Child abuse ?

[Shell B]

Raising ones kid indoctrenating it into believing in creationism and rejecting those outside of it`s sect is stupid.

We agree, to an extent. The actual belief is pretty stupid. Teaching your children something you truly believe is not.

You are nitpicking - half of Europe has the constitutional monarchy - non of them are dictatorships - but have democraticly elected goverments.

No, I am being concise. I object thoroughly to the suggestion that teaching children anything other than a democracy in terms of government is abuse. That is even more ridiculous than the original claim.

You are absolutly not getting the point! I have nothing against a child being brought up with the religion of it`s parents aslong as the religion is bound within the framework of democracy and done at home.

Now, you are contradicting yourself completely. You have said you are against homeschooling, teaching a religion that is intolerant (which is virtually every religion), etc. Now, you are saying you don't care as long as it is not done at school. I agree with the caveat that it not be done in a public school. I have no say what is done in a private school as far as curriculum.

I reject the raising a child by indoctrinating it with violent intolerant views and by teaching it pseudoscience at school!

Whether you know it or not, or any of us, I believe we have all been raised to be intolerant of some group or another. Whether you were raised that way, you are, as we speak, being intolerant of Christians.

At any rate. I did say that. But probably because I forgot that such a special case might exist.

Fair enough.

And I have checked, german law makes an exception for disabled kids, but the curriculum is given by the ministry of education and the kid has to do a test once a year - which is handed out and controlled by the state.

Which is wonderful to test how well they are doing academically. Their "spiritual" teaching is another story.

Your other point is complet nonsence, only because facts constantly change due to scientific and sociatal progress, this doesnt mean that we shouldnt teach current facts, one might aswell stop teaching at all.

I agree that it is ridiculous. That was the point, though the argument is a logical fallacy, if I am not mistaken. I'm sarcastically pointing out the flaws in your argument by pointing to ridiculous equivalents of it.

examples?

Children born with developmental disorders that prevent them from working. Children born with immune system disorders that essentially keep them home or hospital bound. Children born with genetic disorders that cause them to become weaker and die over time. These children cannot integrate into society. That is not abuse. There is no reason why parents should be forced to raise their child so as to have that child fit in with society to the optimal amount. Optimal here having to be some arbitrary amount set by the overzealous lawmakers in TGAC land.

reject of scientific institutions

Is not significantly harmful to the child's well being.

radicalisation of political views

See above.

intolerance

See above.

I do believe that the homeschooling movement greatly contributed to right wing ignorance in your country.

Right wing =/= religious.

I know 70-80 year olds who still think a russian-jewish conspiracy controls the world. My own grandfather thought so.
Dont underestemate the power indoctrination has on a child.
It is abuse, because you can create a monster.

Do these old gentlemen suffer for that thought? I underestimate no such thing. I simply reject the control and authority you seem to think society should have over the raising of a child.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

Yep.

A democracy is a pluralistic sociaty - therefor a schoolsystem and general education representing it`s values doesnt raise robots.

You want every child to fit into said democracy. It's a stylized version of the same thing.

I dont know much about the legal obligations, actualy I should rephrase it into "social obligation"

There are no such things. Expectations of people in a society are not obligations. People may feel compelled to abide by them, but that does not mean they are obligated to do so. Many people reject such things simply on the basis that it is expected of them.

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

Scientists and science are not just another thing to be deified. I really do think there is a language barrier here with the word knowledge.

The earth is a 100 million year old rock traveling at 67000 miles per hour arround a field, created by the interactions between the gravitational forces of the sun and planets and held together by the centrifugal force, called the Barry field. In a expanding universe. - that is knowlege that should be taught at school.

That is information. Knowledge is the acquisition of such information. I would even venture to say that it is also retention.

I dont have a problem with people going to church or celebrating christmans and doing other things which can be peacefully practiced within a tolerant pluralistic sociaty without discriminating others.
I have a problem with what i mentioned above.

We already have laws protecting against discrimination. If that is your only problem, problem solved.

what has the thought police accusation got to do with this?

Because it seemed very much like you didn't want parents to teach children religion at home. You have since contradicted said statement so I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

And there is no limit to what parents can teach their children - but school education shouldnt be defined by a kids parents views.

Agreed. That is not the issue up for debate in this thread.

What religion they get served at home (as long as it doesnt conflict with the rest of sociaty) is non of my concern.

What is with the parenthetical there? That is where there is a problem. You are advocating conformity.

where and how?

Directly above this.

I dont quelch ideas, I protect myself from those who think I dont eaven have the liberty to have ideas.

That's what you think you're doing. That's what every zealot thinks he is doing.

As long as someone doesnt brutaly cut of the clitoris of his minor daughter or something like that, I have no problem with people practicing their religion in peace and in respective tolerants towards other members of sociaty.

The contradictions are too much. I don't know if it is a language barrier or a convenient flux of position.

I am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

That's exactly it. I get a kick out of reading page after page of remarks from an atheist that are only slightly different from similar threads with Christians. Furthermore, I reiterate that my statement was not an argument. It was a statement. Two very different things. As a statement of fact, I find your position deplorable. As an argument, I find it deplorable because it treads on the freedoms of others and suggests a conformist society.

I argue to educate myself, I am convinced by the more reasonable and logical argument and then acknowlege the failure of the other one one.

You should educate yourself before you argue. Otherwise, it should not be an argument, but a lesson. If the two combine, it should only be a happy accident.

And I am eaven less interested in your sence of "humor" when it is based on insulting stereotyps

Haha, I find stereotypes humorous. I quite clearly stated that I know it isn't true. Nonetheless, it is funny when someone plays into the stereotypes that their race, gender, class or geographic location disposes them. For example, hicks at a demolition derby are hilarious. Germans telling me not to answer if I am not going to behave how they want me to and saying that parents should be restricted in what they teach their children is funny. Come oooon. I'm white. Wouldn't it be funny if I tried to dunk and failed? I'm American. Me firing guns in my backyard whilst saying yee-haw, wearing an American flag for a t-shirt and topping the scale at 250 would be funny too. There is humor in stereotypes. At least I can laugh. Nonetheless, this could all come down to poor communication. It seems we agree on a lot of things.