is a simple case of criminal negligence. That they should receive asylum in the USA for it is twisted, perversive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think you are lying, and I realize that NW Florida probably has more crazies than South Texas but I think you'll find any branch of protastents has these same crazies.

This has just been endemic of the backroom since I got here. I had no idea why people were singling poor ol me out and why you talk about religon and politics at the dinner table is forgien to me as well

Well Strike, no American denomination looks like it's European counterpart or predecessor, most are much more extreme in one way or another. Additionally, you are facing mostly atheists or (possibly bitter) lapsed Christians.

That said, I too am appalled by the prejudice evident in thsi thread. These people have been labled "nutjobs" and accused of using their children to make a point (one that apparently also involed selling their worldly possessions and crossing the Atlantic. So, lets take a breath and look at this more rationally.

The article simply labels them "Evangelical Christians" and this seems intended to invoke the American radical, but the term can be applied to varients of almost any Protestant denomination, and is therfore meaningless. The article also does to say where the nearest Christian school was, whether it was fee-paying, or whether it was theologically remotely similar to the parent's beliefs.

Frankly, I think we need a lot more information before making a judgement.

[Husar]

This is not ‘human rights’ this is a simple case of criminal negligence. That they should receive asylum in the USA for it is twisted, perversive.

Well, I saw this in a rather small newspaper column first and IIRC that one said that the judge gave them political asylum because as he saw it, the german state was infringing on their human rights by preventing them from homeschooling their children, that's how I got to the topic. Maybe that says a lot about the judge as well. There are also christian schools here, but not many because there isn't a lot of demand so the few that people want to establish have problems with finances and getting enough certified teachers etc.

Some of you also seem to be missing they point by saying the parents are not preparing their children for a life in this world. That's exactly the point, Christians like these do not want to live in this world, because the world is ruled and controlled by satan and they want to distance themselves from it except for the purpose of telling people about their religion. I know because that's pretty much what I've been preached for many years. And still am in a way, I'm just not convinced it#s true anymore, but they are, and in a way that is their good right. :shrug:

[Aemilius Paulus]

These people have been labled "nutjobs"
Just to clear it up, I called my local 'friends' with that name, not the German 'evangelicals'. EDIT: nevermind, I did call them nutjobs, just not in my initial posts in this thread. Oh well, dreary me.



Frankly, I think we need a lot more information before making a judgement.
I agree, but, if you have noticed, I remarked that anyone hardcore enough to move to a different country from what it appears simply to indoctrinate their children is likely to be too hardcore to be anything but a radical. That says quite a lot on its own.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmmmm...

I had to have a long think about this one!

I do not see a problem with home schooling, as long as the parents are capable. My uncle is rich as hell, and has a hyper-intelligent child with ADHD. He could easily hire me and my girlfriend to tutor his child, as the normal school is very ill-equipped to deal with this kid.

We would then set up a schedule for education, this of course including privat tutoring aswell as sports, chess clubs, go clubs, and so on to also have him socialise with his peers. His peers being kids found at go clubs, not public schools (and public schools is only alternative here). We would have him do sports to have him socialise with his intellectual inferiors so he'd meet them on a level playing field.

In this case, would anyone say that home schooling is bad? Bear in mind that both me and my girlfriend are educated teachers, and our interests basicly split the different subjects between us (me language and social stuff, she is into science).


ON THE OTHER HAND, a religious nutjob, you know, one of those trying to pray away diabetes, letting the child die (we just discussed such a case here)... Should they be allowed homeschooling? I would say NO. This is to protect the child.

Homeschooling must thus be very clearly regulated by national policy. And controlls should be made frequently.

To conclude: some couple of hundred years ago the religious nut jobs went on boats to America. I see no reason to stop this tradition! Good riddance, I'd say!


PS: I don't joke when I say my cousin is hyper-intelligent. I was teaching him to ski this other weekend, and in the lift up another child asked me why the lifts down move faster than the lifts going up. My cousin answered: "It's only because of your perspective. As those lifts come towards you, you percieve them to move twice as fast as you are moving towards them with equal speed. You have to factor in your own movement in relation to the other object. Besides, havent you noticed we are on the same cable, going round and round?" <- some VERY advanced thoughts for a 8 year old.

[Louis VI the Fat]

British government figures show that dozens of Americans and Canadians have applied for asylum in the U.K. in the past few years on the grounds that they were persecuted in their own countries.Home Office figures show 45 Americans and 15 Canadians tried to obtain asylum in Britain between 2004 to 2008.


The British government says all of the applicants were refusedCrybabies. I'm happy that people can live someplace else if they have an issue with an aspect of their society. But asylum? Meh.


I find it a bit odd that these two Germans should've been granted asylum in the US. I wonder if asylum would've been granted if these were not Christian religious fundamentalists asylum seekers, but vegan-commie parents, or Muslim fundamentalists.


In a landmark legal case commenced in 2003 at the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) a homeschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling) parent couple argued on behalf of their children that Germany's compulsory school attendance endangered their children's religious upbringing, promoted teaching inconsistent with their Christian faith – especially the German State's mandates relating to sex education in the schools – and contravened the declaration in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union) that "the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions". In September 2006 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on homeschooling, stating "parents may not refuse... [compulsory schooling] on the basis of their convictions", and adding that the right to education "calls for regulation by the State". The European Court took the position that the plaintiffs were the children, not their parents, and declared "children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age.... Schools represent society, and it is in the children's interest to become part of that society. The parents' right to educate does not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience." The European Court endorsed a "carefully reasoned" decision of the German court concerning "the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.Children are not the property of their parents to play counter-culture with. :2thumbsup:



SOUHTERN BAPSITS ARE ALL MARIED WITH THEYRE COUSIN OR THIER PICK 'EMS UP AND DRINK BUD LITE BECUASE THEY CANT TAKE REAL BEER LOL

[Kadagar_AV]

Louis, You first make an excellent point asking if they would have been accepted if being vegan-commie or islamic fundamentalists.

Your second point leaves much to ask for though. Specially the part in caps lock.

I get your point however, and yes, it is tragic. I for one am all for going against society.

I can only use my grandfather as an example, as an Austrian, he was in the resistance force. Do you have ANY idea how many austrians were? Not a load, I can tell you. However, he fought against a regime that was out of hand. He did an intellectual choice to go against society at large. I very much respect this.

To force children into state-schools, or to force them into hitler-jugend. Where is the difference?

That is one part of the deal.

But then, again, we have the religious nut jobs who will wreck their children.

Where do we draw the line?

This is more a question of politics than of schooling, imho.

Oh, and if I would have the monetary means, I would seriosly consider home schooling my children. This comming from a socialistic swede ;)

Just because I think I could do a better job than any school around. But again, of course I would make sure that the child in question had plenty of opportunity to socialise with children his age (mainly through sports).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Homeschooling is probably illegal in Germany in the same sense that it is in the Netherlands: if it is not registered as school, and it does not pass the quality checks on inspection then it does not count as a school. At which point the parents are guilty of preventing their children access to a real school; and attendance on some school is required by law until a certain minimum grade has been acquired or until the age of 18 (coming of age). This is criminal negligence at best and will see you loose custody over your children.

This is not ‘human rights’ this is a simple case of criminal negligence. That they should receive asylum in the USA for it is twisted, perversive.

An act is not immoral simply because the state wrote a law against it any more than something becomes moral when the state allows it.

The point of education is to educate, not to comply with whatever rules or regulation the state dictates. Stating that a harsh punishment for something exists does not mean whatever is being punished is necessarily bad.

Also, I've seen no evidence being devoutly religious makes a parent a bad homeschooler. Even if the child is taught creationism they're at no real disadvantage; when does knowledge or belief in evolution affect your daily life? And all colleges have basic science courses that start at a foundational level.

CR

[Beskar]

Heeeey! You can't just keep sending your rejects to my continent! It ain't fair.

Don't worry, France was spared.

[Tuuvi]

I live in a very religious community, and I have always been under the impression that parents choose to homeschool their kids either because they feel their kids are more intelligent and are better served in a homeschooling environment where they can work at their own pace, or because of extreme bullying and harassment ( for example my brother recently had a pencil shoved down his ear at school and now he refuses to go back).

Even if the parents wanted to homeschool their kids because of religious reasons that is their right, they are most likely doing it because they want to protect their kids. I believe that it is a parent's duty to try teach their kids how to survive in this world. If the parents sincerely believe in their religion and they don't try to teach those beliefs to their kids, to me they are not doing a good job of parenting, even if I don't believe in their religion. If the parents feel that in order to fulfill this duty they must homeschool their kids then that is their decision.

Now there is a line that can be crossed; in the end religious beliefs and major life decisions should always be left up to the child. Forcing kids to think and behave a certain way is not only wrong but also counter-productive. But this does not mean that the state should ban homeschooling in order to "protect" the kids from their parents. We should always respect others' beliefs, even if we don't agree with them (except of course when such beliefs result in abuse, neglect, etc.).

[Fisherking]

What many of you fail to see is that the granting of Asylum in this case points up some fundamental differences in the way children are viewed by the two similar systems.

Obviously the Federal Judge felt that the parents had a right to make choices in their children’s education.

On the other hand the German Government, or at least the educational system, sees those children as a state asset and that they should be educated in a state approved school.

One could make the argument that this is state indoctrination.

The article uses a few code words, like Evangelical Christians, which essentially gave these people horns and tails, so far as the German public is concerned.

Many of you have also rushed to judgment on that basis, calling people you have never met Religious Nut-Jobs.

I am sure some one could through a label on most anyone to color them as a dangerous fool.

I don’t know that this case will have any impact on Germany but it makes me reflect on basic liberties.

[Meneldil]

Frankly, I think we need a lot more information before making a judgement.

We don't. There's a reason why school became obligatory in the late 19th in most of the western world. Not because of "state indoctrination" (lol), but because it was supposed to be better for the population.

I don't really care for what reason these parents want to homeschool their kids (in the really unlikely case it is not because they're religious nutjobs living in a "Zomg the government is ruled by jews and communists" mindset). They're wrong, wrong and rewrong. School is not only a tool of education, but also of socialization, a place where you learn to deal with your felllows, and where you learn how to become a citizen.
So yeah, as I said, good riddance, and stay in the US please. And as Louis pointed out, I doubt they would have received asyleum if they were anarchists, communists or muslims. So I call this whole thing bollox.

[Ironside]

This is more a question of politics than of schooling, imho.

Oh, and if I would have the monetary means, I would seriosly consider home schooling my children. This comming from a socialistic swede ;)

Just because I think I could do a better job than any school around. But again, of course I would make sure that the child in question had plenty of opportunity to socialise with children his age (mainly through sports).

But that would be mainly through tutors I suppose? As you both plan to work?

It occured to me that unless you have a housewife system or private tutors, your child will be alone for most of the day and you'll be too tired to homeschool your child properly after work. Only 3-4 points in there that explains why Swedes aren't big on homeschooling.



Also, I've seen no evidence being devoutly religious makes a parent a bad homeschooler. Even if the child is taught creationism they're at no real disadvantage; when does knowledge or belief in evolution affect your daily life? And all colleges have basic science courses that start at a foundational level.

CR

I would argue that very religious homeschooling is much closer to indoctrination than the current form of public schools. As for how evolution affect your daily life, it depends, but viewing changing systems as an evolving systems certainly have impact.



On the other hand the German Government, or at least the educational system, sees those children as a state asset and that they should be educated in a state approved school.

One could make the argument that this is state indoctrination.


It's not viewing the children as a state asset, it is the acknowledgement that a decent education is extremely important for both the child and society as a whole and the drive to ensure it.

As for the argument about state indoctrination, modern education focus a lot on analytical and critical thinking, searching your own information and drawing your own conclutions. That kind of indoctrination that makes people into horrible subjects.

[Viking]

An act is not immoral simply because the state wrote a law against it any more than something becomes moral when the state allows it.

The point of education is to educate, not to comply with whatever rules or regulation the state dictates. Stating that a harsh punishment for something exists does not mean whatever is being punished is necessarily bad.

Exactement.


School is not only a tool of education, but also of socialization, a place where you learn to deal with your felllows, and where you learn how to become a citizen.

To be homeschooled is not the same as being cut off from the rest of the world socially.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Illegal. Not immoral. Please note: there is *nothing* in the law that would have prevented these parents from giving their children additional education (home schooling) had they also sent their children to some school.

And there is absolutely no part in the human rights that says "Parents should have a right to decide upon their children's education; local law is irrelevant." That would be similar to a part saying "Parents decide when their children cross the line; law has no business here." Again, parents can choose to give their children additional lessons/lectures but they have a duty by law to send their children to school.

That asylum remains a joke in the absolute worst taste, IMO.

[Viking]

Illegal. Not immoral. Please note: there is *nothing* in the law that would have prevented these parents from giving their children additional education (home schooling) had they also sent their children to some school.

That is naturally impractical, and neither is it what relevant parents have in mind.


And there is absolutely no part in the human rights that says "Parents should have a right to decide upon their children's education; local law is irrelevant." That would be similar to a part saying "Parents decide when their children cross the line; law has no business here." Again, parents can choose to give their children additional lessons/lectures but they have a duty by law to send their children to school.

