Child abuse ?

[Something completely different]

It appears that some people in this thread believe that they have the right (or at least, the government does) to control what parents teach their children. This is of course entirely based on their own preconceptions about what is real; completely ignoring the preconceptions of others. In other words, it's an undeniably selfish position to hold.

Who? Where? When?
And what a very nice way of deprecative wording you chose.
"govermeeet! bad!"

I dont perceive in any kind of way that I have the right to tell people how they should educate their children.
I believe the goverment should have the right to set standerds on: what is education and what is not. And actualy I dont eaven believe nor perceive that, I know that, because it is the law in my country, and I am defending the case for this kind of regulation because it works here and hasnt jet shown any signs of doing harm to our sociaty.

Compulsery school attendance, is not regulated on a federal level but on a state level.
Parents are thereby bound by state law to let their children attend a certain (variating) number of school years.

State, legaly mandated age to start school, legaly mandated years in school:

Baden Württenberg: 5-7 , 9 years

Bayern: 5-7 , 9 years

Berlin: 5-6 , 10 years

Brandenburg: 5-7 , 10 years

Bremen: 6 , 12 years

Hamburg: 5-6 , 9 years

Hessen: 5-7 , 9 years

Mecklenburg Vorpommern: 6 , Until student is 18 years old

Niedersachsen: 6-7 , 12 years

Nordrhein-Westfalen: 6 , 10 years

Rheinland-Pfalz: 6 , 12 years

Saarland: 5-8 , 9 years

Sachsen: 6-7 , 9 years

Sachsen-Anhalt: 6 , 12 years

Schleswig-Holstein: 6-7 , 9 years

Thüringen: 6-7 , 10 years

The sections of the state code of laws concerning these mandates are:
§§ 73 - 76 SchG (Württenberg uses federal law), BayEUG (couldnt find paragraf), § 42 Berlin SchulG, § 39 BbgSchulG, § 54 Brem., Hamburg (couldnt find paragraf), § 59 Hess, § 42 SchulG, Niedersachsen (couldnt find paragraf), §§ 37,38 SchulG NRW, §7 SchG, Saarland (couldnt find paragraf), couldnt find paragraf for the rest.

Now these are facts, writen in black on white paper on state law! And not some lunacy or perceived fantasy of a individual planing to restructure and rewrite laws and the educational sector of a sociaty in general, thereby ignoring others - as you accused!

These laws were past by democraticly elected goverments!

And I can back these claims up:

http://www.alinki.com/artikel/382/

http://www.bildungsserver.de/Schulrecht-72.html

Just because science is held as a good method for determining what is true by the majority of people, does not make it the only way of determining truth, nor does it give that majority a right to impose it on others.

No, but it gives the right to point out the lies, fallacies and outright nonsence of others!
Aswell as it gives a monopoly on determening what can be called truth within the scientific community and can adorn itself with the adjective Scientific.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were a science advocate in a sternly religious (and anti-science) country. Would you be fine with your countrymen denying you the right to teach your child your beliefs? I doubt it.

Difference is, I dont live in Saudi Arabia or Iran - and there is a big difference between those countries and where I live, and I will not let my country turn into christian Iran by giving people the right to add the adjective "scientific" to their mental rubbish and pose as if it then were legit.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Science is not a method for establishing absolute truth. It is a method for establishing empirical truth, which is wholly different. For starters, whilst empirical truth is often seen as "more accurate" than other forms of truth because it can be verified and tested experimentally, one of the core principles of science is falsifiability...in other words; any "truth" obtained through science and empiricism must be able to be disproved in some way. .

There is a german term for that kind of "knowlege" which people spread, believing that it is true when in fact it is missinforming and not true, which I couldnt find in the dictonary: "Halbwissen"

For starters:

"Empeiria" is greek and translates to expirience, Ratio is "Latin" and translates to reason. The first precusors on the school of empirism were the philosophers who came before Socrates and Socrates himself - then called Sophism. Platon was the precusor of what would later be known as Idealism.

