German Homeschoolers granted asylum in the USA

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'd place 'in der Schule' after 'ich hätte'. Checking the online-dictionary Leo, Kalkül is used equal to calculus. AD, your german is good. The way you were taught however reminds me of the way I had to learn latin.

Thank you both.

Though in fairness it required a dictionary and the use of an old grammar book.

And a language that is still spoken should not be taught like a latin class. Honestly latin should probably be taught correctly as well.

How do languages get taught over there anyway? I know linguistics students over here go through intensive programs that teach them the grammar for a language in one course, and then completely immerse them in literature, film, and mandatory constant language use in the other.

[Spoonist]

The left always tries to bring up the example of Finland and Sweden, but that is a whole different school culture than Germany and the swedish system would probably be unenforcable in Germany.

Finland I can understand since they score really high on the PISA tests (pdf) but why would they bring up sweden? AFAIK we are still slowly failing in math and hard sciences.
Having gone through the swedish school system I would have loved for the needing to have a hauptschulen instead. This since the needing take too much of the teacher's time and thus reduce the time spent on fast students. Where the inherent problem (still in political debate with elections coming up) would be that fast students are discouraged by the current system, unless in certain private schools.
We also have changed the system in the last decade so the state provide an "school allowance", then the student select a school and that school gets the allowance, public or private doesn't matter. (Which saw a surge of fundie schools both domestic and immigrant based).

Home schooling is not an option. You are by law required to have your kids in school. But they can be a private school so thats what the fundies does.

You do realize that it's not that uncommon for such proselytizing to occur in the U.S., including by people that send their children to public schools?

To a European that is just creepy. We stopped this sort of thing several hundred years ago.

Well, to be fair, we didn't "stop" we just enforced the law on all religious groups, which led to them emmigrating to america.
So us sending the fundies over there isn't a new concept really.

Interesting. I'm still having a hard time understanding this - they would literally take family 1's children away?

If it comes to it? Yes, absolutely. Our highest administrative court just ruled that this is perfectly acceptable. If you want to (and speak german), I can link you to the decision.

Most of europe has laws like this. While most wouldn't actually take the children away instead just escort them to and from school.

[Thanas]

Wait, so Family 2 and Family 3 homeschool for exactly the same reasons, but Family 2 has more "potential damage to the kids" (I'm not sure how you're defining this) simply because they're evangelicals? That's why they should get a harsher fine? Or would the fine depend on curricula, method of teaching, children's test scores, and other factors, which could vary because of the religious persuasion of the family?

The latter, but keep in mind that strictly speaking, the first fines (10.000€ max) do not need court approval and would likely have been put against them first before the police gets send in and then they get to court.

The left always tries to bring up the example of Finland and Sweden, but that is a whole different school culture than Germany and the swedish system would probably be unenforcable in Germany.

Finland I can understand since they score really high on the PISA tests (pdf) but why would they bring up sweden? AFAIK we are still slowly failing in math and hard sciences.
Having gone through the swedish school system I would have loved for the needing to have a hauptschulen instead. This since the needing take too much of the teacher's time and thus reduce the time spent on fast students. Where the inherent problem (still in political debate with elections coming up) would be that fast students are discouraged by the current system, unless in certain private schools.

That is about as much as I had expected. Why they bring up the scandinavian schools? Because they get higher OECD scores and have all comprehensive schools, the holy grail of the intellectual left in this nation.

3) Unlike Europe, where a number of languages are spoken, virtually all of North America uses English as a primary language. There isn't as much need to be polylingual.

There isn't much need for that in Germany too, and especially not for learning ancient languages. It is just considered part of being educated.

I will say, from a personal viewpoint, I'm happy I went to school in the US rather than in Germany where my inability to learn calculus would, apparently, doom me to a life of permanent unemployment and prevent me from graduating from the high school equivalent. It's not that I'm stupid - outside of math I was in the upper 1% of my peers - and it's not that I didn't try. It took me two tries to get through algebra II, three tries to conquer trigonometry, and I simply failed pre-calculus despite private tutoring. I find it disturbing that I would be a societal discard for that, despite all my other abilities, and despite the fact that many professions simply do not require calculus. Clearly, professions that do are off limits to me (that has a lot to do with why I didn't get a degree in science - I simply can't handle the math). Seriously, if someone can't learn calculus they're barred from trade schools? Since when does plumbing or bricklaying require calculus?

They are not barred from it. As I said, even if you fail the entire year of math, you are allowed one failing grade. Two per year and you are in trouble. Three - well, off you go to repeat a year. And it is not as if Calculus at the Hauptschul level is even hard.

Then again, since Germany actually has a social safety net maybe I would at least have sufficient housing, food, and other essentials to survive despite being a discard from society.

Yes, you would.

That, or I suppose I would be reduced to being a baby making machine or a whore or something.

Whore's are actually a protected and legitimate profession in Germany.