Laws can be amended - and may I remind you that it is legal in much of Europe.

Whether or not they should have been granted an asylum , I have absolutely no opinion on.

[Fisherking]

It's not viewing the children as a state asset, it is the acknowledgement that a decent education is extremely important for both the child and society as a whole and the drive to ensure it.

As for the argument about state indoctrination, modern education focus a lot on analytical and critical thinking, searching your own information and drawing your own conclutions. That kind of indoctrination that makes people into horrible subjects.

No?

Then why pray tell does the state provide subsidies to couples with children?

Out of the goodness the feel for their citizens?:inquisitive:


:laugh4:

[Aemilius Paulus]

So if you already agree that the state views the children as its own assets, then why do you accuse it of doing what you already know it does? Not to mention, when such a thing is but natural. I agree with Meneldil - good riddance. Except that those nuts are coming to US, and I already have enough of their kind here :cry2:

[Megas Methuselah]

...and I already have enough of their my own kind here :cry2:

Don't isolate yourself from your own breed.

[A Very Super Market]

Don't isolate yourself from your own breed.

AP is a religious nutjob? A German? What are you on?


Poor kids. Doomed to a life of.... luxury, in the American South.Funny how things work. They'd be lambasted for fundamentalism anywhere else. Such a pity.

[Strike For The South]

Crybabies. I'm happy that people can live someplace else if they have an issue with an aspect of their society. But asylum? Meh.


I find it a bit odd that these two Germans should've been granted asylum in the US. I wonder if asylum would've been granted if these were not Christian religious fundamentalists asylum seekers, but vegan-commie parents, or Muslim fundamentalists.

Children are not the property of their parents to play counter-culture with. :2thumbsup:



SOUHTERN BAPSITS ARE ALL MARIED WITH THEYRE COUSIN OR THIER PICK 'EMS UP AND DRINK BUD LITE BECUASE THEY CANT TAKE REAL BEER LOL

Delete post. Ban User.

You'd be surprised Louis, America takes in refugees of all kind. This just made news because they are from Germany and there's not much opperison going on there....well unless you count the oppersion of the funny bone....zing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh be fair...

America is probably THE most diverse country in the world. He is perfectly allowed to distance himself from certain groups, just as long as he do not wave the american flag with anything but sarcasm :)

[Kadagar_AV]

Delete post. Ban User.

You'd be surprised Louis, America takes in refugees of all kind. This just made news because they are from Germany and there's not much opperison going on there....well unless you count the oppersion of the funny bone....zing.

On the other hand... You are aware that just one of the Suburbs of Swedens capital town accepted more people from Iraq than the US did?

*my point is def not to say that was a smart thing to do, only saying the US should not brag about accepting immigrants*

[Strike For The South]

On the other hand... You are aware that just one of the Suburbs of Swedens capital town accepted more people from Iraq than the US did?

*my point is def not to say that was a smart thing to do, only saying the US should not brag about accepting immigrants*



"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

We give people homes it's how we roll.

[Aemilius Paulus]

On the other hand... You are aware that just one of the Suburbs of Swedens capital town accepted more people from Iraq than the US did?

*my point is def not to say that was a smart thing to do, only saying the US should not brag about accepting immigrants*
That is true. My father is an immigration lawyer and he says Sweden has one of the most liberal immigration laws - they grant asylums to almost everyone. At least that is how it was a few years ago. Not sure how it is now.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well everyone here is making the situation seem as if homeschoolers will always be nutcases and inferior to whatever the schools offer.

But what if parents have genuine concerns about the condition of the schools? At a lot of schools, there are problems with drugs dealings, fights and knife crime, bullying, pupils attacking teachers etc. There was even an article I think at the BBC recently where a teachers union are now recommending them not to step in and break up fights between pupils.


School is not only a tool of education, but also of socialization, a place where you learn to deal with your felllows, and where you learn how to become a citizen.

That sounds great and all, but if certainly doesn't seem to be the reality for the people schools tend to produce round here.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've come to the conclusion that no one here arguing against homeschooling knows what they're talking about.

Indoctrination? No socialization? You think homeschooled students are just kept at home all day?

Calling these parents nuts? It's the German government that's out of line.

CR

[Aemilius Paulus]

Calling these parents nuts? It's the German government that's out of line.

Has it ever occurred to you that most continental Europeans tend to draw the boundary of a personal-freedom/rights-abuse with considerably less libertarianism than an American would? Far too many things in US are 'freedoms' whereas in Europe they are outlawed. Statistically speaking on this matter, US is one of a kind. That means you are outnumbered - vastly more people disagree with you.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Has it ever occurred to you that most continental Europeans tend to draw the boundary of a personal-freedom/rights-abuse with considerably less libertarianism than an American would? Far too many things in US are 'freedoms' whereas in Europe they are outlawed. Statistically speaking on this matter, US is one of a kind. That means you are outnumbered - vastly more people disagree with you.

Doesn't mean I'm not right.
:knight:
CR

[KukriKhan]

Children are not the property of their parents to play counter-culture with.

Yes they are. Over here anyway. Not that I agree with that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes they are. Over here anyway. Not that I agree with that.

I wonder how you would prevent it. Can religion, politics and morals be taught to children by their parents?

After a certain age children will break free of their parents influence and find their own identity.

How can you distinguish indoctrination from genetic inheritance?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.... Because when he's 18, he might know everything about jesus, but nothing about things that really matter.

Do you not see how this might be offensive to ANY person who thinks of themselves as a Christian, or do you simply not care? I truly hope it is the former....

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think the US is one of a kind when it comes to 'freedoms'. It's more of an Anglo-Saxon thing, a strong belief in individual liberty was the point which really defined Britain from the continent a couple of hundred years ago. Now it's what defines the US from the rest of the west, although I really think that's only due to a bit of a blip on the UK's part, got a bit sucked in during the totalitarian era in the mid 19th C.

Of course, the Americans were quite right to revolt against the British, they are due representation with taxation according to the ancient anglo-saxon constitution after all.

[Husar]

Woah, some of the responses are quite strong, I happen to know a few Christians as well and happen to have been raised by some, and I turned out fine (just kidding, I know i didn't but it's always funny when people say that ~;) ).
Saying these people would "wreck" their children seems quite wrong to me, they usually have just the best in mind for their children and believe that the public school system is based on satanic thoughts, basically that their children would go to hell following that worldly path, now if anyone here would prefer parents who want their children to go to hell, just raise your hand. :inquisitive:

The people I know though, send their children to public school but also to the churches kids meetings etc. where they are religiously educated, they might also tell their children not to believe everything at school and/or exclude them from certain things. My parents for example told me not to engage in anything "esoteric" like moving tables, laying cards etc. though that usually isn't part of the normal school program anyway(and neither should it, of course).
What I find extreme here is that they went to the USA and actually got political asylum over this.

This also raises the question, as Louis mentioned, what to do with other religions, if we let the christian fundamentalists do homeschooling, do we let the muslim fundamentalists do it, too? Would they have gotten political asylum, too?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't think the US is one of a kind when it comes to 'freedoms'. It's more of an Anglo-Saxon thing, a strong belief in individual liberty was the point which really defined Britain from the continent a couple of hundred years ago.Anglosaxons are more free by their standards. By other standards, Anglosaxons are deprived of the most basic liberties. It is a good deal a matter of whose liberty, and which liberty, a society gives preference to.
For example, the reluctancy of Anglo societies to prevent childlabour. Anglo societies - Industrial Britain, the US until recently, were regarded as some sort of India in this respect, their children left to rot in sweatshops or sold off for prostitution. The Anglo liberty of the factory owner prevailed over the Continental liberty of the child to receive an education, to play, to be a child. Charles Dickens slaved away his youth in a factory, hence as an adult was a relentless critic of Anglo liberty.
Child labour was abolished in the US only by Franklin Roosevelt, about a century after Europe. (And Europe here, yes, includes the UK, which during the course of the nineteenth century saw the importance of children's rights)


Somewhat following on that, I would say this is a matter of which individual liberty prevails: that of the parents, or that of the child?

Also, homeschooling is not an exclusively religious issue, the majority of homeschooling parents do so for non-religious motives. Homeschooling is forbidden in Germany, not in Europe. Germany and the rest of the West are the dividing line here.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Doesn't mean I'm not right.
:knight:
CR
True, you could be right, I did not deny that. I cannot say who is right or not, even if I have my own idea of how things should be.

Do you not see how this might be offensive to ANY person who thinks of themselves as a Christian, or do you simply not care? I truly hope it is the former....
Actually, SM, I did not see anything wrong with Skullhead's post either. He said that a person homeschooled in a religious setting may grow up very religious, but perhaps without real knowledge. I mean, that is unlikely, as I am sure the parents will teach the child other things as well, but what was so offensive there? I think you may be getting too touchy... :sweatdrop:

I don't think the US is one of a kind when it comes to 'freedoms'. It's more of an Anglo-Saxon thing
Yes, I know. If you read my previous post more carefully, you will notice I said 'continental Europe' which is the classical definition of Europe without UK. Don't sweat it though, I miss things out quite often too :wink:

Woah, some of the responses are quite strong, I happen to know a few Christians as well and happen to have been raised by some, and I turned out fine (just kidding, I know i didn't but it's always funny when people say that ~;) ).
Saying these people would "wreck" their children seems quite wrong to me, they usually have just the best in mind for their children and believe that the public school system is based on satanic thoughts, basically that their children would go to hell following that worldly path, now if anyone here would prefer parents who want their children to go to hell, just raise your hand. :inquisitive:
Well look, as I was saying, someone who moved to another country just to homeschool their child is likely to be pretty radically religious. That would certainly have to be a fundamentalist evangelical, and a deeply fundamentalist one. Otherwise, immigrating to another country, with another culture, language, etc, with no guarantees of a good job, in such tough economic times... You have to be pretty tough nut.



This also raises the question, as Louis mentioned, what to do with other religions, if we let the christian fundamentalists do homeschooling, do we let the muslim fundamentalists do it, too? Would they have gotten political asylum, too?
Good question. Do you mean should US let Muslim fundamentalists homeschool? I do not see why not, as long as the child passes the tests mandated by the gov't. Now, whether such a family would get an asylum... Hard to say.

I would have to ask my father. I do remember him saying that US Immigration Department was quite subjective at times. He had a case with an Uzbek gay male, and the case was very good, but it was somehow rejected, whereas most easier cases ended in success. Same thing happened to a nudist from Iran. Both had good evidence that they were persecuted, but still lost.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, SM, I did not see anything wrong with Skullhead's post either. He said that a person homeschooled in a religious setting may grow up very religious, but perhaps without real knowledge. I mean, that is unlikely, as I am sure the parents will teach the child other things as well, but what was so offensive there? I think you may be getting too touchy... :sweatdrop:


He's saying that Jesus Christ, does not "really matter" at all. He dismissing all of Christianity as completely unimportant.

So yes, it's an offensive statement. Sadly, though, the backroom seems to have more atheist bigots (as opposed to just atheists) nowadays.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

Anglosaxons are more free by their standards. By other standards, Anglosaxons are deprived of the most basic liberties. It is a good deal a matter of whose liberty, and which liberty, a society gives preference to.
For example, the reluctancy of Anglo societies to prevent childlabour. Anglo societies - Industrial Britain, the US until recently, were regarded as some sort of India in this respect, their children left to rot in sweatshops or sold off for prostitution. The Anglo liberty of the factory owner prevailed over the Continental liberty of the child to receive an education, to play, to be a child.

I'll admit, that is the problem. Anglo-Saxon liberties hinge on the idea that the state is the only factor that can oppress people. They only really came to political prominence in the 17th Century, so they were never really meant to address issues other factors such as the free market or the consolidation of class structures with industrialisation etc. I really want to be an idealist and fight for my anglo-saxon freedoms (Scotland of course being an anglo-saxon country, and NOT celtic), but my common sense tells me otherwise. :no:


Somewhat following on that, I would say this is a matter of which individual liberty prevails: that of the parents, or that of the child?

I don't think that it necessarily has to be so. The child's right to an education can be met by homeschooling, and there are plenty of ways for the social aspect to be dealt with as well.

Also, to those saying that the schools will give a more balanced education and that these parents will be too extreme... who is the state to say what is extreme? What judges the extremity of their beliefs? Is it the beliefs themselves, or just how they might translate into political beliefs/actions?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sadly, though, the backroom seems to have more atheist bigots (as opposed to just atheists) nowadays.

CRI immediately plead guilty.

We are worried by what we perceive as a renewed attack of religion on our secular societies. Islam, Christian fundamentalism, blasphemy, the creeping in of creationism in European education - not too long ago considered immune to what was thought of as an American phenomenon.

There is a sense that the stakes have been raised, that the secular society can not remain silent any longer, expecting reason to prevail by itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I get the impression the Amish would be s.o.l. in Germany. Maybe we're just that much more culturally tolerant over here :D

[Aemilius Paulus]

He's saying that Jesus Christ, does not "really matter" at all. He dismissing all of Christianity as completely unimportant.