In the 17th and 18th century, Rene Decartes, Baruch de Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz would built up further on the ideas of Platos Idealism and founded the school of Rationalism. Plato saw Ideas as the the highest form a possible knowlege and all other cognetively perceived things as potentialy deceiving, built up on this school of thought the named above 17th and 18th century philosophers came to the conclusion that one should daught everything except for the reasoning mind which one uses for that process of daught.

Whilest philosophers as Francis Bacon, John Locke and David Hume built their philosophical theories on Empirism, meaning that knowlege could only be aquired through a process of induction (observing the surroundings with cognetive methods) and the resulting deduction (drawing conclusions out of what has been observed).



In the 18th century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant tried to unite both schools of philosophy (rationalism and empirism) in his theory of the Categorical Imperative, which states observations have to be evaluated by ones personal reasoning in order to draw conclusions and form struktures out of the observed non-struktures, the guiding principle behind his categorical imperative is "Have the courage to use your own reasoning" advacating personal responsibility over general laws and is considered to be the first step into the direction of "a individuals personal rights and liberties".

Out of that school philosophy, Karl Popper formed the idea of Critical Rationalism - the Idea behind this school is that through induction observed stuktures are not only be formed into theories but are to be constantly falsified, which is detailed in his book on epistemology: "The Logik of scientific Discovery".
The epistemological school of philosophy which tries to falsefy existing theories is not called empirism but Critical Rationalism.


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

If that possibility exists, empirical truth is not absolute truth.

IF it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase

Thus, whilst you may think science is the best method for obtaining truth, it isn't the only method, and there are plenty of people who believe other methods are either equal or better.

What exists?/What can be? - Metaphysics/Ontology
What is good? - Ethics
What is human? - Antropology
What is the meaning of what we say?/What can we express? - Philosophy of Language (Ludwig Wittgenstein)
What is beautyfull? - Aesthetics
What is Nature? - Natural Philosophy
Which arguments are valid? - Logic

Nice subjects if you specialise on a education in philosophy, or a other subject which, for a better understanding requires experties in such ereas art-aesthetics, linguistics-philosophy of language, sociology - antropology)

But on the subject of natural science there clear and common understanding that the method of Critical Rationalism is used as the method of aquireing knowlege - the scientific community is not a democracy! it exists within a democracy! Scientific theories are proposed and have to go through the process of peer review! What survives this process is then known as knowlege!
We live in a reality in which this concept has achived usefull knowlege for the progress of our species, hence sitting in a maths, biology, chemisty or physics call and endlessly debating if the things the students are suposed to know actualy can be known? do exist? are logical? are pritty? are moraly correct? is a waste of time!

To deny these people to teach their own children their views is an ultimate violation of their rights as both humans and as parents.

I do not deny any parent to raise their children in a religious way.
That would be a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of and from religion.
But it strikes me as ironic, how some people who applauded the circumcicion bann in Germany, because of it being a violation of a individuals health, defending a a fundamentalists "right" to indoctrinate his or her kids into a potentialy harmfull thoughtprocess for sociaty.

What is scientific knowlege and what is not, should not be detrmend by a zealos housewife, nazi dad, racist redneck or other religious loons.

The scientific community has a absolute monopoly on determening what is scientific knowlege and what is not. Therefor the standerds of school education should be set by that community and it`s teaching made mandetory to preven potentialy dangerous missinformation.

As for these children not being able to integrate into society; it seems that empirical evidence would cast doubts on your theory. You see, astoundingly, the vast majority of religious beliefs have no impact on people's everyday lives in society. The UK possibly proves this more than most countries; we are one of the most multicultural places on Earth, home to people of countless faiths and races, and we all seem to (for the most part) get on just fine. I have atheist friends, Christian friends, Muslims friends, and even Hindu friends. We all see the world differently; we all believe in different things, but we all respect each other enough to not make it as big an issue as you seem to want to make it.

Have you got statistics to back any of this up, or do you to claim to have an argument when all you have is baseless assumptions and predictions.

Now here are the most religious states in the US:
(poll asked question: are you religious?)