[Serafina]

I will say, from a personal viewpoint, I'm happy I went to school in the US rather than in Germany where my inability to learn calculus would, apparently, doom me to a life of permanent unemployment and prevent me from graduating from the high school equivalent. It's not that I'm stupid - outside of math I was in the upper 1% of my peers - and it's not that I didn't try. It took me two tries to get through algebra II, three tries to conquer trigonometry, and I simply failed pre-calculus despite private tutoring. I find it disturbing that I would be a societal discard for that, despite all my other abilities, and despite the fact that many professions simply do not require calculus. Clearly, professions that do are off limits to me (that has a lot to do with why I didn't get a degree in science - I simply can't handle the math). Seriously, if someone can't learn calculus they're barred from trade schools? Since when does plumbing or bricklaying require calculus?

They are not barred from it. As I said, even if you fail the entire year of math, you are allowed one failing grade. Two per year and you are in trouble. Three - well, off you go to repeat a year. And it is not as if Calculus at the Hauptschul level is even hard.

To elaborate on that:
Grades in Germany go from 1 to 6 - one being the best grade, 6 the worst.
You fail a year if you have one 6 or two 5 grades at the end of the year - the average of all grades in that subject you get over the year (some counting double or even tripple).
However, you can compensate a failing grade by having an excellent grade in another subject.

Say you have a 6 in math (total failure) - but you have a 1 in two other subjects, so you can compensate that.
The exact rules vary from state to state, but you generally won't fail because you are bad at a single subject.

[[R_H]]

To elaborate on that:
Grades in Germany go from 1 to 6 - one being the best grade, 6 the worst.
You fail a year if you have one 6 or two 5 grades at the end of the year - the average of all grades in that subject you get over the year (some counting double or even tripple).
However, you can compensate a failing grade by having an excellent grade in another subject.

Say you have a 6 in math (total failure) - but you have a 1 in two other subjects, so you can compensate that.
The exact rules vary from state to state, but you generally won't fail because you are bad at a single subject.

So if on the Abitur there's a fail next to your math grade for example, does that hinder acceptance into a technical faculty in university? I ask because a classmate of mine from gymnasium graduated with a 2 or a 3 (4 or 5 in the German system) in math, but was still accepted into mechanical engineering.

[Thanas]

That is due to the university and what it chooses to accept.

[Liberty]

So this is your proof that my entire family is "unbalanced" and "incapable of thinking rationally." Wow. One conversation with one of my six sisters. Brilliant.

At least that one sibling is. Strictly speaking, all the conclusion I can draw with certainty is that she is significantly "off". She may be able to think rationally about an equation, but when it comes to her own value sets, moral decision making, and generally the things that dictate how she treats others at least politically (in terms of policy she supports) and I will hazard to guess individually as well (those sorts of things have a correlation coefficient that approaches 1), she seems incapable of it.

With the knowledge that I have at my disposal, and given that you are an admitted outlier I make a rational inference within a certain confidence interval to make predictions about the others. Those may or may not be accurate. I am using inductive rather than deductive logic.

I moved beyond fundamentalism and learned to question all assumptions; my sister has not (largely, I would argue, because of her personality). So you have a sample size of two. You cannot draw from this that my entire family is "off," and you later admitted this.

So, I will ask the question. Are your other family members religious bigots? Can they handle polite discussion regarding the intersection of politics and religion without going "wonky"? Have a significant number of them ever questioned their preconceptions about their worldview in a meaningful way? Prior to them getting out on their own, were they ever faced with the opportunity to legitimately make their own moral and personal decisions?

If not, your parents failed at one of the core aspects of a good, well-rounded education.

Again, most of them haven't grown up yet. I'll give what I can, though:
Mom - She is a feeler, not a thinker. While she's very intelligent, she'd rather read a kids book with a small child or play the piano while the kids fall asleep than carry on a political conversation. She prefers things everyone agrees on - a tray of brownies, a game of Uno.
Dad - He wasn't always a fundie; he converted in high school. He went into the navy as an officer. He's an engineer, and is very very intelligent. He's always reading, thinking, learning new things. He is able to think critically, but he believes that the Bible is backed up by evidence, that that scientific evidence points to creation, not evolution. This may be because of the types of books he reads. However, he is always seeking to learn more because he is afraid of being wrong. My father ran for state rep some years back, and has been politically involved since; he's totally fine in social situations, and is really good at connecting people, etc.
My sister - She's like my mom, really. No, she hasn't questioned her preconceptions. However, she was always a little bit more of a wild child and she now makes her own decisions, and this doesn't always please my parents. She has piercings and several tatoos and she's on the birth control pill. This means she is able to make her own decisions, even when they go against my parents. Serious religious or political discussions don't interest her.
My brother - He's only a sophomore in college. I don't see him all the time, but when I do, he's been fine with discussing political and theological points with me even when I disagree, and he's perfectly civil about it. He's also disagreed with my parents on some things, particularly choosing not to go into the military and not to have political ambitions. He's charting his own path and I think he'll continue to think for himself. He's definitely a thinker.
My next brother - Though still in high school, he can't wait to get out of the home and go to college. He's taking college classes at a local college, and is involved in an adult music group, Civil Air Patrol, and sports at a public school. He's very logical, and wants to be an engineer. I'm excited to see where he goes as he grows.
My next brother - Also in high school, he's full of teenage angst and just wants to be a drummer in a band. Most of his friends attend public school, and he's begun attending a youth group at another church (for social reasons), something my parents weren't initially too keen on. Again, we'll see where he goes.
My other siblings are 13 and under, and I don't see them but six or so times a year, so it's hard to tell. Again, I'm excited to see what directions they take as they grown.