So yes, it's an offensive statement. Sadly, though, the backroom seems to have more atheist bigots (as opposed to just atheists) nowadays.

Oh, I see. Still, I am pretty sure Skullhead did not mean it in the manner in which SM took it. I only got it after you explained it, while still wondering why it was so offensive that SM took note of it...

I mean, religion and RL are two different things, I see no reason why one could not draw a line between them. Sure Jesus is important to Christians, but you can live without Jesus - billions of people do - whereas without RL skills you would quickly sink. So I still do not see why the comment from SM. I see how it is possible to take it in offence, but one would have to be quite touchy and inflexible to do so.


Really, people take "I'm offended" too far these days. When I am offended, I keep my mouth shut while taking note of it. Complaining will only make people dislike you more. (note: I am not talking about you CR, just life in general :wink:)

[Crazed Rabbit]

I immediately plead guilty.

We are worried by what we perceive as a renewed attack of religion on our secular societies. Islam, Christian fundamentalism, blasphemy, the creeping in of creationism in European education - not too long ago considered immune to what was thought of as an American phenomenon.

There is a sense that the stakes have been raised, that the secular society can not remain silent any longer, expecting reason to prevail by itself.

You're not bad, Louis...usually. :stare:

But really, how can parents wanting to homeschool their children be seen as a "renewed attack of religion"? It seems some people take the mere existence of religion and religious folks just trying to go about their lives as some sort of affront.

CR

[Husar]

Well look, as I was saying, someone who moved to another country just to homeschool their child is likely to be pretty radically religious. That would certainly have to be a fundamentalist evangelical, and a deeply fundamentalist one. Otherwise, immigrating to another country, with another culture, language, etc, with no guarantees of a good job, in such tough economic times... You have to be pretty tough nut.

Well yeah, but what is the loss of a job compared to an eternity in hell? ~;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well yeah, but what is the loss of a job compared to an eternity in hell? ~;)
Hehe, you are a funny one, aren't you? :tongue::beam:

I always found the concept of the the existence of Christian Hell fascinating. When you read Joseph Campbell, he suggests Hell was tacked on in the early days of Christianity as the bishops could not simply tolerate the idea of a more Zoroastrian approach - in Zoroastrianism, you see, when the good Ahura Mazda prevails over the evil Ahriman and then happens the frashokereti, their equivalent of the Judgement Day, but in Zoroastrianism, during this event, everything will be restored, and all will be made good. In more practical terms, it means that no matter how much you sinned before you died, you will still become good in the end - and there is nothing you can do about that.

Now, that was too good to be true, the high-ranking priests said, and so they had to suit the religion to their own needs. So they added Hell, a place of eternal damnation, from which there was no going back, for the 'bad' guys. The problem is, Hell goes against at least 3/4 of the tenets of Christianity. For all that mattered, they may as well have took the New Testament and wiped their own rear ends with it, so contradictory this was. Still, from a practical perspective, it worked well enough - considering one could only do so much to change human nature.

But from a philosophical/spiritual perspective? OK, so we do all these good deeds just so we can get that paradise. Sounds familiar? Well, how is it different from 'OK, so we work hard and earn enough money to buy that mansion'? Yes, PVC, I am simplifying this too much, yes, you will ride over me very soon, but the basic principle stands. For the common folk, especially up to the modern times, this was basically it. They did not have your luxury of musing on it, and drawing support from libraries of texts to suit any taste or view.

Ugh, this is quite off topic... Oh well, the original thread is getting redundant and I see no reason why a debate in the Backroom cannot flow naturally as a real conversation would...

[Louis VI the Fat]

But really, how can parents wanting to homeschool their children be seen as a "renewed attack of religion"? It seems some people take the mere existence of religion and religious folks just trying to go about their lives as some sort of affront.

CR

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

· More students believe Darwin got it wrong
· Royal Society challenges 'insidious problem'


A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

Earlier this month Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution.

In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April.

"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."

Professor David Read, vice-president and biological sciences secretary of the Royal Society, said that they felt it was essential to address the issue now: "We have asked Steve Jones to deliver his lecture on creationism and evolution because there continues to be controversy over how evolution and other aspects of science are taught in some UK schools, colleges and universities. Our education system should provide access to the knowledge and understanding gained through the scientific method of experiment and observation, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, and should withstand attempts to withhold or misrepresent this knowledge in order to promote particular beliefs, religious or otherwise."
Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.


The country that gave us Darwin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

That's quite different from this case.

And besides, that's what Europe gets for abandoning Catholicism! :smug:

CR

[Megas Methuselah]

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

Yeah, the first human being was created here on turtle island when the great Creator blew the four parts of mother earth into the sacred shell. I am the result of this union.

Not you, though. You're a weird, foreign alien or something. I have no idea where you come from.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll admit, that is the problem. Anglo-Saxon liberties hinge on the idea that the state is the only factor that can oppress people. They only really came to political prominence in the 17th Century, so they were never really meant to address issues other factors such as the free market or the consolidation of class structures with industrialisation etc. I really want to be an idealist and fight for my anglo-saxon freedoms (Scotland of course being an anglo-saxon country, and NOT celtic), but my common sense tells me otherwise.

Well, only the Lowlands are Anglo-Saxon in Scotland....

ANYWAY, you make a fair point, Anglo-Saxon freedom is the freedom of the individual from the state, rather than the freedom of the masses from the individual. The advantage of the latter is a better life provided the state is competent and benevolent, the advantage of the former is a system that it is easier for a group of individuals to change if it breaks.


I don't think that it necessarily has to be so. The child's right to an education can be met by homeschooling, and there are plenty of ways for the social aspect to be dealt with as well.

Also, to those saying that the schools will give a more balanced education and that these parents will be too extreme... who is the state to say what is extreme? What judges the extremity of their beliefs? Is it the beliefs themselves, or just how they might translate into political beliefs/actions?

an excellent point, I would go so far as to say that all education is a form of indocrination and all children are natural savages. They must be civilised for the good of society or our way of life comes to an end (I can't remember who said that). The problem is decidingwhat to indoctrinate your children with.

Melendil clearly feels that the French education system's hyper-secularised indoctrination is best, but that is probably because he was indoctrinated into it.


I immediately plead guilty.

We are worried by what we perceive as a renewed attack of religion on our secular societies. Islam, Christian fundamentalism, blasphemy, the creeping in of creationism in European education - not too long ago considered immune to what was thought of as an American phenomenon.

There is a sense that the stakes have been raised, that the secular society can not remain silent any longer, expecting reason to prevail by itself.

You have a problem of your own creation, by opposing science (unnecessarily) to religion you have alienated the masses, by pushing traditional religion to the boundaries of your society you have created a vacume filled by radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity.

If you want to solve the problem I suggest you lynch Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, find a since Catholic scientist to support Evolution (Jesuits are always good) and go to confession. The man on the street doesn't care about your well thought out secularism because it is of no use to him.


I mean, religion and RL are two different things, I see no reason why one could not draw a line between them.

This shows you don't understand religion, to paraphrase the Bishop of Winchester, "religious people are like sticks of rock, their religion goes all the way through".

[Husar]

Now, that was too good to be true, the high-ranking priests said, and so they had to suit the religion to their own needs. So they added Hell, a place of eternal damnation, from which there was no going back, for the 'bad' guys. The problem is, Hell goes against at least 3/4 of the tenets of Christianity. For all that mattered, they may as well have took the New Testament and wiped their own rear ends with it, so contradictory this was. Still, from a practical perspective, it worked well enough - considering one could only do so much to change human nature.

That's what you think/believe, not what the parents believe I guess. Let me ask this again, if the parents think a certain action on their part might damn their children to an eternity in hell, would they be good parents not to try everything in their power to prevent this from happening?
and remember that when you call them dangerous nutjobs and their children victims that the parents were once children as well and might have learned to think like that from their parents, and it lead them to love their own children so much that they would give up their existance to go to another country for the (perceived) benefit of their children... is that really your definition of bad parenting?

On the other hand I personally don't think our public schools are that bad and they're overreacting in regards to that, I just wouldn't question their motives regarding their children so easily.



Ugh, this is quite off topic... Oh well, the original thread is getting redundant and I see no reason why a debate in the Backroom cannot flow naturally as a real conversation would...
And should, we're just discussing the basics, the underlying problems of this topic as I expected when I posted this, don't really see a problem with it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

This shows you don't understand religion, to paraphrase the Bishop of Winchester, "religious people are like sticks of rock, their religion goes all the way through".
No, PVC, I do understand it, I was quite religious myself in the past. Then came the shift of course. I am aware that Christian like to say religion and life is one thing, but in reality, I noticed nearly every one of the said Christians draw that lien between religion and the world. The two are mildly incompatible, and everyone is thus forced to draw a line where their religious duties end and secular life begins. Now, sure, you will disagree, but this is what I believe.

God will let you starve if you do not work, no matter how mcuh he loves you. If you stick yourselves in front of the train, you will be smashed, despite that 'not a hair shall fall from your head without my interference'. Even if you have an apple of faith, you will still fail to move a mountain - forget that mustard-seed. Or did people who could have moved mountains exist? So the Bible says, but I somehow doubt humans ever moved mountains in the past based on pure faith. These are examples of drawing the line between Bible and the world. But of course, PVC, you believe that the Biblical (human) giants existed, and there was archaeological evidence of them, so getting you to believe the 'move the mountain' may not seem so problematic... :tongue:

(my apologies for misrepresenting Bible, as I am sure you will say that is what did in this post :shame:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, PVC, I do understand it, I was quite religious myself in the past. Then came the shift of course. I am aware that Christian like to say religion and life is one thing, but in reality, I noticed nearly every one of the said Christians draw that lien between religion and the world. The two are mildly incompatible, and everyone is thus forced to draw a line where their religious duties end and secular life begins. Now, sure, you will disagree, but this is what I believe.

No, if your faith is not a fundamental part of your worldview and everthing you do then it isn't real, end of. This is not about an observationalist sort of religion, where you perform certain actions and rituals to please your God; Christianity doesn't work like that. Perhaps this is how you viewed your religion; if so that explains why you are no longer religious.

Please understand, outside America religion, and Christianity in particular, are very different. To be openly relgious today in Britain is to go against the flow of society, particularly in intellectual circles.


God will let you starve if you do not work, no matter how mcuh he loves you. If you stick yourselves in front of the train, you will be smashed, despite that 'not a hair shall fall from your head without my interference'. Even if you have an apple of faith, you will still fail to move a mountain - forget that mustard-seed. Or did people who could have moved mountains exist?So the Bible says, but I somehow doubt humans ever moved mountains in the past based on pure faith. These are examples of drawing the line between Bible and the world.

Only your first and second examples are relevent, and they both require you to make a choice that will harm you. Has God asked you to do this? Your argument is based on a fallacy. As far as moving mountains, I think it doesn't matter really, and I don't feel the need to try.


But of course, PVC, you believe that the Biblical (human) giants existed, and there was archaeological evidence of them, so getting you to believe the 'move the mountain' may not seem so problematic...

Well, oddly enough I don't believe that, because I've actually read the Bible critically.


(my apologies for misrepresenting Bible, as I am sure you will say that is what did in this post :shame:)

Yes you have, but I fail to understand why.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

SM[/B], I did not see anything wrong with Skullhead's post either. He said that a person homeschooled in a religious setting may grow up very religious, but perhaps without real knowledge. I mean, that is unlikely, as I am sure the parents will teach the child other things as well, but what was so offensive there? I think you may be getting too touchy... :sweatdrop:

It has been said that a gentleperson is one who is never accidentally rude to others. Skully may well have MEANT exactly what you said, but even your phrasing is implicitly offensive. "Real knowledge" implicitly labels that which is religious as "un-real." There is a very significant difference between labeling a class of knowledge as scientifically unprovable as opposed to calling it "not real" or "not valuable."

If what you mean is "It may be that home-schooling parents focus their children's education so totally on the one or two issues they view as crucial that they end up giving them short-shrift on other important aspects of their education." then say that. It's a fair criticism and doesn't bash anyone's religion into the bargain.

Also, were I particularly "touchy" about religious discussions and willing to lob warning points over it, the Backroom would be a quiet domain indeed. ;-)

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus Fermanagh, not on a power trip, are you?


Because when he's 18, he might know everything about jesus, but nothing about things that really matter.

You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Do you give the same respect to all religions? Or is christianity a pet topic of yours for some reason?

When he says it is not real, can you countermand it? If not, why don't we deal with the REAL world in discussions, you know, links, sources, arguments... I could go on and use, say, the Illiad as a source of information about divine beings, it deals a lot with the greek gods.

However, I would never expect it to be respected in this modern day and age as a source of information of divine beings. I would be laughed at, no? Why does that not apply to the bible too?

Would I, as an example, get a free pass to the states because the government in Sweden doesnt want me to teach my children about the gods from the Illiad as real beings?

Where do you draw the line?

If you pay this much respect to some 2000 year old book, I could easily drag up some otherr very old books and then demand that the backroom bow before the wisdom of them, and dont talk about them in a condescending way...