85% Mississippi
82% Alabama
80% South Carolina
79% Tennessee
78% Louisiana
78% Arkansas
76% Georgia
76% North Carolina
75% Oklahoma
74% Kentucky
74% Texas

and here is a statistic showing the least educated states:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes...ated-index

Oh dear! How they fit together.

I couldnt find state statistics on homeschooling, but I found a rather great answere to "why homeschool?" which helps me perfectly underline my point.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...055AAy86G1

Now, I have to say that this opinion of mine is based on a assumption, but at least I can give a source to the statistics on which I base my assumptions.

And maybe eaven try to compare them with the results of the 2011 PISA study:

http://www.focus.de/schule/schule/tid-81...27570.html

Well falling behind.


You accused me of being a person who forces educational values onto people on a basis of nothing!
Good and fine to be a liberterian, but to simply stick to ones views and thereby ignoring reality is like falling out of the 50th floor of a skyscraper to then whilest falling constantly telling oneself that everything is going to be alright - not acknowleging that the impact is the importent part.

a garden might be pritty, but useless when built in tchernobyl.

And to enter a debate without facts and statistics to back any argument up, is waking on a frozen lake without knowing if the ice is thik enought to hold ones weight.


In the end, maybe homeschooling isnt that bad and helpfull for sociaty - but it certainly is when conducted by non-educaters in a intolerant indoctrinational way.

On the subject of integration - you can not tell me that the average evangelical, homeschooled, homophobic bigot, who refers to everything outside of his sect as "evil secularism" or the average anjem choudary is a integrated member of sociaty.
These peoples behavior is practicaly the deffinition of the word "parallel sociaty" and to let these people indoctrinate more and more people for their cause will further the unhealthy process of creating a parallel sociaty.

[Tiberius]

*sigh*

Is there any point in even trying to be concise with you? I'm not even going to address most of what you said; much of it appears to be copy / paste from the Internet. If it isn't then I apologise, but you are being far too verbose. That said, let's address the main points.

I believe the goverment should have the right to set standerds on: what is education and what is not.

I don't. I think that's a very dangerous idea. One only has to look at oppressive governments to see why.

it is the law in my country, and I am defending the case for this kind of regulation because it works here and hasnt jet shown any signs of doing harm to our sociaty

...not doing harm to society does not mean it is fair or worth keeping. You are still suppressing the rights of people to teach their children what they want, and how they want.

These laws were past by democraticly elected goverments!

I don't mean this as a jibe at your nationality, but as a German, I'd have thought you of all people would know that "democratically elected government" does not always represent the will of the people. The Nazi's passed all sorts of laws as a democratically elected government; I doubt very much you would agree with them.

No, but it gives the right to point out the lies, fallacies and outright nonsence of others!

We're not trying to take that right away from you. In a fair society where people were educated how they wished, you would still have the right to criticize.

IF it exists.

...and under the scientific method, it must exist. If it did not, it is not good science. Plain and simple.

The scientific community has a absolute monopoly on determening what is scientific knowlege and what is not. Therefor the standerds of school education should be set by that community and it`s teaching made mandetory to preven potentialy dangerous missinformation.

How do you make the jump between the scientific community determining scientific knowledge and the scientific community therefore having control over school policy? It would seem the school itself should have that control; some schools will listen to the scientists, and some will use other methods, depending on which kind of parents they are hoping to attract.

Have you got statistics to back any of this up, or do you to claim to have an argument when all you have is baseless assumptions and predictions.

Why would I need statistics? Isn't it obvious to see that in multicultural countries, people of different religions and races are getting along fine? It's not perfect, of course not, but the fact that we aren't in a state of civil war between various religions internally seems to support my position more than yours. At the end of the day, when we are out in our everyday lives, we do not see each other as "Christian man" and "Muslim woman", we see each other as fellow humans.

You accused me of being a person who forces educational values onto people on a basis of nothing!