You asked about making decisions while still at home. Yes, we were able to. My parents make a point of giving my siblings more freedom as they grown, esp. in high school. My two high school aged brothers spend time outside of the house and away from my parents with Civil Air Patrol, their (not homeschool) music groups, public sports, and general get-togethers with their friends, homeschool or no. The oldest one at home now completely directs his own schedule; he has his license and, within reason, comes and goes as he pleases.

Does this answer your question?

I will however retract my proposition that your family at large is insane. It was unfair of me, and I apologize.

Thank you.

A very lot of people, the vast majority of whom are not homeschoolers, believe that homosexuality is a sin against God. My family (except me, of course) happens to hold this belief, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they homeschool.

Had your siblings ever been exposed to gay people in a neutral setting, they may have (many do) gotten over that an early age. Instead the homeschooling never gave them that chance.

Are all children in public schools across the entire country exposed to gays in a neutral setting at an early age? My guess is that that they aren't around others identifying as gay until high school, and that even then there is a lot of bigotry, etc, rather than simple acceptance. My sister was exposed to gays when she arrived at college when she was 17. Two of her best friends freshman year are gay (they're not close now only because she dropped out for a year and then moved out of the dorms, and her friend group was kind of scattered).

Lots of people are bigots. Homeschooling ensured that only one of the ~10 children in your family ever grew the fuck up and stopped hating 6ish% of the population for no reason. If we go with a random distribution of who is and is not a bigot we would expect something along the lines of 50% of them having done so.

I can site study after study, all of them in peer reviewed journals showing the predictive power of religious fundamentalism with respect to homophobia. Certainly with a 90% success rate, your parents did a pretty good job of assuring that their kids stayed fundies. Has there been research specifically on this subject? No. I cant find any. On the other hand the inference is a rational one.

You forget one thing. My siblings are not all grown up. You have me, then my sister, age 21. One of us got beyond it, one didn't. Then there are my next two brothers, ages 20 and 17, both of whom are markedly less fundamentalist than my parents. And they're not done growing up and figuring out where they stand. Then the rest of my siblings, well, you can't say yet. They are ages 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 6, and 4. In saying that my parents have a "90% success rate" at keeping their kids fundies, you assume that a four year old is grown up and mature and intentionally choosing to be a fundie. I have a problem with that. Time will tell which of my siblings stay or leave, and I'm looking forward to welcoming those who will (inevitably) leave with open arms.

Point 3: A very lot of people, the vast majority of whom are not homeschoolers, believe that the Bible is true and the ultimate source of wisdom. My family (except me, of course) happens to hold this belief, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they homeschool.

This is a non-sequitur. Just because people hold a position without condition X being true, does not mean that condition X did not contribute to the holding of that position in a given case.

Would all of your siblings be raging fundies had they not been homeschooled?

Again, we don't know yet whether they all will be raging fundies as adults, homeschool or no.

The academic performance analyses indicate that home school graduates are as ready for college as traditional high school graduates and that they perform as well on national college assessment tests as traditional high school graduates. The results of this study are also consistent with other studies on the academic performance of home school students compared to traditional high school graduates (Galloway 1995, Gray 1998, Jenkins 1998, Mexcur 1993). These results also suggest that a parent-guided K-12 education does not have a negative effect on a student's college success.

I noted that it was a wash. A wash being no statistically significant effect. IE that homeschooling parents who think they can do a better job than our shitty school system actually do no such thing.

Some do a better job, some don't (I do support more regulation to weed out the failures). My point was that homeschoolers can do as good a job as the public schools, which you said was not true.

Homeschool parents do teach science. Most of the time the idea is "this is what evolution teaches, learn this, but remember that we believe it's wrong."

It is the unifying principle of the entire field of biology, they are effectively saying "All of biology is wrong, but regurgitate this on tests that the devil worshipers give you"

Do you not see something wrong with this?

For what it's worth, I've been around fundies all of my life and I've never heard them mention the term "devil worshipers." "Secular humanists," yes, but not "devil worshipers." Unless you've heard that term mentioned frequently in fundie circles, I would discontinue using it; it makes it sound like you don't really know what you're talking about.

And again, there are plenty of parents of public school students who tell their children that evolution is wrong. It's not just homeschoolers.