*yawn*

Go skull go :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seamus Fermanagh, not on a power trip, are you?

Not being antagonistic, are we?


You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Salvation vs social skills? It's an easy choice if that's what you believe.

Do you give the same respect to all religions? Or is christianity a pet topic of yours for some reason?


When he says it is not real, can you countermand it? If not, why don't we deal with the REAL world in discussions, you know, links, sources, arguments... I could go on and use, say, the Illiad as a source of information about divine beings, it deals a lot with the greek gods.

However, I would never expect it to be respected in this modern day and age as a source of information of divine beings. I would be laughed at, no? Why does that not apply to the bible too?

Well, the Iliad has been on the way out from about 200 years after it's setting down, for starters. Even Archaic philosophy didn't take it seriously, so the answer might be "durability" or "popularity", but there are some pantheists out there and, in Britian at least, they are accorded the same rights as monotheists; as are worshippers of the Old Gods.

[Kadagar_AV]

salvation vs social skills...

salvation vs slow death of child cause prayers are clearly the right choice...

Where exactly do you draw the line?

Are you arguing that society should let go of children because their parents are religious nutjobs? And bear in mind, religions takes many shapes...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

salvation vs social skills...

salvation vs slow death of child cause prayers are clearly the right choice...

Where exactly do you draw the line?

Are you arguing that society should let go of children because their parents are religious nutjobs? And bear in mind, religions takes many shapes...

We have absolutely no evidence that these people are "religious nutjobs", the main reason for wanting to home-school the children is a dislike of the environment, and anti-Christian sentement seems to be only a part of that. I know that in Germany Islamic textbooks are provided by Wahabbi Saudis because the state won't fund religious education, I doubt the situation is better if you are Christian.

If you ask "salvation vs slow death", or rather "avoiding slow death", I would have to answer salvation, in theroy. However, a forgiving God would allow a lapse, whereas once you're dead you're done, so you should try to keep the child alive.

[Subotan]

There is no way this is real knowledge. No way. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbnjWn-GUbI&feature=related#t=4m23s)

[Strike For The South]

Seamus Fermanagh, not on a power trip, are you?



You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Do you give the same respect to all religions? Or is christianity a pet topic of yours for some reason?

When he says it is not real, can you countermand it? If not, why don't we deal with the REAL world in discussions, you know, links, sources, arguments... I could go on and use, say, the Illiad as a source of information about divine beings, it deals a lot with the greek gods.

However, I would never expect it to be respected in this modern day and age as a source of information of divine beings. I would be laughed at, no? Why does that not apply to the bible too?

Would I, as an example, get a free pass to the states because the government in Sweden doesnt want me to teach my children about the gods from the Illiad as real beings?

Where do you draw the line?

If you pay this much respect to some 2000 year old book, I could easily drag up some otherr very old books and then demand that the backroom bow before the wisdom of them, and dont talk about them in a condescending way...

*yawn*

Go skull go :)

How and what your child is educated is no buisness of the states. Teach little kadagar the Illiad, it's none of my dadgum buisness.

That's the whole point here, it's not about religion it is about the overreach of the state into personal freedoms.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Another false dilemma, another logical fallacy. In the US, home schooled kids are better at socializing and talking with adults than public educated kids.

That's all the bigots in this thread have presented; a whole bunch of logical fallacies, attacks based on ignorance and assumptions. Not clear arguments, no compelling evidence.

You can go on and attack religion and how you enlightened atheists are so reasonable, but you guys sure are ********* debaters.

CR

[Subotan]

Criticism of religion is not bigotry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus Fermanagh, not on a power trip, are you?

I don't believe so, but my adoption of the cowl did not preclude my arguing my point of view. I do try to post my "moderator" voice in green -- as with my query to skully -- whilst discussing normally -- as with AP.


You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Quite aware. A significant minority here in the USA and, as I am given to understand, a clear majority of the populations of NW Europe (UK, Scandanavia, etc.) view religious belief of any stripe as mis-guided, with some of those viewing those holding religious beliefs to be actively ignorant if not self-proclaimedly stupid. In fact, some few hold the view that professing one's faith in any organized religion is evidence of that person's intellectual inadequacy. Obviously, I do not share that viewpoint.

Most of the home-schooled I have met, and I would venture to guess that I have met more such persons than you given my work focuses on Catholic families living in the Southern half of Virginia, were decent folks and both polite and well-spoken. Of course, home schooling -- by design for these families -- does limit their interaction with those holding viewpoints that oppose their faith. This can prove problematic in its own way. My friends back in High School used to joke about Mormons being the most decadent of all once they "left the reservation" so to speak, so that kind of an effect does come into play. Moreover, intellectual development is, I believe, fostered by confronting opposing viewpoints and the like, of which some of the home-schooled may not confront.


Do you give the same respect to all religions? Or is christianity a pet topic of yours for some reason?

I try. Here in the BR it is mostly a question of stopping sweeping generalizations about Islam and Christianity, both of which I have done. I'd certainly do my best to minimize/stop blandishments against Sikhism or Shinto just as readily. Currently, however, it is only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism which seem to draw fire.


When he says it is not real, can you countermand it? If not, why don't we deal with the REAL world in discussions, you know, links, sources, arguments... I could go on and use, say, the Illiad as a source of information about divine beings, it deals a lot with the greek gods.

Countermand it? I thought I demonstrated a way whereby Skully or AP could have made their point without accidentally offending anyone? Or must any reference to religious belief be put in the "fiction" section, and my beliefs marginalized, because you do not share them? It has been demonstrated many times, both in this forum and throughout human history, that religion cannot be "proved" according to the rules of logic anymore than it can be disproved. You either make the personal choice to assume that anything that cannot be proven or disproved is an "unknowable" about which you may believe as you see fit, or you may assume that anything that cannot be proven or disproved must be considered a "falsehood." That's each individual's call to make.


However, I would never expect it to be respected in this modern day and age as a source of information of divine beings. I would be laughed at, no? Why does that not apply to the bible too?

If you did suscribe to the worship of Athena, then the Illiad might well be of quasi-sacred status to you (though I think it would still be more referential of rather than a dogmatic text about the Greek Gods etc., given the story). It would still be fair game for question and discussion, as is the Bible. My point was not to restrict anyone's ability to question anything, only that in the BR a measure of decorum and politeness is expected from each poster in so doing. If you read through my posts in this forum, you should be able to note that I rarely if ever assume I know the mind of the other poster unless they have made some specific statement of belief, and I go to significant lengths to keep any criticism of a point of view separate from any criticism of them as a person. If those who questioned religion and the Bible so avidly would remember that many of the churched see belief as integral to their identity -- and not merely as an intellectual point of view -- than the tone and style of their arguments would probably be a bit more polite and fewer sensibilities would be offended.


Would I, as an example, get a free pass to the states because the government in Sweden doesnt want me to teach my children about the gods from the Illiad as real beings?

Where do you draw the line?)

Where indeed. In point of fact, that's the central issue of the OP. In the USA, we hold freedom of worship as a pretty central belief. Some of the colonies which formed our original thirteen states were founded as religious refuges for a particular sect, while at least one aimed for true religious freedom for any faith. To this day, save for a prohibition against harming others -- and the proscription of polygamy -- religious worship is fairly free. As this is enshrined in our founding documents, the USA has always been willing to consider providing refuge for those suffering from religious persecution. Sadly, that doctrine hasn't always been consistently applied, but that is another issue entirely.

Was the decision to prevent home schooling a policy based on persecuting a particular religious belief? I don't think so. Seems more like a policy that wants to stop any and all home schooling to prevent sub-standard instruction (whether home schooling is, or is not, substandard is a separate point). In this instance, the functional effect may have been deemed religious persecution (and certainly was by the family in question). Did it justify asylum? Not sure here.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Criticism of religion is not bigotry.

Indeed, it isn't always. But it can be, and the repeated accusations of "indoctrination", "religious nuts", etc., show which side most of the criticism here is on.

CR

[Viking]

Seamus Fermanagh, not on a power trip, are you?



You are aware that there is a whole world out there, who would rate social skills and stuff way higher than knowledge of some very very old books.

Do you give the same respect to all religions? Or is christianity a pet topic of yours for some reason?

When he says it is not real, can you countermand it? If not, why don't we deal with the REAL world in discussions, you know, links, sources, arguments... I could go on and use, say, the Illiad as a source of information about divine beings, it deals a lot with the greek gods.

However, I would never expect it to be respected in this modern day and age as a source of information of divine beings. I would be laughed at, no? Why does that not apply to the bible too?

Would I, as an example, get a free pass to the states because the government in Sweden doesnt want me to teach my children about the gods from the Illiad as real beings?

Where do you draw the line?

If you pay this much respect to some 2000 year old book, I could easily drag up some otherr very old books and then demand that the backroom bow before the wisdom of them, and dont talk about them in a condescending way...

*yawn*

What "really matters" is highly subjective. Nuff said.

Furthermore, I think most parents regardless of background would teach the children enough to survive in the environment to which they are born into with or without state regulation. When it comes to the rest of the world though, naturally things may start to differ.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Another false dilemma, another logical fallacy. In the US, home schooled kids are better at socializing and talking with adults than public educated kids.

Ouch CR, your emotional and all-out attack on the other side of the argument basically threw all of PVC's cool, rational arguments down the drain...

Logical fallacy? Religion and logic? Alright, for a moment, I will pretend as if religion is perfectly logical for your benefit. Now show me the logical fallacies. Merely accusing the other side of basing on nothing but fallacies with a frothing mouth does little good...

Also, about socialisation. As I live in NW Florida, the heartland of the fundamentalist Southern Christians, I live around many a family that chooses to homeschool their children. Quite often, the homeschooling stops right before high school, when the parents believe they have done all to set the child on the ‘right’ course with the ‘right’ mindset. I have had numerous classmates in 9th, 10th, and 11th grades who were in a public school for the first time in their life.

What I have observed is mixed. The kids are generally very courteous, and indeed, exceedingly respectful to adults. They are not loud, unruly, or defiant towards teachers. Indeed, their manners and etiquette is exemplary - in general, their conduct is something to envy. Their work ethic varies. Most seem quite diligent, but some seem to show little effort. Really, it is difficult for me to evaluate their work ethic, I do not see all their grades - so I will refrain from making a judgement on this.

However, the main point is that a majority (though not a very large one) of those kids are different. It is difficult to say how, but they are socially awkward. They do not form many connections, they are very introverted, quiet, and seem to have no visible friends in my school. I was friends with two such blokes actually, and both were one of my best friends, I daresay (one was a homeschooled Baptist and the other was a Catholic, both home-schooled and private-schooled). But what I have not observed was them making any other friends. They were always rather reserved and appeared to be the polite, cheerful, yet loners.

I have seen far too many of that kind, and in the Baptists church I went to until my 10th grade. You could always tell many of the homeschooled kids apart. And there were many of them. I live in Pensacola where there is a curious mix of a wild, partying, liberal college crowd and the Southern Religious-Right. I can hardly think of any other significant geographic are which is more radically religious - and Mormons hardly count IMO.

But this is all merely eyewitness evidence. I do not claim it is accurate. Unlike your statement, which you posted as if it was a fact… Any statistics? May I inquire on how you measure success in socialising?

That's all the bigots in this thread have presented; a whole bunch of logical fallacies, attacks based on ignorance and assumptions. Not clear arguments, no compelling evidence.


OK, that should have been an embarrassing post... Saying the opposite side is basically made up of bigots who are all wrong, ignorant, misguided... Saying it so categorically, as if we spew nothing but lies... No 'clear' arguments/, no 'compelling' evidence? Not for you, as you will never agree with us. You are so fixated on your point, Socrates, Diderot and Nietzsche together would not be enough to make a compelling argument to you, this I can assure. Hard to make a good argument when one's mind is closed and ears intentionally muffled.

You can go on and attack religion and how you enlightened atheists are so reasonable, but you guys sure are ****tastic debaters.

CR
Once again, calling 'us' worthless debaters with no evidence, with no arguments of your own is exceedingly immature, emotional and generally reminiscent of a teenage-style debate. Most disappointing.

Please tell me your post was intentional trolling/a joke



P.S. You, CR, seem to be a person very sure of one's own viewpoints, as if truth only existed on your side. I wonder where you get your stunning confidence from. Some of it has to do with the fact you are American. I hate to generalise, but Americans somehow always stuck me as confident people, too confident for their own good. A great deal of this is a generalisation, but I have yet to see others flaunt their confidence in their own rightness so much...

I for one, do not claim I am correct in this issue. I am not foolishly certain of the merits of my position. I have been a liberal, then a conservative, and now back to a liberal. Going through those phases opened up my mind quite a bit, and I no longer see thigns in blacks and whites, among many other things.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I wasn't referring to you, AP, for the reasons demonstrated in your post; arguments backed up by evidence. I may not agree, but at least you're debating.

And I did not refer to all opponents of homeschooling as bigots; just that the bigots who are against it have made no good arguments against.

Some examples of that from this thread:

that is far different to some backward yokels who give zero-education while they make their kids do chores instead.