No, I did it based on your posts. You are still doing it. When you claim that only the scientific community should decide the standards of school education, you are forcing the empirical education value onto people. You might not think that you are, but you are.

you can not tell me that the average evangelical, homeschooled, homophobic bigot, who refers to everything outside of his sect as "evil secularism" or the average anjem choudary is a integrated member of sociaty.

I can think of at least one friend I have who is like this (though he wasn't homeschooled). He is very well integrated with society; he has a good job, he supports his community, and (more importantly) he is a good friend who I have relied on many times. We have our philosophical differences, but we mostly leave them at the door (unless we're both up for a good debate). I feel sorry that you have not encountered such people; without them I would still be like you, misunderstanding the religious and making what are (in my opinion) bigoted comments about people you have never met.

[Kousbroek]

By your logic, giving someone chocolates is love.

..... No by my logic it is normal to show people respect unless they deserve disrespect ...

Please let us not confuse respect and love ... 

If i were to meet you, what would you rather have that i would say ? : "Hello Mrs B how are you doing today ?" or "Yo bitch wassup ? "

[Something completely different]

*sigh*

Is there any point in even trying to be concise with you? I'm not even going to address most of what you said; much of it appears to be copy / paste from the Internet. If it isn't then I apologise, but you are being far too verbose. That said, let's address the main points.

everything writen myself - except for statistics, polls and excepts from the codes of law - to which i left source links.

I don't. I think that's a very dangerous idea. One only has to look at oppressive governments to see why.

And one has to realise that in a democracy there is no such thing as party\ideological control over institutions which are by the very meaning of their existance meant to be unbiased - such as the scientific community.

examples: BBC, ZDF, WDR, public Universities, public schools

...not doing harm to society does not mean it is fair or worth keeping. You are still suppressing the rights of people to teach their children what they want, and how they want.

A system which works needs not to be abolished.
The german educational system is built on the principle of fairness since it gives everyone the same basic and scientific education.
If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can always emigrate to the US.

I don't mean this as a jibe at your nationality, but as a German, I'd have thought you of all people would know that "democratically elected government" does not always represent the will of the people. The Nazi's passed all sorts of laws as a democratically elected government; I doubt very much you would agree with them

.

The nazis werent elected into power but putched to power in a coalition with the conservative party which thought it could tame them.

I dont see this as jab on my history.
If I clearly present facts in a source (such as a code of law)! And one ignores such (and cales one a totalitarian)! that is dishonest or proof of intelectual cowerdess or both.

We're not trying to take that right away from you. In a fair society where people were educated how they wished, you would still have the right to criticize.

And who will take that critizism serious who is fundamentaly a ignorant bafoon who ignores things which contradict his views?


...and under the scientific method, it [b]must exist. If it did not, it is not good science. Plain and simple.
[/b]
No there is the possibility of it existing. And after unvailing more and more proof of evolution within the fossile record and genetic analasys - denying evolution is selfdeceiving, and very ignorant towards things achieved because of that knowlege!

How do you make the jump between the scientific community determining scientific knowledge and the scientific community therefore having control over school policy? It would seem the school itself should have that control; some schools will listen to the scientists, and some will use other methods, depending on which kind of parents they are hoping to attract.

because the scientific comunity determins what is in the curiculum for students here - not the goverment.

Why would I need statistics? Isn't it obvious to see that in multicultural countries, people of different religions and races are getting along fine? It's not perfect, of course not, but the fact that we aren't in a state of civil war between various religions internally seems to support my position more than yours. At the end of the day, when we are out in our everyday lives, we do not see each other as "Christian man" and "Muslim woman", we see each other as fellow humans.

missing point. my main focus is the US

fact is a parallel sociaty is a sociaty which as a the term selfexplanetory explains consistent of participants who reject the sociatal framework they live in and attempt to overthrow it with their own concept.
This might not be such a big problem in Europe.

But it surely is in the US if one looks at the evangelical community in the bible belt.

And homeschooling plays into the hands of such people who want to create a paralel sociaty.

You accused me of being a person who forces educational values onto people on a basis of nothing!

No, I did it based on your posts. You are still doing it. When you claim that only the scientific community should decide the standards of school education, you are forcing the empirical education value onto people. You might not think that you are, but you are.