And I do see a problem with people teaching that evolution is bunk. But that's not just a homechool problem, that's a half-of-America problem. Yes, when you're homeschooled, you don't have a public school teacher telling you it's right. But when it comes to people believing in creation...when you've got half the population convinced the world is 6,000 years old, the problem is way bigger than that.

Sex ed - come one, do public schools really do a good job of that? Surlethe went to a public charter school; sex ed was one day, and he was out that day for a dentist appointment and missed it, so he got...NOTHING.

One day of awkward teacher telling you about condoms and that masturbating wont make you go blind is a hell of a lot better than the homeschooled children of most fundies will get.

You do still have parents at home telling public school kids that abstinence is the only way, in many cases. And did you catch that I said I told my mom that she did a shitty job of teaching me sex ed, and that she's intentionally changed that with the younger kids, teaching it to them starting at age eight? You can't say point blank that all homeschoolers to a bad job of this. I think it varies, just like it varies in public schools. Here's an article on health ed in Indiana homeschools: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15208111

[Thanas]

All your arguments do not disprove the argument that is at the heart of it - that fundies homeschool because they want to influence their kids and that those kids are more likely to end up as fundies according to that.

Fundies do not have to be raging nutcases in order to be damaging to society. The mere fact that they influence their children and teach them fundamentalist viewpoints is damage enough. It does not matter that they succeed academically - good for them. However, the damage is done with regards to that there will now be another fundie ready to vote down on sex ed, abortion etc.

There may be exceptions to the rule. However, by and large, this fundamentalist idea of passing on their ideas to their children must be successfull, for otherwise nobody would consider homeschooling in the first place for religious reasons only.

In fact, I would say that your father is the perfect example of the enemy to reason and education. For if he still believes the bible to be supported by science, he obviously has never read a science book and has in fact taken great care to only expose himself to books of a certain sort, for otherwise I cannot imagine how a man so intelligent and open-minded as you make him out to be would still believe such obvious falsehoods which can be easily fixed by reading any book of Darwin or Dawkins. This is exactly the sort of insular thinking a real education is supposed to combat.

To be honest, these sort of people scares me more than the sort of crusaders who shout at people, because these are the real people damaging education today - softspoken, well mannered people who do have enough pull to gain a political following and who are smart enough to cloud their message into not being anti-educationalist when in fact it is.

Heck, I'll go out and say it: Anybody who believes that the bible is supported by scientific evidence has no business teaching science, religion or history. I know plenty of religious fanatics myself (one of my best friends is a hard-core catholic) who manage to be scientists, but also know that their science has got nothing to do with their religion and do not pay any mind to the bible when performing their science.

[Surlethe]

If you support removing parents' legal permission to homeschool on the grounds it makes children more likely to become fundamentalists, which is damaging to society, would you remove the children of fundamentalists from their parents (since the children of fundamentalists are more likely to be fundamentalists by virtue of being raised that way)? Remove people in general from situations that make them more likely to become fundamentalists, such as having fundamentalist friends? Outlaw proselytizing? Outlaw fundamentalism in general? I don't think this is a slippery slope -- it seems that the broad logic "fundamentalism (evangelicalism) is damaging to society and X is likely to increase fundamentalism (evangelicalism), therefore outlaw X" applies to all of these situations. (With the German schooling system, we can agree that homeschooling should be banned on educational grounds; I'm just questioning your logic.)

[Thanas]

If you support removing parents' legal permission to homeschool on the grounds it makes children more likely to become fundamentalists, which is damaging to society, would you remove people in general from situations that make them more likely to become fundamentalists?

Depends on the situation, don't you think?

Outlaw proselytizing?

There is a difference between parents and their influence on children and adults trying to convert each other. Children are genetically disposed towards believing their parents. In a normal family, the parent will be the first source of information and the biggest authority figure in the life of a child. That is not the same as an adult trying to convert another adult.

Outlaw fundamentalism in general? I don't think this is a slippery slope -- it seems that the broad logic "fundamentalism (evangelicalism) is damaging to society and X is likely to increase fundamentalism (evangelicalism), therefore outlaw X" applies to all of these situations.

It is the quintessential slippery slope, because you somehow managed to miss that there are different degrees of influencing people.

[Liberty]

All your arguments do not disprove the argument that is at the heart of it - that fundies homeschool because they want to influence their kids and that those kids are more likely to end up as fundies according to that.

I agree, but I would add one thing - many people who homeschool for religious reasons also homeschool for academic reasons, and do their darndest to give their children a good education. A big part of me would just like to write off all homeschoolers as religious nutcases in my research, but I can't do that and maintain scholarly integrity.

Fundies do not have to be raging nutcases in order to be damaging to society. The mere fact that they influence their children and teach them fundamentalist viewpoints is damage enough. It does not matter that they succeed academically - good for them. However, the damage is done with regards to that there will now be another fundie ready to vote down on sex ed, abortion etc.

I think we may disagree on the extent of parental rights. Also, Americans take freedom of religion, including freedom to be a nutcase, very seriously. There is no law against raising your child to be a fundie nutcase. And honestly, I think that if you want to crack down on this your first target should be fundie mormons who marry their daughters off at age 14 to old men.

There may be exceptions to the rule. However, by and large, this fundamentalist idea of passing on their ideas to their children must be successfull, for otherwise nobody would consider homeschooling in the first place for religious reasons only.

I'm really curious about this, actually. I think the next ten to twenty years will show whether or not homeschooling works in this way. My best friend was also homeschooled K-12, and her parents were fundies, and she's now also an atheist and as politically liberal as me. Her family pretty much rejected her, but my point is that people do move out of it. I don't know stats though - and I don't think there are any.

In fact, I would say that your father is the perfect example of the enemy to reason and education. For if he still believes the bible to be supported by science, he obviously has never read a science book and has in fact taken great care to only expose himself to books of a certain sort, for otherwise I cannot imagine how a man so intelligent and open-minded as you make him out to be would still believe such obvious falsehoods which can be easily fixed by reading any book of Darwin or Dawkins. This is exactly the sort of insular thinking a real education is supposed to combat.

See, this is one of the things that confuses me the most. He comes across as very intelligent and open-minded. So how the hell can he believe science supports creation? And he's always reading, always afraid he's wrong and wanting to make sure. And he taught me to always question authority, and to never believe something just because someone says it, and to search for truth wherever it leads. It boggles my mind.

To be honest, these sort of people scares me more than the sort of crusaders who shout at people, because these are the real people damaging education today - softspoken, well mannered people who do have enough pull to gain a political following and who are smart enough to cloud their message into not being anti-educationalist when in fact it is.

What do Germans believe about freedom of religion? I mean, I believe fundies are down right wrong, but I support their right to be fundies if they so choose. It's called freedom of religion.

Heck, I'll go out and say it: Anybody who believes that the bible is supported by scientific evidence has no business teaching science, religion or history. I know plenty of religious fanatics myself (one of my best friends is a hard-core catholic) who manage to be scientists, but also know that their science has got nothing to do with their religion and do not pay any mind to the bible when performing their science.

You are aware that 16% of American high school biology teachers believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002

And you are aware that 48% of the American public believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002


Here's an interesting site on homeschooling by a scholar at Indiana University who has made this a specialty: http://www.indiana.edu/~homeeduc/FAQ.html

[Liberty]

There is a difference between parents and their influence on children and adults trying to convert each other. Children are genetically disposed towards believing their parents. In a normal family, the parent will be the first source of information and the biggest authority figure in the life of a child. That is not the same as an adult trying to convert another adult.

So wait - are you saying that parents shouldn't try to teach their religious beliefs to their children?

[Serafina]

Yes, inciting any belief system that is based on hatred and contempt for other belief systems should be stopped.

That does include certain extreme forms of religion, but also political worldviews such as nazism, radical leftists, extreme nationalism and various others.

In fact, spreading such belief sytems publically IS a crime in Germany. You can do whatever you want in private, but if you go out into the public and "spread the word" about radical religion or politics, you are comminting a crime.

Incitement to hatred

(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace
incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whosoever
with respect to written materials (section 11 (3)) which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterised by its ethnic customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group
(a)

disseminates such written materials;
(b)

publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
(c)

offers, supplies or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
(d)

produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of Nos (a) to (c) or facilitate such use by another; or
disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in No 1 above by radio, media services, or telecommunication services
shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine.

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated insection 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine.

(5) Subsection (2) above shall also apply to written materials (section 11 (3)) of a content such as is indicated in subsections (3) and (4) above.

(6) In cases under subsection (2) above, also in conjunction with subsection (5) above, and in cases of subsections (3) and (4) above, section 86 (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

In short, promoting a belief system that calls for violence agaist certain groups of people in public can be punished with up to five years in prison.

Now, this does not actually include most religious statements, even if they would otherwise qualify - but then again, it is also rarely put to the test, since most religious advocates do not openly call for violence.
However, a lot of statements that are regulary made in the USA in the name of religion would qualify.

Promoting ignorance and contempt to others is only a short step from calling for violence towards them. While it may not be grave enough to justify impeachement (a topic of discussion), it IS a got thing to stop it.

[Serafina]

There is a difference between parents and their influence on children and adults trying to convert each other. Children are genetically disposed towards believing their parents. In a normal family, the parent will be the first source of information and the biggest authority figure in the life of a child. That is not the same as an adult trying to convert another adult.

So wait - are you saying that parents shouldn't try to teach their religious beliefs to their children?

No, he is saying that parents should not be allowed to teach ignorance and hatred to their child.

[Surlethe]

If you support removing parents' legal permission to homeschool on the grounds it makes children more likely to become fundamentalists, which is damaging to society, would you remove people in general from situations that make them more likely to become fundamentalists?

Depends on the situation, don't you think?

Aye. How would you describe the dependence of the morality on the situation?

Outlaw fundamentalism in general? I don't think this is a slippery slope -- it seems that the broad logic "fundamentalism (evangelicalism) is damaging to society and X is likely to increase fundamentalism (evangelicalism), therefore outlaw X" applies to all of these situations.

It is the quintessential slippery slope, because you somehow managed to miss that there are different degrees of influencing people.

Then my question becomes, where do you draw the line legally? You must admit the same logic applies to all the situations; it is only attenuated by the degree of influence, i.e., likelihood that the interaction will lead to conversion. At what distance of relationship does the degree of influencing people become small enough that you can (legally) permit fundamentalists to interact? And would you apply the same argument to other poor/socially damaging habits or beliefs, like racism or smoking?

[Broomstick]

3) Unlike Europe, where a number of languages are spoken, virtually all of North America uses English as a primary language. There isn't as much need to be polylingual.

There isn't much need for that in Germany too, and especially not for learning ancient languages. It is just considered part of being educated.

First, I quite agree that learning another language is part of being educated - I had 5 years of French study myself though it was not required and honestly I haven't really used it since (except for my own amusement - I do have French literature in my extensive book collection and read French newsites on line).

I think, however, that Germany's location in Europe, with Europe's dozens of languages and many bi- and poly-lingual people affect the perception and availability of language education, even where such knowledge isn't strictly speaking necessary. I also think with the proximity of different language groups, Europeans are more likely to USE their language education in adult life. Contrast to North America where English overwhelmingly predominates and doesn't even have that many variants (the UK has far more dialects of English than the US and Canada combined), and there is little opportunity to actually use a foreign language outside of major metropolitan areas. For a long time there has been little or no use for a foreign language for most North Americans and thus little priority is given to it. It's seen as a luxury, something you learn after the basics, and not one of the basics. This would also account for languages typically not even being offered until the last 4 years of primary schooling, or not even until college/university.

I will say, from a personal viewpoint, I'm happy I went to school in the US rather than in Germany where my inability to learn calculus would, apparently, doom me to a life of permanent unemployment and prevent me from graduating from the high school equivalent. It's not that I'm stupid - outside of math I was in the upper 1% of my peers - and it's not that I didn't try. It took me two tries to get through algebra II, three tries to conquer trigonometry, and I simply failed pre-calculus despite private tutoring. I find it disturbing that I would be a societal discard for that, despite all my other abilities, and despite the fact that many professions simply do not require calculus. Clearly, professions that do are off limits to me (that has a lot to do with why I didn't get a degree in science - I simply can't handle the math). Seriously, if someone can't learn calculus they're barred from trade schools? Since when does plumbing or bricklaying require calculus?

They are not barred from it. As I said, even if you fail the entire year of math, you are allowed one failing grade. Two per year and you are in trouble. Three - well, off you go to repeat a year. And it is not as if Calculus at the Hauptschul level is even hard.

That is a little different, then, and a little clearer.

By the way - Calculus at any level is horribly difficult for me. It took four years of remedial help and one-on-one tutoring for me just to learn division well enough for me to reliably be able to perform the operation. It's been a struggle to convince people that someone such as myself, who is intelligent, really does find math that difficult. It's not a matter of being lazy or inattentive, it really is a horrible struggle for me. Even when I finally master a part of math, my ability to perform the operation remains slower than normal. The only saving grace is that once I finally learn it I do remember how to do it for a long, long time.

(This actually made me the darling of a class I took in using commercial dyes in art school. As the dyes were extremely concentrated they had to be diluted, and mixing colors was basically chemistry/cooking with a need to solve problems that determined how much of each pigment was to be diluted by how much. Basic algebra, really. However, I was the only one in the class who remembered how to set up the problems and solve the math. So for the first and only time in my life I was the "math wiz". It was great!.

Likewise, when I was studying for my pilot's license I paid for several extra hours of instruction in performing calculations necessary to safely operating an aircraft. It wasn't an area I could afford to let slide. I became very familiar with each needed calculation and drilled relentlessly in them until I became comfortable with setting up the problem and solving it. This is not impossible to overcome, but it does require a lot of extra effort on my part.)

I've occasionally though about having another try at higher math because I'd really like to overcome this defect, but I am truly concerned that the average classroom will move far too fast for me to keep up.

Then again, since Germany actually has a social safety net maybe I would at least have sufficient housing, food, and other essentials to survive despite being a discard from society.

Yes, you would.

It's American heresy, but in that respect the US completely sucks and Europe has the right way of things.

That, or I suppose I would be reduced to being a baby making machine or a whore or something.

Whore's are actually a protected and legitimate profession in Germany.

True. I forget about that some times. Given that, I expect they look more like normal women than the toothless, slapped-up hags you see around here.

[ray245]

Then my question becomes, where do you draw the line legally? You must admit the same logic applies to all the situations; it is only attenuated by the degree of influence, i.e., likelihood that the interaction will lead to conversion. At what distance of relationship does the degree of influencing people become small enough that you can (legally) permit fundamentalists to interact? And would you apply the same argument to other poor/socially damaging habits or beliefs, like racism or smoking?

Doesn't interacting with people who aren't fundamentalist help a lot? Sending a child to a school allows him to interact with people who might not be fundamentalist, which is greatly helpful a child during his formative years.

[Serafina]

Outlaw fundamentalism in general? I don't think this is a slippery slope -- it seems that the broad logic "fundamentalism (evangelicalism) is damaging to society and X is likely to increase fundamentalism (evangelicalism), therefore outlaw X" applies to all of these situations.

It is the quintessential slippery slope, because you somehow managed to miss that there are different degrees of influencing people.

Then my question becomes, where do you draw the line legally? You must admit the same logic applies to all the situations; it is only attenuated by the degree of influence, i.e., likelihood that the interaction will lead to conversion. At what distance of relationship does the degree of influencing people become small enough that you can (legally) permit fundamentalists to interact? And would you apply the same argument to other poor/socially damaging habits or beliefs, like racism or smoking?

Simple: It depends on the damage that is done.

Some lone fundie that cries "burn the heretics" will propably get a bit of jailtime or even a fine.
But an authority figure doing the same will get a harsher punishment, because people are more likely to do so if he demands it.
By the same logic, a parent (as a strong authority figure) does greater damage to society if him/her preaches hatred/ignorance to her child. This can lift normally permitted behaviour (private proselytizing) into something that does sufficient harm to justify punishment.

[Thanas]

I agree, but I would add one thing - many people who homeschool for religious reasons also homeschool for academic reasons, and do their darndest to give their children a good education. A big part of me would just like to write off all homeschoolers as religious nutcases in my research, but I can't do that and maintain scholarly integrity.

The percentages would be interesting. I would submit that as long as it is for any sort of religious reason, it should be dicouraged. To me, the only valid reason is education.

I think we may disagree on the extent of parental rights.

Indeed, I do believe that the welfare of the child overrides any parental rights, due to both practical and moral reasons.

Also, Americans take freedom of religion, including freedom to be a nutcase, very seriously. There is no law against raising your child to be a fundie nutcase.

Neither is there in Germany, unless you do stuff like preventing exposure to other ideas or not letting him take part in school activities. One such problem for example was that muslims would not let their daughter wear a bathing suit for swim training (which is mandatory in germany).

And honestly, I think that if you want to crack down on this your first target should be fundie mormons who marry their daughters off at age 14 to old men.

No, the first target should be people who might still be persuaded. Brainwashed fundies have to be marginalized first of the mindless middle which can be used to gather sympathy. THat is a political reality.

I'm really curious about this, actually. I think the next ten to twenty years will show whether or not homeschooling works in this way. My best friend was also homeschooled K-12, and her parents were fundies, and she's now also an atheist and as politically liberal as me. Her family pretty much rejected her, but my point is that people do move out of it. I don't know stats though - and I don't think there are any.

Well, if it would be a net negative effect on the fundie community, they would have stopped homeschooling already. It is not like there has been no homeschooling for the past decade or so.

See, this is one of the things that confuses me the most. He comes across as very intelligent and open-minded. So how the hell can he believe science supports creation? And he's always reading, always afraid he's wrong and wanting to make sure. And he taught me to always question authority, and to never believe something just because someone says it, and to search for truth wherever it leads. It boggles my mind.

Have you tried arguing with him or sent him an evolution book? If he still refuses to believe in evolution after that, he is willfully being ignorant.

What do Germans believe about freedom of religion? I mean, I believe fundies are down right wrong, but I support their right to be fundies if they so choose. It's called freedom of religion.

Please, don't go quoting freedoms to me, I do hold a law degree with a specialization in constitutional law. Freedom of religion is an important freedom, but as all freedoms it has boundaries. Such boundaries are the welfare of the child, for example. Here is the basic law of Germany, the things you are looking for are 3(3), Article 4, 6,7, as well as the still existing rights of the Weimar constitution here.

You are aware that 16% of American high school biology teachers believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002

And you are aware that 48% of the American public believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002

So? That does not prove that they are fit to teach anything about the subjects I named. The existence of a statistic is no argument. This is akin to me arguing for anti-poverty measures and somebody saying "are you aware that X percent live in poverty?".

[Liberty]

There is a difference between parents and their influence on children and adults trying to convert each other. Children are genetically disposed towards believing their parents. In a normal family, the parent will be the first source of information and the biggest authority figure in the life of a child. That is not the same as an adult trying to convert another adult.

So wait - are you saying that parents shouldn't try to teach their religious beliefs to their children?

No, he is saying that parents should not be allowed to teach ignorance and hatred to their child.

Leaving aside the question of homeschooling, etc, for the second, imagine the following scenario:

Mike and Ali are Christian fundamentalists, and they send their children to public school. They believe that every word of the Bible is true, that Jesus died for people's sins, and that only believe in Jesus will save a person from eternal damnation. They believe that gays are not born that way, and that homosexuality is a perversion; they believe that those leading an openly gay lifestyle are living in sin. They believe that prayer works and that God is actively involved in the world. They believe that God created the world 6,000 years ago, and that God loves everyone and wants them to go to heaven when they die. Mike and Ali believe that leading a homosexual lifestyle is sin, that abortion is murder, that premarital sex is sin, and that only Jesus can bring salvation, but at the same time, they believe that violence is wrong and they do not advocate actually doing physical harm to gays or abortion doctors.

So - are you saying that Mike and Ali cannot teach these beliefs to their own children?

[Serafina]

Broomstick, if you are really THAT bad at math, it is likely that that qualifies as a disorder - if it is diagnosed, it gives a huge concession to the child suffering from it.

I am not sure about how it is handled with math (you propably can not fail to pass due to math and you get great allowances for other subjects where math is required), but it works like this for diagnosed dyslexia:
You are allowed extra time for all written tests, and gramattical/spelling errors do not count as errors in any written test.
You also get an allowance for subjects that are heavy on understanding written languages (basically all language education such as german, french, latin, english etc. - but also for reading legal texts etc.)

There is some argument wether these allowances are too much or not enough, but thats only natural since there are varying degrees of dyslexia.

[Thanas]

There is a difference between parents and their influence on children and adults trying to convert each other. Children are genetically disposed towards believing their parents. In a normal family, the parent will be the first source of information and the biggest authority figure in the life of a child. That is not the same as an adult trying to convert another adult.

So wait - are you saying that parents shouldn't try to teach their religious beliefs to their children?

No, that they should give the child the same chance to an education as every other child has. You know, I am quite tired of you not getting this. I have clarified this numerous times in this thread.

Nobody in Germany is stopped from teaching their children the religion, but there is a boundary. We do not want radicals and we do not want crusaders.

Yes, inciting any belief system that is based on hatred and contempt for other belief systems should be stopped.
*snip 130 StGB*

You cite the wrong law.

Aye. How would you describe the dependence of the morality on the situation?

What? Are you trying to make me write a playbook on this?

[quoteThen my question becomes, where do you draw the line legally? You must admit the same logic applies to all the situations; it is only attenuated by the degree of influence, i.e., likelihood that the interaction will lead to conversion. At what distance of relationship does the degree of influencing people become small enough that you can (legally) permit fundamentalists to interact? [/quote]
It is quite simple with regards to children. As soon as it is damaging enough to deny the child a lot of opportunities, as with homeschooling.

And would you apply the same argument to other poor/socially damaging habits or beliefs, like racism or smoking?

If you make a child smoke in Germany, you are automatically breaking the law. If you infiltrate your child with racist propaganda, you are breaking the law. It all depends on the degree.

True. I forget about that some times. Given that, I expect they look more like normal women than the toothless, slapped-up hags you see around here.

Well, if you want to, you can look at pictures of them on google. I think there is even some central networking cite for them to offer their services. Or at least that is what the spiegel told me. I have only ever been involved in raiding a brothel (law internship) with the police and the women looked okay to me. Certainly not toothless or abused, as the german social system generally covers most tooth surgery except cosmetic ones.

[Liberty]

Please, don't go quoting freedoms to me, I do hold a law degree with a specialization in constitutional law. Freedom of religion is an important freedom, but as all freedoms it has boundaries. Such boundaries are the welfare of the child, for example. Here is the basic law of Germany, the things you are looking for are 3(3), Article 4, 6,7, as well as the still existing rights of the Weimar constitution here.

I'm just interested in trying to understand how it differs between the U.S. and Germany.

You are aware that 16% of American high school biology teachers believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002

And you are aware that 48% of the American public believe that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? http://www.plosbiology.org/article/slid ... 60124.g002

So? That does not prove that they are fit to teach anything about the subjects I named. The existence of a statistic is no argument. This is akin to me arguing for anti-poverty measures and somebody saying "are you aware that X percent live in poverty?".

I am aware that that wasn't an argument. And I'm not disagreeing with you. I just find the stats interesting.

I think that an argument could be made that those who believe in YEC shouldn't teach science, but I don't see why that should be extended to history, as you said.

But - can't someone teach about atoms, or about the biology of the mechanisms involved in blood clotting, etc, without believing that all life evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago?

[Serafina]

Yes, inciting any belief system that is based on hatred and contempt for other belief systems should be stopped.
*snip 130 StGB*

You cite the wrong law.

I do? Ooops
So, what law would be the most appropriate one for what i refered to?

[Raesene]

But - can't someone teach about atoms, or about the biology of the mechanisms involved in blood clotting, etc, without believing that all life evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago?

They can believe whatever they want, but have to teach according to the guidelines of the education ministry - and those are not subject to parental votes.