Homeschooling is stupid and should be illegal in pretty much any decent state.

Good riddance, enjoy your stay in deleted adjective america. Europe won't miss you.


If you would have read the OP's post, you would've known that their parents are religious nutjobs and would kill or excommunicate their children for even thinking about girls or playing pranks.

Luckily for us Europeans religious nutjobs are more accepted in the US.


Homeschooling is ok, but when religious nutjobs do it, it isn't. Because when he's 18, he might know everything about jesus, but nothing about things that really matter.


This is not ‘human rights’ this is a simple case of criminal negligence. That they should receive asylum in the USA for it is twisted, perversive.


ON THE OTHER HAND, a religious nutjob, you know, one of those trying to pray away diabetes, letting the child die (we just discussed such a case here)... Should they be allowed homeschooling? I would say NO. This is to protect the child.

To conclude: some couple of hundred years ago the religious nut jobs went on boats to America. I see no reason to stop this tradition! Good riddance, I'd say!



But then, again, we have the religious nut jobs who will wreck their children.



They're wrong, wrong and rewrong.

So yeah, as I said, good riddance, and stay in the US please.


I would argue that very religious homeschooling is much closer to indoctrination than the current form of public schools.


salvation vs social skills...

salvation vs slow death of child cause prayers are clearly the right choice...

Where exactly do you draw the line?

Are you arguing that society should let go of children because their parents are religious nutjobs?


CR

[Subotan]

I wonder if when people mention "religious nutjobs", do they mean that the religion made them nutjobs, or vice versa?

[drone]

Not all homeschooling parents are religious nut-jobs. Many parents (rightly so) are worried about the education offered by the public school system and cannot afford private schools as an option. In some areas, public schools are essentially state-run daycare, and getting any kind of meaningful education is difficult. I don't really have a problem with homeschooling as a whole, but the socialization aspect is a factor that must be addressed at some point in the kid's life.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I wasn't referring to you, AP, for the reasons demonstrated in your post; arguments backed up by evidence. I may not agree, but at least you're debating.

Thank you, CR, but I did not post my response because I was offended. Not at all. I posted it because I was disappointed by your post. Whatever the truth may be about the posters, saying those things does not make you look good. Frankly, it made you look as if you were blindly lashing out against an imaginary host of evil conspirators, and I know you are a superb debater, so you could have done much better...

Not all homeschooling parents are religious nut-jobs. Many parents (rightly so) are worried about the education offered by the public school system and cannot afford private schools as an option. In some areas, public schools are essentially state-run daycare, and getting any kind of meaningful education is difficult. I don't really have a problem with homeschooling as a whole, but the socialization aspect is a factor that must be addressed at some point in the kid's life.
All of that is absolutely correct, but that is a whole another debate...

I always wondered how families find the time to homeschool. And how the concept of looming deadlines, no teacher supervision at home ensuring the diligent work, facing new teachers, adapting to new/changing environments, finding common language, settling differences, working in teams, discovering conflicting views - how all of that is replicated in a home environment. One may also wonder how home-schooling works in high-school years, where nearly every subject has advanced beyond the areas in which normal parents know anything, or especially have skills teaching. That is why so many kids in NW Florida, as much as their parents dislike it, go to HS, because their parents are simply too far behind. But what of those who persevere and continue to teach?

Some of these things have already be touched upon - the social aspects especially. But others...

[Kralizec]

Not all homeschooling parents are religious nut-jobs. Many parents (rightly so) are worried about the education offered by the public school system and cannot afford private schools as an option. In some areas, public schools are essentially state-run daycare, and getting any kind of meaningful education is difficult. I don't really have a problem with homeschooling as a whole, but the socialization aspect is a factor that must be addressed at some point in the kid's life.

Maybe so, but the couple in question definitely were religious nut-jobs:

"Uwe Romeike told the Associated Press that the 2007 ruling convinced him and his wife that "we had to leave the country." The curriculum in public schools over the past few decades has been "more and more against Christian values," he said."

Admittedly there's also this part:

"But Romeike was not comfortable sending his children to public school anymore. He said three eldest children had had problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. "I think it's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught," he said."

But I don't really see how having your kids being bullied in your home country could be seen as a valid reason to apply for asylum in a different country, or to isolate your kids.

To my knowledge, religious sentiments are well catered for in the German education system.They have schools wich explicitly call themselves christian and even in schools that are not, students must take either religion or ethics classes. It's not mentioned in the article, but I think we can safely assume that the parents' gripes include sex ed and evolution being taught nation wide. So basically, their fear is that their kids won't believe/behave as they want if they can't keep them ignorant about such subjects, and they're probably right.
:juggle2:

[drone]

I always wondered how families find the time to homeschool. And how the concept of looming deadlines, no teacher supervision at home ensuring the diligent work, facing new teachers, adapting to new/changing environments, finding common language, settling differences, working in teams, discovering conflicting views - how all of that is replicated in a home environment. One may also wonder how home-schooling works in high-school years, where nearly every subject has advanced beyond the areas in which normal parents know anything, or especially have skills teaching. That is why so many kids in NW Florida, as much as their parents dislike it, go to HS, because their parents are simply too far behind. But what of those who persevere and continue to teach?

Some of these things have already be touched upon - the social aspects especially. But others...

For the state of Virginia, this (http://www.vahomeschoolers.org/law/) covers a lot of the legal issues, including re-enrolling into public school after homeschooling. I'm with you on the social aspects. Not only are the children not exposed to the usual crap kids pull in groups, but they also only get 1 (2 at most) methods of teaching.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Some examples of that from this thread:

I see you quoted me:


This is not ‘human rights’ this is a simple case of criminal negligence. That they should receive asylum in the USA for it is twisted, perversive.
So allow me to respond:

This excerpt has nothing to do with the sanity or sincerity of the parents. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with the fact that the parents choose to ignore German law and receive asylum for it. They are not persecuted for being religious, for expressing their views; they are prosecuted (different word, different meaning) for not complying with a body of law that demands parent send their children to school (nothing in this infringes upon human or other rights; and is actually kind of mandated by the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” -- a lesser known charter) and disqualifies ‘home schooling’ as ‘school’ (again, nothing in this infringes upon human or other rights). And then, to see that they should receive asylum for that is a twisted way to interpret that law; a perversion of an instrument to protect genuinely persecuted people.

Also: from the “Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm)”:


Article 28

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.
Article 29

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.

2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.

Which is interesting; as is the basic premisse in the convention that the “best interest” of children is more important than the rights of parents/anyone; and that “best interest” is for a court to decide upon, taking into account all parties involved.

[ajaxfetish]

they are prosecuted . . . for not complying with a body of law that demands parent send their children to school . . . and disqualifies ‘home schooling’ as ‘school’ . . .

I think CR's beef with your argument is how the state should have the right to disqualify home schooling as school. He (and the parents in question) think that is unacceptable. If they are correct, then the state has violated the parents' rights. He takes issue with your post because you seem to subscribe to the idea that home schooling should not qualify as school, but offer no compelling argument for why this should be so.

Ajax

[Samurai Waki]

I disagree on the socializing aspect. Introverts are generally born not made, by and large I prefer to hoof it on my own, it's not that I don't mind others perspectives or company, in fact if someone has a viable opinion to offer I'll even take them up on it. Sometimes it bothers me that I don't have very many friends, in fact I have close to none, it's not that I'm socially awkward, I can't be in my line of work, I just prefer to be distant, maybe it's a defense mechanism, maybe not, but the typical overly confident, needs to talk about everyone and everything type makes me grit my teeth together. If I have nothing to say, I won't say anything at all, and that's the type of person I can stand being around. Yet, I was never home-schooled. I was by and large a rather sociable child/adolescent, and I had very loving and supportive parents. So to say a home-schooled child is going to be socially awkward is rather a blanket statement, introverts are introverts, extroverts are extroverts, no matter the circumstances in which they are raised. I couldn't cite any scientific statements that support the theory that home-schooled children are socially inept, so it seems to be a straw-man argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe so, but the couple in question definitely were religious nut-jobs:

"Uwe Romeike told the Associated Press that the 2007 ruling convinced him and his wife that "we had to leave the country." The curriculum in public schools over the past few decades has been "more and more against Christian values," he said."

Admittedly there's also this part:

"But Romeike was not comfortable sending his children to public school anymore. He said three eldest children had had problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. "I think it's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught," he said."

It's difficult to say though, "Christian values" is as vague as "Evangelical Christian, you can't really make a judgement.

[Ironside]

Another false dilemma, another logical fallacy. In the US, home schooled kids are better at socializing and talking with adults than public educated kids.

That's all the bigots in this thread have presented; a whole bunch of logical fallacies, attacks based on ignorance and assumptions. Not clear arguments, no compelling evidence.

You can go on and attack religion and how you enlightened atheists are so reasonable, but you guys sure are ********* debaters.

CR

So CR, what's the benefits of having 1.5-2 times the taxes you currently have in the US (or 40-50% of the GDP)? Can such a goverment be benovolent?

While homeschooling is legal in Sweden, I suppose it's a bit of anathema because we haven't had a society supporting pure homeschooling for longer than the existance of US. And we don't have support for the system of one parent staying home needed for homeschooling either (it's that or private tutors). So basically here homeschooling becomes a clear sign of active isolation (or problematic children but that's another issue) from the rest of society.

Edit:
Wakizashi, there's personal introversion and a more social one. For example, I've been living in a student corridor for years with plently of exchange students. The Swedes are much, much easier to socialize with by default, while most exchange students requires a lot more effort from my side to reach a normal small talk basis (and if I won't bother, then they won't say a word outside hi and perhaps some questions, for 5 moths or even a almost a year). And since we got plenty of French you can see the same there, they talk with eachother on French but end up quiet whith people from other countries. So you can end up with 3-4 people being together while none is saying a word for 10-15 minutes. That feels really, really strange and socially ackward.

That's about 80% of them, the really social ones doesn't bother and is activily socializing by themself. Haven't been in any other place with so many "natural born" introverts, so it's quite peculiar.
And this while the language barrier is fairly weak, as most are at least moderate at English (the French are usually quite good at English) .

[Centurion1]

I live in Pensacola, FL

So did I. For my father who is in the navy was stationed there. But when living there (i was 13-14) i never noticed any especially wacko people at school. i went to public school and a private catholic school for a short while before we moved. Most of the people i met were navy. Was the town conservative? yes but some is most of the south. And i wouldnt classify myself as a religious wacko...... i believe in evolution, and NOT the young earth. as do my parents. im just saying maybe your exaggerating things slightly.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, the case for why a state has the right to disqualify home schooling is trivial to make; the state has the duty to ensure all children receive suitable education, of decent quality. It is an obligation under the various charters enshrining the rights of childeren. A key part of this is that the state is granted a legal basis from which it gets to set standards and impose laws to enforce these.

Home schooling may not meet standards in Germany; therefore home schooling may not be legally equivalent to schooling in Germany; therefore home schooling may not be a substitute for a qualified school in Germany. That is in the power of the German law; to be changed at the discretion of the German electorate in accordance with earlier legal engagements and obligations.

As long as the US acknowledges German law, they must also acknowledge the German decision to prosecute -- and therefore asylum is not only inappropriate (there is no basis on which to grant it), it is also a obstruction (perversion) of the course of justice.

[Aemilius Paulus]

So did I. For my father who is in the navy was stationed there. But when living there (i was 13-14) i never noticed any especially wacko people at school. i went to public school and a private catholic school for a short while before we moved. Most of the people i met were navy. Was the town conservative? yes but some is most of the south. And i wouldnt classify myself as a religious wacko...... i believe in evolution, and NOT the young earth. as do my parents. im just saying maybe your exaggerating things slightly.
How interesting, a fellow Pensacolian :beam:. Well, I lived since 7th grade in here, and my posts describe all I have seen throughout my long stay here. I never said there are that many wackos in my school. Most of them keep quiet about their viewpoints. In my school, there are about seven or so former homeschooled kids I knew.

Now what I did say, was that this place is generally chock-full of what I would define as a religious wacko. Most people here are Baptists, and the major Baptists churches (First Baptist, Olive, Hillcrest for instance) I have seen here are hotbeds of the anti-evolution, Young Earth, homeschool etc movement. I am not sure how many people in the church just tag along and how many actually believe in the stuff, but the videos, the books, the phrases of the YEC fly around quite often. (the worst is Kent Hovind, read about him in Wikipedia - he was a Pensacolian himself, and so crazy even his fellow YEC renounced him - now Dr. [sic - he got a fake doctorate] Hovind is imprisoned for massive tax fraud)

I do not see which parts of my post are exaggerations. I have posted everything as truthfully as I could. Please show me the excerpts you believe are me exaggerating, and I will answer you. Perhaps I did make a statement or two which may have caused you to believe I exaggerated, or in which I really did exaggerate, but I do not remember anything of that sort.