Well and it is the only reasonable thing to do. Any other form of reasoning as the theory of Critical Rationalism is not accepted and hasnt brought satisfying results.

Or do you know a better epistological theory on which to base the aquirement of knowlege?

I can think of at least one friend I have who is like this (though he wasn't homeschooled). He is very well integrated with society; he has a good job, he supports his community, and (more importantly) he is a good friend who I have relied on many times. We have our philosophical differences, but we mostly leave them at the door (unless we're both up for a good debate). I feel sorry that you have not encountered such people; without them I would still be like you, misunderstanding the religious and making what are (in my opinion) bigoted comments about people you have never met.

..............

ok,
was he educated on a ordenary curiculum or was he thought that "evolution is a lie" and "secularism is evil" or other hogwash?

It is not that i dispise all religious people - i dispise the fundamentalist who wants to take over sociaty - who might be a minority - but exists.

---

Kousbroek verstaan jij de neo liberaalst ook niet?

[Napoléon]

Seems like a lot of this thread is veering wildly off the topic of the OP. And I have to agree with Tibs, some of these post lengths are insane.

[Annik]

Just a point related: Hovik was homeschooled for a couple years and he didn't turn out to be a religious nut. Then again, he also went the homeschool route to avoid the horrible high schools (apparently, the kind of schools that needed metal detectors) in the area. Homeschooling is around for more reasons than just illness and brainwashing.

[Napoléon]

As far as I'm aware no one actually said homeschooling was just for illness and brainwashing :-S

[John V]

Now here are the most religious states in the US:
(poll asked question: are you religious?)

85% Mississippi
82% Alabama
80% South Carolina
79% Tennessee
78% Louisiana
78% Arkansas
76% Georgia
76% North Carolina
75% Oklahoma
74% Kentucky
74% Texas

and here is a statistic showing the least educated states:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes...ated-index

Oh dear! How they fit together.

I guess they don't teach that correlation doesn't prove causation over there.

[Gilgamesh]

It appears that some people in this thread believe that they have the right (or at least, the government does) to control what parents teach their children.This is of course entirely based on their own preconceptions about what is real; completely ignoring the preconceptions of others. In other words, it's an undeniably selfish position to hold.

Maybe I overlooked a post or two but I haven't seen that anywhere. This is not based on my preconceptions about what is real, nore is it about other people's; in fact, it's the opposite. Children should be taught facts as fact. Teach your children of your beliefs if you want but don't say your belief is fact.

Just because science is held as a good method for determining what is true by the majority of people, does not make it the only way of determining truth, nor does it give that majority a right to impose it on others. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were a science advocate in a sternly religious (and anti-science) country. Would you be fine with your countrymen denying you the right to teach your child your beliefs? I doubt it.

I would have a problem with that. Although, I don't see how that is relevant. Fallacious comparison.

You're equating science and fact with mere belief. No.

Thus, whilst you may think science is the best method for obtaining truth, it isn't the only method, and there are plenty of people who believe other methods are either equal or better. To deny these people to teach their own children their views is an ultimate violation of their rights as both humans and as parents.

Again, that word; believe. Why do you think people's beliefs have as much right as fact in governing a society or ANYTHING, for that matter?

Your post summed up:
"We shouldn't stop parents from teaching children their belief as fact on the basis that they might believe their belief."

...

[Creed of Heresy]

Ahh the age-old problem humanity has been faced with but has never squared away; what holds more value? Freedom or knowledge? Freedom to believe, vs. the power of knowledge.

Gilgamesh, your post was well-thought out, as was Tibbers...but ultimately this comes down to opinion.

My opinion is that knowledge is greater than freedom because freedom for an individual lasts until the moment they die but knowledge is eternal...or at least, it tends to have a longer shelf life than human beings do, anyway. But then, maybe that imparts more value upon freedom? Since life is finite and best spent freely? Is the shorter-lived thing not more precious for its "rarity?" Or rather, its lessened quantity?

Hm.