I do not see what I would gain from twisting the truth in such way. I sided with the German government decision, but if the radicals here wish to homeschool their children, then so be it. The problem is, as I noticed, is that no matter whether the kids of those parents are public- or home- schooled, they always (As far as I saw) turn out with the same viewpoints. Now, they may change later in life, but that is another question. This is especially since most of the nuts take their kids to PCA (NOTHING I said about them is an exaggeration; in fact they are even worse than what I mentioned), not only the local kid's prison camp, but also a local mental hospital as well.

And yes, Centurion, I know you are not a religious or any other sort of nut. In fact, you are one, if not the most moderate US conservative I have ever met, here or IRL. :bow:

[Centurion1]

I had really long good post here. but then the org just logged me out................ i am literally about to cry. maybe ill re construct it later....... trust me it was good.

at the least ill respond to this.


And yes, Centurion, I know you are not a religious or any other sort of nut. In fact, you are one, if not the most moderate US conservative I have ever met, here or IRL.

I would like to imagine so and am flattered you classify me as a moderate but I am probably pretty reactionary in thought. The most liberal thing about me is probably the fact that I think certain sectors of government should be more authoritarian. If this makes me a "war-hawk" (I was called that multiple times during a summer college course I took at George Washington University. The course was about Western Europe and Imperialism, so go figure) so be it.


*sigh* I'm so bummed now about losing that awesome post I even capitalized correctly and used proper grammar.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I had really long good post here. but then the org just logged me out................ i am literally about to cry. maybe ill re construct it later....... trust me it was good.
Ugh mate, you do not know how well I empathise with you :no:. With me and my two-MS-Word-page-long posts, when I lose my post, it hurts. So I lost about five posts this way before I learned to write in MS Word every time. At least it was not as bad when I lost that 11 page essay (single space) in 10th grade... I saved, alright, but a peculiar glitch happened which caused the file to be overwritten. I had to start over. I was ready to tear my hair out. But my essays are normally longer, so it was not as bad as some may imagine it to be - my long-windedness sticks with me at all times.

My condolences :bow:

BTW, I have a keylogger on my computer. Pretty handy, believe me, especially in this case, and I would encourage you to DL one yourself.





I would like to imagine so and am flattered you classify me as a moderate but I am probably pretty reactionary in thought. The most liberal thing about me is probably the fact that I think certain sectors of government should be more authoritarian.
Well, in your posts you try to be moderate, I noticed, and thought I saw some deliberate effort to keep you posts balanced - or so I think, because your style of writing reminded me of mine a few times, when I try to sound balanced...

Anyhow, lol for second thing, because that is technically a neo-conservative trait. Well, at least depending in which manner you use the power. If you say you want the gov't to 'regulate' things more, that would point you in the left. But if you say government should have more 'power', many would call you a Cheney/Bush-style neo-con.




So what was the post about?

[Centurion1]

Homeschooling........

Basically while I think it is ill advised and not necessarily a good idea especially for high school age kids and that I have seen both socially awkward kids and perfectly normal kids (one of my ex GF was home schooled up to HS and trust me she uhhh was not socially inept) that people should still have the right to educate their own children if they apply to certain guidelines laid down by the state. And how people are jumping on the anti homeschooling bandwagon because the parents are doing it for religious reasons, particularly fundamentalist reasons.

in a nutshell it was more like 10x this long and had a lot of support and anecdotes as well tearing up a few fallacies and strawmen people presented, on both sides I might add.

oh by the way

Vy znayete rossijskoye pravo ive poisk drugogo spikera

[Aemilius Paulus]

Vy znayete rossijskoye pravo ive poisk drugogo spikera
I understand what you are saying, but what do you mean? 'You know Russian law and in the search of another speaker'?? BTW, no need to use the vy, ty is fine.

EDIT: Are you asking if I need another translator? Not really would be the answer to that, since I never have as much work I want anyhow.

[Ironside]

I had really long good post here. but then the org just logged me out................ i am literally about to cry. maybe ill re construct it later....... trust me it was good.

at the least ill respond to this.


You can copy your post right before you press the reply button. Personal habit developend from experience.

[Furunculus]

This illiberal act is only necessary because europe has totally destroyed the very homogeneity that permits a non-authoritarian state.

Mass immigration is why Sweden encourages all toddlers (especially immigrant toddlers) to go to pre-school, because it is the first and best chance the Swedish state will get to turn the disparate group of individuals into good little Swedes.

The funny thing is that this is viewed as the tragic paradox of the left, that they are ‘forced’ to act in illiberal ways to create their liberal society, and it stems from a perversion of the word “liberal” from its original meaning more akin to “libertarian” to its current meaning which when stripped of nicety translates as “ideologically-pure”.

It is sad for the rest of us that the orthodxy that the “nation” is bad (whereas the “state” is good) has led to a system of deliberate mass immigration in order to subvert the “nation”, when in reality they have merely ensured that the “state” is totalitarian.

[Centurion1]

I understand what you are saying, but what do you mean? 'You know Russian law and in the search of another speaker'?? BTW, no need to use the vy, ty is fine.

EDIT: Are you asking if I need another translator? Not really would be the answer to that, since I never have as much work I want anyhow.

ah no i was just saying that i knew russian and was looking for someone else to speak it to. im fluent when i speak but i have trouble with cyrillic to phonetic alphabet translation and writing it as a whole.

[Subotan]

Transliteration? I can read Cyrillic, but I can't understand what it says :laugh4:

[Centurion1]

no i just have trouble writing russian really. the cyrillic doesnt help but i didnt learn this language from books or anything so that doesnt make it any easier. for example my grammar is absolutely atrocious

[Ironside]

This illiberal act is only necessary because europe has totally destroyed the very homogeneity that permits a non-authoritarian state.

Mass immigration is why Sweden encourages all toddlers (especially immigrant toddlers) to go to pre-school, because it is the first and best chance the Swedish state will get to turn the disparate group of individuals into good little Swedes.

Uhuh. :inquisitive::inquisitive: Short version. You're talking gibberish. Long version follows: :book:

The Swedish kindergarten system is built on two pillars: communal thinking (as in children's welfare is not only the parents interest), that's about as old as the Folkhemmet idea that Swedish Social democracy is built in. That's from the 1930-ties. The other one is feminism and the rejection of "servant" professions. Since both parents work (even more clear when it comes to single parents) and au pairs or simular professions are rejected, you'll need a place for the toddlers, unless you want them to stay home alone all days.


The funny thing is that this is viewed as the tragic paradox of the left, that they are ‘forced’ to act in illiberal ways to create their liberal society, and it stems from a perversion of the word “liberal” from its original meaning more akin to “libertarian” to its current meaning which when stripped of nicety translates as “ideologically-pure”.

Social democracts don't use the word liberal, but it refers to that type of right-wingers that you call libertarians. So no perversion here, social democrats have never claimed to be liberals. The original wording social democrats refers to the socialists that rejected the idea of revolution to remove social classes and implement communism. The whole original concept was to sacrifice some induvidual freedom to get a more equal society (that in turn gives more happyness, health and prosperity to quote the reviw of "The Spirit Level").

Since the only class the US have is middle class (semi ironic), the worker class (lower class) vs the upper class might not have gained as much attention.


It is sad for the rest of us that the orthodxy that the “nation” is bad (whereas the “state” is good) has led to a system of deliberate mass immigration in order to subvert the “nation”, when in reality they have merely ensured that the “state” is totalitarian.

The (pity) mass immigration due to the concept of international social responsibilly (asylum seekers) coincides with less restrictions from the state. So they are doing it wrong appearently.

[CrossLOPER]

However, the main point is that a majority (though not a very large one) of those kids are different. It is difficult to say how, but they are socially awkward. They do not form many connections, they are very introverted, quiet, and seem to have no visible friends in my school. I was friends with two such blokes actually, and both were one of my best friends, I daresay (one was a homeschooled Baptist and the other was a Catholic, both home-schooled and private-schooled). But what I have not observed was them making any other friends. They were always rather reserved and appeared to be the polite, cheerful, yet loners.This is my primary concern with kids who are homeschooled. I supposed they could be "instructed" how to interact and eventually be socially capable, but this isn't something parents would be able to teach by themselves.

P.S. You, CR, seem to be a person very sure of one's own viewpoints, as if truth only existed on your side. I wonder where you get your stunning confidence from. Some of it has to do with the fact you are American. I hate to generalise, but Americans somehow always stuck me as confident people, too confident for their own good. A great deal of this is a generalisation, but I have yet to see others flaunt their confidence in their own rightness so much... What could one generalize about Russians?

[Centurion1]

Things to generalize about russians
1. Drunks
2. Like Vodka
3. die from alcoholism
4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.


Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.

[Subotan]

Alcoholism isn't a generalisation among Russians. It's the leading cause of death amongst Russian men.

[Aemilius Paulus]

4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.

Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.
Really, potatoes are rarely used for vodka when you have wheat. Nearly all of vodka is made from grain. I wonder where you got your idea about potatoes. I mean, you can make vodka out of nearly anything, but wheat or rye is the choice. Samogon, or homemade vodka/moonshine is usually made with grain, sugar and water. Potatoes and white sugar beets are noted alternatives, sugar beets being the more popular one IIRC. BTW, EU defines vodka as 37.5%+ alcohol with no flavour, just a note.

Vodka was made long before potatoes and Columbus. Early Mediaeval Ages were the starting point. Potatoes were an upper-class luxury novelty throughout most of 1700s in Russia. The nobles called them 'earth/ground apples' and included them as delicacies in parties. Peter the Great introduced the potatoes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really, potatoes are rarely used for vodka when you have wheat. Nearly all of vodka is made from grain. I wonder where you got your idea about potatoes. I mean, you can make vodka out of nearly anything, but wheat or rye is the choice. Samogon, or homemade vodka/moonshine is usually made with grain, sugar and water. Potatoes and white sugar beets are noted alternatives, sugar beets being the more popular one IIRC. BTW, EU defines vodka as 37.5%+ alcohol with no flavour, just a note.

Vodka was made long before potatoes and Columbus. Early Mediaeval Ages were the starting point. Potatoes were an upper-class luxury novelty throughout most of 1700s in Russia. The nobles called them 'earth/ground apples' and included them as delicacies in parties. Peter the Great introduced the potatoes.

Fun fact, Vodka can't really pre-date the Crusades as that was when distillation crossed from the Muslim East to the Christian West, unless it came slightly ealier via the Varangians.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://i49.tinypic.com/dgq64z.jpg

Russian google could tell us something

[Centurion1]

^ haha classic.

hmmm i could have sworn vodka was potato based. well im sure im wrong i dont know much about how its made.

Edit: after further research it appears common vodka is often made with potatoes and that high class vodkas and american imports are usually grain based. they believe the first vodka was made from sugar beets.

Fun fact: vodka originates from the russian word for water. Which explains russians attitudes in drinking it. High class vodka alcohol content goes up to 50% which is pretty impressive.

[Subotan]

Yes, vodka just means "Strong Water", as opposed to Voda.

[CrossLOPER]

Things to generalize about russians
1. Drunks
2. Like Vodka
3. die from alcoholism
4. Like potatoes...... because they make vodka.


Think about this...... before the new world was discovered Russia had no vodka and ireland had no potatoes.
I'm disappointed.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Fun fact, Vodka can't really pre-date the Crusades as that was when distillation crossed from the Muslim East to the Christian West, unless it came slightly ealier via the Varangians.
True, I read Tom Standage and he said the same thing (not that he is the only ones who knows this, but still, it was from his book that I learned this). You know, the bloke who wrote History of the World in Six Glasses... Very interesting book.

But of course it came from the Norse, specifically Varyags (dunno why you call them Varangians - I thought that was the Greek term for the Eastern Vikings). They sailed through the rivers of Kievan Rus and to the Moslem nations, and then back through Kievan Rus. By 10th century CE distillation was quite common in the Middle East, and it was there in the 9th and 8th centuries as well. Since I remember reading that vodka came to the Rus in the Early Mediaeval times, then I would infer that was before 11th century. That would make it that Early Russians had distilled spirits before the Western Europeans? They could not have had it after them, as then that would be too late (13-15th centuries - by 1400s the distilled spirits became popular in the West, so the Eastern Europeans should have gotten it no earlier than that if we were to adopt the spirits from the West, as opposed to having received it from the Varags).

Additionally, I remember that while the Muslims developed their distilled beverages in alchemy experiments, in the 1100s, the same alchemists, but this time the Western European ones, developed spirits independently. So did the Crusades speed up the process of acceptance of the distilled drinks? After all, the alchemists may have kept their discoveries secret, or at least not popularised...




Edit: after further research it appears common vodka is often made with potatoes and that high class vodkas and american imports are usually grain based. they believe the first vodka was made from sugar beets.
Still, I do not see why your sources claim potato vodka is common, even the cheap one. Even the dirt-cheapest vodka in Russia is grain-based. I have rarely seen potato vodka. Now, there is samogon, as I said before, the home-made vodka, which is usually sugar-beet based, but potatoes are also common in this sort of beverage. As for commercial vodka, grain all the way. I do not see how cheap vodka needs to be potato-based when wheat is so relatively cheap, and considering the relatively low amounts (compared to say, beer) of it which are present in the production of vodka.



Fun fact: vodka originates from the russian word for water. Which explains russians attitudes in drinking it.
Yes, for the first part, but no on the second part. Russians do consume inordinate amounts of vodka as a whole, although alcoholism as you would know it is not much more significant than in certain other nations. Even if it is, the name does not reflect the attitude. Vodka is a clear liquid. It looks like water. In its early days in Western Europe, it was called aqua vitae. Water of life. Its various names usually had the word 'water' in it. Then the distilled spirits became more complex, and many of them took on other colours or unusual production methods. Vodka remaiend pure, clear, and prepared with the most conventional methods. And so it retained its name. Voda is water, and vodka is well, you know what. Vodichka is the diminutive of water, and vodochka is the diminutive of vodka. The roots are indeed close, but it has nothing to do with the attitudes. It would be logical to assume that if a name is a lasting one, it came before the product became popular enough to make a large effect on the culture. A name always come first, or not soon after a novel object.


High class vodka alcohol content goes up to 50% which is pretty impressive.
Huh? Why is that impressive, and why should high class vodka have 50% ethanol? You are saying that as if it takes quality to do that... The proof of vodka has little to do with its quality. If anything, the higher-ethanol vodka is the home-made one, as the moonshine we make is normally around 60%. Usually high-class or any vodka is the same, traditional 40%.




Epic thread hijack :grin:. But the conversation is still productive, so once again, no reason not to continue...

[Furunculus]

Uhuh. :inquisitive::inquisitive: Short version. You're talking gibberish. Long version follows: :book:

The Swedish kindergarten system is built on two pillars: communal thinking (as in children's welfare is not only the parents interest), that's about as old as the Folkhemmet idea that Swedish Social democracy is built in. That's from the 1930-ties. The other one is feminism and the rejection of "servant" professions. Since both parents work (even more clear when it comes to single parents) and au pairs or simular professions are rejected, you'll need a place for the toddlers, unless you want them to stay home alone all days.

Social democracts don't use the word liberal, but it refers to that type of right-wingers that you call libertarians. So no perversion here, social democrats have never claimed to be liberals. The original wording social democrats refers to the socialists that rejected the idea of revolution to remove social classes and implement communism. The whole original concept was to sacrifice some induvidual freedom to get a more equal society (that in turn gives more happyness, health and prosperity to quote the reviw of "The Spirit Level").

Since the only class the US have is middle class (semi ironic), the worker class (lower class) vs the upper class might not have gained as much attention.

The (pity) mass immigration due to the concept of international social responsibilly (asylum seekers) coincides with less restrictions from the state. So they are doing it wrong appearently.
so you are telling me that sweden is not struggling with the hilarious irony of whether they should give tax credits to parents who keep their children at home and thus out of pre-school, for the perfectly logical reason that they live in too isolated a location to actually use a pre-school, versus the uncomfortable fact that if you introduce these tax-credits you will encourage kurdish mums to keep the kids at home and thus prevent them from being assimilated into the swedish social democrat collective?


cos that's not what i heard...........

ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

[Ironside]

so you are telling me that sweden is not struggling with the hilarious irony of whether they should give tax credits to parents who keep their children at home and thus out of pre-school, for the perfectly logical reason that they live in too isolated a location to actually use a pre-school, versus the uncomfortable fact that if you introduce these tax-credits you will encourage kurdish mums to keep the kids at home and thus prevent them from being assimilated into the swedish social democrat collective?

My google fu isn't strong enough to come up with the issue. No form of pre-school, kindergarten etc is required, the availability is. So unless the kurdish moms move into the middle of the forest, it's not an issue. Anyway, should you still be right, the immigration has still very little to do with the whole Swedish concept of pre-schools, kindergarden etc. The idea of multi-culturalism is from 1975 by law, a really, really stupid idea if you're suppose to getting them into the collective as you put it.


ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

You are aware of the difference of de facto and de jure? For example, that lower social mobility the US and UK have is a sign of less freedom, despite what any laws might say. Or a more obvious example, the whole purpose of the police is to decrease freedom (by enforcing laws) to increase general well being. So it's not that the concept of reducing freedom to increase general well being lacks examples.

I do really like the Englishman owning his own castle, as liberalism have more support among the middle or upper class, those who might actually own thier own castle, while social democracy have more support among the working class, those who are forced to rent thier own home...

[Kralizec]

ps. the liberal vs libertarian struggle is parhaps more of a feature in british politics given that we never fully subscribed to the social democrat model (freeborn englishman being master in his own castle n'all), but i liked the swedish story as a beautiful example of the need to limit freedom to, er................ entrench freedom! :D

Libertarians have this quant notion that there should be as little government intervention as possible to maximise freedom. If they're religiously inclined, they won't hesitate to claim it as their god-given right to be free from government meddling. But instead of accepting the logical extension of that, namely a "society" without government or laws, they insist that a smallish government is a necessary evil to maintain god-given, natural rights.
This position is contradictory, because it acknowledges that an artificial construct (the state) is necessary to garantue rights and freedoms they consider "natural" (property rights and basic rights such as life, etc). They extend this fallacious argument further by maintaining that any extra government interference is not natural, and is in fact "authoritarian" or "collectivist".

One could draw an ambiguous distinction between "negative" liberty and "positive" liberty.
Negative liberty means being free to act without interference from others. Typical examples are freedom of speech and property rights.
Positive liberty is a "younger" concept, it's achieved by actively providing services. Upper-class philosophers from the 17th century and libertarians born with a silver spoon up their butt can easily argue that being free means being left to yourself. Someone who's born in a slum would argue that he's not free as long as he's starving and unable to get an education.
The distinction between positive and negative is ambiguous because freedom from interference can't exist without active government meddling. You're not free to say what you want, and you can't hang on to your possessions if there are no laws and law enforcements to protect you.

About the topic: most continental European countries feel that the state has an obligation to provide decent education for everyone. Home schooling is illegal in Germany (and the Neth's), with few exceptions possible, because it's not practical or even doable to garantue said standards of educations to children who are kept home and have their amateur parents as teachers. I can agree to disagree on this particular issue, but declaring this to be a human rights issue is outrageous. These parents have some nerve to think that they're entitled to the same status as refugees from dictatorships and warzones :dizzy2:

[Centurion1]

Yes, for the first part, but no on the second part. Russians do consume inordinate amounts of vodka as a whole, although alcoholism as you would know it is not much more significant than in certain other nations. Even if it is, the name does not reflect the attitude. Vodka is a clear liquid. It looks like water. In its early days in Western Europe, it was called aqua vitae. Water of life. Its various names usually had the word 'water' in it. Then the distilled spirits became more complex, and many of them took on other colours or unusual production methods. Vodka remaiend pure, clear, and prepared with the most conventional methods. And so it retained its name. Voda is water, and vodka is well, you know what. Vodichka is the diminutive of water, and vodochka is the diminutive of vodka. The roots are indeed close, but it has nothing to do with the attitudes. It would be logical to assume that if a name is a lasting one, it came before the product became popular enough to make a large effect on the culture. A name always come first, or not soon after a novel object.

i was kidding..... i have quite a few memberrs of family in russian and to my knowledge none are alcoholics.........

[Furunculus]

Libertarians have this quant notion that there should be as little government intervention as possible to maximise freedom. If they're religiously inclined, they won't hesitate to claim it as their god-given right to be free from government meddling. But instead of accepting the logical extension of that, namely a "society" without government or laws, they insist that a smallish government is a necessary evil to maintain god-given, natural rights.
This position is contradictory, because it acknowledges that an artificial construct (the state) is necessary to garantue rights and freedoms they consider "natural" (property rights and basic rights such as life, etc). They extend this fallacious argument further by maintaining that any extra government interference is not natural, and is in fact "authoritarian" or "collectivist".

One could draw an ambiguous distinction between "negative" liberty and "positive" liberty.
Negative liberty means being free to act without interference from others. Typical examples are freedom of speech and property rights.
Positive liberty is a "younger" concept, it's achieved by actively providing services. Upper-class philosophers from the 17th century and libertarians born with a silver spoon up their butt can easily argue that being free means being left to yourself. Someone who's born in a slum would argue that he's not free as long as he's starving and unable to get an education.
The distinction between positive and negative is ambiguous because freedom from interference can't exist without active government meddling. You're not free to say what you want, and you can't hang on to your possessions if there are no laws and law enforcements to protect you.

that is your straw house you have constructed, not mine. There is no need to accept what you describe as the logical extension of a society with no government, because it isn't logical, just as i don't expect a authoritarian leaning social democrat such as yourself to passionately argue in favour of the USSR as a better model for civil society.
more to the point, i don't much care for the concept of 'natural' rights as i make clear in my profile: "I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute (more appropriate to a Civil Law system) and not ultimately subject to English legal interpretation (as currently the case with the ECHR)." so again; a straw house in which i do not reside.

I am well aware of the concept of positive and negative liberty, and my position doesn't change; i'm a libertarian kind a guy. but then i don't force myself to see concepts as absolutes, which is why i am happy britain has universal education and state benefits and so on, but when it comes down to it I am an anglosphere market capitalist rather than a continental social democrat. I while i recognise that the continent has chosen a path that emphasises positive liberty, Britain has never been quite so enthusiastic preferring instead negative liberty. or authirarian liberty as i believe it might better be termed. ;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

i was kidding..... i have quite a few memberrs of family in russian and to my knowledge none are alcoholics.........
Hehe, but Russians are technically alcoholics. Generalisations may be inaccurate, but no need to deny the problem either.

I got you on the hook!

What an ass (the animal, Mr. Moderator) I am :wacko::shame:

EDIT: Okay, this must be the sleep deprivation speaking in me...

[Ser Clegane]

Back to topic please - if you would like to discuss alcoholism in Russia, please feel free to start a dedicated thread.

There might still be some people who would like to discuss the original topic - having to go through a page of OT posts is not helpful.

Further posts on alcoholism in Russia will be deleted.

Thanks

[Aemilius Paulus]

Back to topic please - if you would like to discuss alcoholism in Russia, please feel free to start a dedicated thread.

There might still be some people who would like to discuss the original topic - having to go through a page of OT posts is not helpful.

Further posts on alcoholism in Russia will be deleted.

Thanks
Uh, yes Clegane :yes:. I thought this topic was done, but it looks like Furnuculus is has new things to say.

[Kralizec]

that is your straw house you have constructed, not mine. There is no need to accept what you describe as the logical extension of a society with no government, because it isn't logical, just as i don't expect a authoritarian leaning social democrat such as yourself

I'm not a social democrat. My voting record is, one instance aside, completely liberal in the European sense of the word. I score centre-right to right wing on just about every political quiz. But the fact that I generally approve of permissive governance on the background doesn't mean I feel compelled to side with every other idiot/crackpot who ends up quarreling with the government, such as these evangelical parents.


I am well aware of the concept of positive and negative liberty, and my position doesn't change; i'm a libertarian kind a guy. but then i don't force myself to see concepts as absolutes, which is why i am happy britain has universal education and state benefits and so on, but when it comes down to it I am an anglosphere market capitalist rather than a continental social democrat. I while i recognise that the continent has chosen a path that emphasises positive liberty, Britain has never been quite so enthusiastic preferring instead negative liberty. or authirarian liberty as i believe it might better be termed. ;)

If you're happy about universal education and state benefits and so on, you are by definition not a libertarian :juggle2:

By the road, do you think the parents in the OP should qualify for asylum status?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Homeschooling should be allowed. Parents who are actually willing to teach children at home are the only ones who keep them there, and those parents tend to do a very good job. Their children, from personal experience, tend to be well integrated into the community as well as having a general academic advantage over many products of the public school system. That doesn't mean that we should send all children to be taught at home, just that parents should have the option.

[HoreTore]

I'm all for homeschooling.

Of course, the one doing the teaching would have to be just as qualified as a standard teacher. For me to teach social studies, I need one year of Pedagogy plus a bachelors degree in social studies. So, anyone who wants to homeschool their child needs a one year study of Pedagogy, plus one bachelors degree for each school subject.

Without that education, you are not qualified and as such you are denying proper education to your child, and that my friends, is simply child abuse.

[Furunculus]

If you're happy about universal education and state benefits and so on, you are by definition not a libertarian :juggle2:

By the road, do you think the parents in the OP should qualify for asylum status?
libertarian-leaning, as in; a fan of negative liberty - free born englisman and all that guff.

not really to fussed, if america considers freedom of religious expression to be that important then take them in by all means, but i don't and i'm not american so its not my problem. if it causes greater international scrutiny and ridicule of germanys authoritarian tendancies then all the better.

[Husar]

germanys authoritarian tendancies

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

[Furunculus]

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

hey i accept that criticism, and i am all in favour of you foriegn types publicly mocking us brits mercilessely on the issue. ;)

[HoreTore]

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

You also get to decide who your head of state should be, unlike the brits who are ruled by someone because of their birth, not votes.... ~;)

[Furunculus]

You also get to decide who your head of state should be, unlike the brits who are ruled by someone because of their birth, not votes.... ~;)

indeed, how very authoriatarian! [/sarcasm]

[HoreTore]

indeed, how very authoriatarian! [/sarcasm]

An unelected leader isn't authoritarian in your opinion?:inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wouldn't describe either the UK or Germany as particularly 'authoritarian'.

The Brits simply don't do authoritarianism well. Never have.
Germany had a major turnover of values. 'WWII' counts as the pinnacle of knowledge on the internets, and consequently there is a tendency to reduce countries to 'WWII', but in reality, Germany has developed itself since 1945 into one of Europe's least authoritarian states.

[Furunculus]

An unelected leader isn't authoritarian in your opinion?:inquisitive:

not when describing the situation of the British constitutional monarchy, no.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Furnuculus is right, the Queen barely does anything. No need to confuse the head of the state with the head of the government. What exactly does the Queen 'rule' over? She cannot even take sides in politics, much less rule people... Britain is not authoritarian at all, and they have a long history of being not authoritarian. Even back when constitutional monarchy granted more rights to the royalty, the British were at the forefront of the free nations.

But neither is Germany authoritarian for that matter - I really do not see how it can be accused of such a thing. WWII is long over, as Louis noted, same goes for Cold War-era GDR. Right now they are a federalist state, so if anything, they are less authoritarian than UK or France for that matter. Federalism does not necessarily mean freedom, but it does correlate well, especially when you have true federalism (as opposed to the more unclear system Russia uses - Russia is officially a federation, you see, even the name says so...)

[Subotan]

An unelected leader isn't authoritarian in your opinion?:inquisitive:
Fear the tyranny of Harald V!

Furnuculus is right, the Queen barely does anything. No need to confuse the head of the state with the head of the government. What exactly does the Queen 'rule' over? She cannot even take sides in politics, much less rule people... Britain is not authoritarian at all, and they have a long history of being not authoritarian. Even back when constitutional monarchy granted more rights to the royalty, the British were at the forefront of the free nations.

People who spend their lives arguing that the Queen is authoritarian would better serve the world by protesting against real authoritarian regimes.

[HoreTore]

Fear the tyranny of Harald V!

Indeed!

The only good monarch is a dead monarch. They should be given the choice to abdicate before their head is chopped off though...

[Aemilius Paulus]

People who spend their lives arguing that the Queen is authoritarian would better serve the world by protesting against real authoritarian regimes.
Well yeah, but when the argument necessitates an attack on England, then the said person must make it appear as if Britain is authoritarian...


They should be given the choice to abdicate before their head is chopped off though...
How gracious of you :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I doubt they would be equally generous if they were to learn of your plot... Not unless you consider a bullet in the back from SIS generous... :tongue:

[HoreTore]

I doubt they would be equally generous if they were to learn of your plot... Not unless you consider a bullet in the back from SIS generous... :tongue:

The only power our monarch has is to decide whether the socks on the military galla uniform should be green or black(he insisted on green).

So.... Can't say I'm very afraid....

[Aemilius Paulus]

The only power our monarch has is to decide whether the socks on the military galla uniform should be green or black(he insisted on green).
:inquisitive: If you agree they have so little power, why do you accuse them of being authoritarian? I mean, I have no love for monarchs, just as you, and I would get rid if of them if I could, but this? EDIT: Wait, nvm, you said your monarch - I see :yes:.


So.... Can't say I'm very afraid....
Yeah, I was jesting.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, you know, we're not the ones with CCTV all over the place, but then that is not my problem as I'm not British... :dizzy2:

I think we can safely say that Germany and Britain are both far too authoritarian, but in slightly different ways, and leave it at that.

EDIT: And HoreTore, European monarchs, with one or two exceptions, are forced (rightly or wrongly, I'm not taking sides at this moment) kowtow so much to their legislatures that they are probably more democratic than your average appointed government official, EU officials, and even some European Presidents.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think we can safely say that Germany and Britain are both far too authoritarian, but in slightly different ways, and leave it at that.
Sheesh, I know the importance consensus building, and I was taking quite a step by siding with Furnuculus, but this :tongue:? If Germany and Britain are 'far' too authoritarian, then who is libertarian? :dizzy2:. I mean, most other European liberal democracies are overburdened with gov't regulation, etc, with UK and Germany usually compared favourably in this regard (i.e. the two nations are more libertarian than the rest).

And hell, I am not even speaking about the rest of the world :laugh4:. US is often cited as the most libertarian country on Earth, and it is true IMHO - unless some very minor state such as some Pacific island-nation or European Monaco are more libertarian, which I am not sure if they are (esp. the Pacific ones).

[HoreTore]

I think we can safely say that Germany and Britain are both far too authoritarian, but in slightly different ways, and leave it at that.

EDIT: And HoreTore, European monarchs, with one or two exceptions, are forced (rightly or wrongly, I'm not taking sides at this moment) kowtow so much to their legislatures that they are probably more democratic than your average appointed government official, EU officials, and even some European Presidents.

Bah, European monarchs are nothing more than scum who prefers to live off my tax money instead of getting a job and earn some money themselves.

I have a problem paying 250 million NOK a year to a guy who's only job is to decide the colour of the army's socks.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Bah, European monarchs are nothing more than scum who prefers to live off my tax money instead of getting a job and earn some money themselves.
This I do wholly agree with, but traditions die hard, especially today, with no violent depositions occuring in EU countries...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bah, European monarchs are nothing more than scum who prefers to live off my tax money instead of getting a job and earn some money themselves.

I have a problem paying 250 million NOK a year to a guy who's only job is to decide the colour of the army's socks.

Ours have jobs, the Queen and Charles are wealthy landowners, Andrew has dabbled in a few things and Edward owns a television company.

[HoreTore]

Ours have jobs, the Queen and Charles are wealthy landowners, Andrew has dabbled in a few things and Edward owns a television company.

Since when is "landowner" a job...?

Chop their heads off. They only have those things because their ancestors stole stuff anyway.

[Husar]

Since when is "landowner" a job...?

Chop their heads off. They only have those things because their ancestors stole stuff anyway.

So if I can find an ancestor of yours who stole stuff, I'm free to lob your head off?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since when is "landowner" a job...?

Chop their heads off. They only have those things because their ancestors stole stuff anyway.

How about our beloved Banquo? He works very hard managing his estate, and all his workers are probably very glad it's him in charge; a man who was quite litterally born into his responsibilities.

[HoreTore]

So if I can find an ancestor of yours who stole stuff, I'm free to lob your head off?

Sure, be my guest, my family line is cut short in the middle of the 19th century, since I'm descended from bastards with no known origin...


How about our beloved Banquo? He works very hard managing his estate, and all his workers are probably very glad it's him in charge; a man who was quite litterally born into his responsibilities.

I have no idea what Banqou is up to, but if he's a feudal overlord; sure, lob his head off and take his stuff. But he does sound a little to literate to be an inbred....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure, be my guest, my family line is cut short in the middle of the 19th century, since I'm descended from bastards with no known origin...

Well then you're almost certainly descended from the aristocracy.


I have no idea what Banqou is up to, but if he's a feudal overlord; sure, lob his head off and take his stuff. But he does sound a little to literate to be an inbred....

Banquo is an Irish Aristocrat, his family has managed to maintain it's estates etc. for centuries.

Your reaction shows your objection is based on blind ideology.

[HoreTore]

Well then you're almost certainly descended from the aristocracy.

negative, there is no aristocracy in existance in Norway, and hasn't been for centuries. The conclusion was a criminal and a prostitute who ran into hiding, IIRC...


Banquo is an Irish Aristocrat, his family has managed to maintain it's estates etc. for centuries.

Your reaction shows your objection is based on blind ideology.

Bah. I fully stand by my constitution, where it states that the aristocracy should not be tolerated. I would have absolutely no objection to the british government doing the same and taking away every mention of hereditary titles within it's system and laws.

[Husar]

negative, there is no aristocracy in existance in Norway, and hasn't been for centuries. The conclusion was a criminal and a prostitute who ran into hiding, IIRC...

A thief perhaps? *sharpens axe*

I agree that you don't really seem to have much more to offer than blind following of some ideal, chopping peoples' heads of doesn't exactly make the world a better place.

[HoreTore]

A thief perhaps? *sharpens axe*

I agree that you don't really seem to have much more to offer than blind following of some ideal, chopping peoples' heads of doesn't exactly make the world a better place.

Blind following an ideal? I believe that every man should be equal before the law. I will happily follow that ideal blindly.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Banquo is an aristocrat? :stare:

And to think I trusted him because he knew some Russian. Let this be a lesson to me so I would never let my guard down...

*tightens the rope, sharpens the blade of the guillotine* Let's do it, HoreTore *nods*





Seriously? Banquo better have an answer...





Wait a sec, if he is an aristocrat, how did he recognise the m'at enough to give me an infraction? He cannot speak that language. Only someone who has been around the lowest scum knows it. Mighty suspicious if you ask me...

[drone]

And to think I trusted him because he knew some Russian. Let this be a lesson to me so I would never let my guard down...
...
Wait a sec, if he is an aristocrat, how did he recognise the m'at enough to give me an infraction? He cannot speak that language. Only someone who has been around the lowest scum knows it. Mighty suspicious if you ask me...

If I remember correctly, his wife is Russian, so it's a fair cop. ~D

[Aemilius Paulus]

If I remember correctly, his wife is Russian, so it's a fair cop. ~D
Shoot, I know that, I was keeping quiet about it because there is a thing called courtesy and I do not reveal what personal details a member reveals to me in a PM...

But if you heard him say it in public, then I suppose it is fair game. I, however, did not receive that knowledge on a thread, but in a PM from him, so I follow the etiquette and do not mention it on a thread where everyone else can read it. If Banquo chooses to reveal it himself, that is fine, but I have no such right.

[Centurion1]

Wait a sec, if he is an aristocrat, how did he recognise the m'at enough to give me an infraction? He cannot speak that language. Only someone who has been around the lowest scum knows it. Mighty suspicious if you ask me...

Psh i know some m'at and im an aqcuired speaker. dirty that is. Oh wait my grandmother was a peasant....... she just thinks shes the last of the romanovs
:laugh:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Psh i know some m'at and im an aqcuired speaker. dirty that is. Oh wait my grandmother was a peasant....... she just thinks shes the last of the romanovs
:laugh:
Hehe, well, as well all know, the first thing people learn in a foreign language is the cursing. I speak three to five langauges (three fluently, other just conversationally), but I can curse in more than ten, at the very least. I made a point of actually sitting down and learning each curse. I never curse in English, not in my speech. Not kidding. Nor do I use those awkward and undisputedly lame minced oaths or other substitutions that a Southern religious persons often employ. Instead I curse in borderline-vulgar foreign curses (from the langauges I do not speak).

So no surprise that you know m'at, but Banquo, as an aristocrat, should be above that. Then again, he was in the armed forces (he said this in a thread on the Berlin Wall), so...

[Husar]

Blind following an ideal? I believe that every man should be equal before the law. I will happily follow that ideal blindly.

Exactly, and how does that relate to killing them for the sins of their forefathers?

[HoreTore]

Exactly, and how does that relate to killing them for the sins of their forefathers?

You of all people should know when I'm not being entirely serious, Husar ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

negative, there is no aristocracy in existance in Norway, and hasn't been for centuries. The conclusion was a criminal and a prostitute who ran into hiding, IIRC...

I said aristocracy, not nobility. We don't have nobility at all in Britain anyway, just aristocracy.


Bah. I fully stand by my constitution, where it states that the aristocracy should not be tolerated. I would have absolutely no objection to the british government doing the same and taking away every mention of hereditary titles within it's system and laws.

Banquo and men like him have inherrited intact estates, neither they nor their ancestors were stupid. They look after their dependents and they deserve respect for their achievements, given the number of noble and aristocratic families who have managed to carelessly lose everything.


Shoot, I know that, I was keeping quiet about it because there is a thing called courtesy and I do not reveal what personal details a member reveals to me in a PM...

But if you heard him say it in public, then I suppose it is fair game. I, however, did not receive that knowledge on a thread, but in a PM from him, so I follow the etiquette and do not mention it on a thread where everyone else can read it. If Banquo chooses to reveal it himself, that is fine, but I have no such right.

Banquo has been flatteringly candid over the years, we know, for example, that his wife is a Russian Aristocrat who would like a Romanov restoration, and apparently once had a minor apoplexy when the Queen served herself a sandwich.

[HoreTore]

Banquo and men like him have inherrited intact estates, neither they nor their ancestors were stupid. They look after their dependents and they deserve respect for their achievements, given the number of noble and aristocratic families who have managed to carelessly lose everything.

All well and good, but it means absolutely nothing to me when it comes to the law. Under that we should all be equal.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Banquo and men like him have inherrited intact estates, neither they nor their ancestors were stupid. They look after their dependents and they deserve respect for their achievements,
Is that a tone of Social Darwinism I hear, My Dear Philip?




Banquo has been flatteringly candid over the years, we know, for example, that his wife is a Russian Aristocrat who would like a Romanov restoration, and apparently once had a minor apoplexy when the Queen served herself a sandwich.
Uh-hum. So was the m'at taught to her so she could communicate with wretches lower than her? :clown::tongue: