What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The U.S. Govt. pursues German home schoolers

The usual caution about my not being a lawyer applies in spades to this entry, because it is related to asylum law, which is an area that is new to me even as an interested layman.

Germany outlaws home schooling across the board. As a patriotic American, when I hear of such cases, and knowing (ahem) how generous America is with its immigration policy, I often say, "Get out! Come to America! Be free!" Is that not what many people have done over the decades when faced with totalitarianism?

Well, not anymore. Our government, which is eagerly pursuing amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, is also actively appealing a case in which a German home schooling family, the Romeike family, was granted political asylum in the United States by a federal court ruling by Judge Lawrence Burman. Apparently this is the sort of thing that the Obama administration considers really important to pursue: Making sure that persecuted Christian German home schoolers are not granted political asylum in the U.S. Why, if we did that, more of them might manage to come here and ask to stay on similar grounds! And that would be a Bad Thing, for some reason.

I fully admit that the law of asylum as it has been worked out has, shall we say, some fuzzy edges. It seems to be based entirely on the question of whether you would, if you returned, face personal persecution because of your membership in an identifiable group of some sort--because of your membership in a social group, your race, religion, or political opinions. That seems to allow a lot of leeway, and Judge Burman's opinion that religious people persecuted simply for home schooling their children (not for being educationally negligent) fall under one or more of these categories is by no means manifestly unreasonable. So the federal government's determination to have the decision overturned is all the more disturbing. All the more so since the German government has been absolutely explicit that its total ban on home schooling is meant to prevent the rise of "religiously and philosophically motivated parallel societies." In other words, if you are not what the German government considers a part of ideologically mainstream society, forcing you to send your children to school is intended to make sure that you don't pass on those non-mainstream views too successfully to your children. Predictably, it is people who do have somewhat different views of the true and the good who are most likely to run afoul of this intentional indoctrination and therefore to be punished by the government. It is hardly implausible, then, to say that this amounts to persecuting people for their religious and/or political views: The government wants to prevent their conveying their worldview to their children; the parents are resisting this attempt at absolute standardization and indoctrination and are being punished for doing so. The parallel to the persecution of Baptists in Soviet Russia for taking their children to church and for holding Sunday Schools and religious youth camps for children is instructive.

The U.S. government's arguments to the contrary are disturbing. Here's what I tease out as a kind of unspoken background to those arguments: We don't want just any person who disagrees with the laws of his country to be able to come to the United States, because (among other things) the laws he disagrees with might be perfectly reasonable. If someone in Britain started a religious or political group devoted to driving on the right side of the road and were being "persecuted" with traffic fines, it would be trivializing to grant him asylum in the U.S. on those grounds. His objections to the British traffic laws would be unreasonable, and even though he belongs to an identifiable political, religious, or social group (namely, right-side drivers), that doesn't give him grounds for portraying himself as any sort of political martyr or dissident. His claim for asylum is frivolous. Such an argument would apply in spades if someone applied for asylum on the grounds that he wants to engage in terror bombings and that his sincere religious belief in the imperative of violent jihad is causing him to be persecuted by his country of origin. After all, he should be "persecuted" for acting on such a belief in the U.S. as well!

So somewhere along the line some questions have to be raised: "Okay, so this person belongs, perhaps by his own choice, to an identifiable social, political, or religious group, and that's getting him in trouble with his own government. But is his government reasonable for punishing him, or is his government being totalitarian for doing so?" The involvement of some sort of evaluative judgement is unavoidable. Or so it seems to me.

The HSLDA's discussion in this article suggests that these sorts of considerations come in when arguments are being considered for asylum for belonging to a particular "social group." Apparently the precedents/law on this (I don't know how much of it has been written legislatively) say that the membership in the social group must be based on an "immutable" characteristic, where "immutable" can actually mean what one would ordinarily mean by "mutable" so long as the characteristic is one that the person "should not" be asked to change. Got that? What this would seem to mean is that if you're part of a social group whose distinguishing characteristic is that you are trying to avoid a seriously unjust law, then you may be eligible for asylum in the U.S.

(As an interesting side note, the U.S. Congress has set up in law that persecution for resisting coercive population control laws counts as persecution for one's political opinions. Not more than one thousand refugees can be accepted into the U.S. per year on this basis.)

The argument from the present U.S. government that home schooling is a "mutable" characteristic amounts, then, to an argument that laws that ban all home schooling, regardless of the ability or willingness of parents to offer a quality education, are prima facie perfectly legitimate and understandable laws. This is an unpleasant thought.

Though the headlines on the articles about this case have often highlighted the fact that the brief from the USG says that home schooling is "not a fundamental right," to my mind the "fundamental right" phrase is not so much the issue. (Though it may have a meaning in asylum law that I haven't yet figured out.) Some people are a bit wary of the language of "fundamental rights" anyway, especially when applied to something other than the right to life, and then there is always a question as to what it means for something to be a fundamental right if one can lose it for cause. I imagine that some of us would say that an "unschooler" might lose the right to home school, because he is giving his twelve-year-old (say) no clear education of any kind. Does that mean that home schooling isn't a fundamental right?

But never mind all that. Let's put it differently: The U.S. government thinks it's okie dokie, no problemo, perfectly reasonable, for a government to insist that your children, and everybody's children, be taken away for schooling by the state just because you might otherwise be raising them in countercultural ways, and the government wants to get in first and indoctrinate your children. The brief for the USG apparently made a reference to the fact that the mandatory public schooling in question is "only" about twenty-six hours a week, but why draw the line there? Why wouldn't it be reasonable for the government of Germany to counter the rise of "parallel societies" based on "religious or philosophical" ideas by requiring that all children be sent to boarding school? They could see Mom and Dad for a few days or a couple of weeks during holidays. After all, boarding school for those rich enough to afford it for their children was extremely widespread in Britain for a long time. Maybe it still is, for all I know. It was considered a privilege.

Another bad argument by the U.S. government deserves mention: They reject the claim that the home schoolers are being persecuted for their religion on the grounds that a) not all home schoolers are Christians and b) not all Christians are home schoolers.

This is an extremely poor argument and a dangerous type of legal thinking. As the HSLDA points out, it is also contrary to domestic precedents that hold that religious exercise freedoms belong to the individual, not to the group. What the Obama administration is attempting to do is (as we've seen elsewhere) to put in place a more European and/or Canadian notion of religious liberty. On this notion, for example, it is only churches or "houses of worship" that have religious freedom, and then only with respect to their actual pastors or worship, not with respect to any of their other actions in the world. The UK government attempted to argue, similar to this argument from the Obama administration, that a woman was not religiously discriminated against by British Airways for wearing a cross, because wearing a cross isn't generally required of all Christians.

This mode of thought is very problematic as a gutting of religious liberty claims. In particular, it would have quite a negative impact on precisely those countercultural religious people who are not simply "going with the flow" even when the leaders of their denominations do so. For example, in Quebec all educators, including home schoolers, are required to use objectionable curriculum for teaching about sexual and religious matters, and (unfortunately) some Catholic bishops apparently see no problem with it. This could leave Catholic home schoolers who consider that the bishops have made a mistake without a larger body or authoritative declaration to appeal to, and the government could easily say, "See, it isn't a requirement of your religion that you not teach this material, because your own religious leaders are going along with it."

Finally, as I mentioned at the outset, there is another elephant in the room: This is the very U.S. government that is urging a widespread amnesty for illegal aliens. Such a widespread amnesty would undoubtedly include people who have far less obvious potential for being good American citizens than the Romeikes. And is this not ironic? The German government is pursuing home schooling as though it is a hotbed for breeding terrorism and "non-assimilation" in some sinister sense. Yet it is fairly evident that when it comes to more ordinary notions of being law-abiding and hard-working and in that sense being "good citizens," Christian German home schoolers like the Romeikes are among a country's best bets. Moreover, the Romeikes are trying to follow the rules and get permission to be here--by itself a good indication that they are conscientious people rather than scofflaws. So why is this same U.S. government, which wants us to grant widespread amnesty to illegals, insisting that we have no room here for the Romeikes? Why couldn't they just leave the matter with Judge Burman's opinion that the Romeikes qualify for asylum? It's my opinion that the reason is that the Obama administration is particularly hostile to people like the Romeikes. As leftist ideologues, the members of the Obama administration really detest Christian home schoolers who want the freedom to pass on their worldview to their own children. In fact, these leftist ideologues are in deep sympathy with the totalitarians in the German government who want to break that link between Christians who are probably (for example) social conservatives and their own children--a link deemed especially precious by those of us who want to pass on our culture from generation to generation, to bring up our children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." In other words, I believe the Obama administration is spending time and resources on pursuing the Romeikes because the members of this administration are our enemies--the enemies of Christians and (probable) conservatives who take their faith seriously and want to teach it to their children.

We should pray for the Romeikes and also pray that God would deliver our own country from the darkness into which it is speeding.

Comments (64)

Or, to put it more simply, the Obama administration wants to suppress Christianity where it can. Officially and directly, when they can get away with it.

Lydia,
Your opinion is entirely correct but in calling them enemies, you have gone off the political discourse and gone 'pre-political', in other words, it is a vocabulary of revolutionary discourse.
You need to decide if opponents might not be a better word.

Gian, that's really funny coming from you, since you have advocated that revolutionary stance so many times. In any case, it isn't revolution you are calling for when your "opponent" is the one angling for a change, and you want to keep the existing arrangement.

Don't look at me. Amnesty law is a wasp's nest. It's made worse by the fact that most of the decisions in the first instance aren't made by Article I judges, but rather by bureaucratic ALJs, whose grasp of the contours of the law may be, shall we say, limited. I have written one amnesty brief, and I shan't write another unless directed to do so by a confessor as penance for my sins. Because really, amnesty law is that bad to deal with.

Here's a corrected version of Lydia's sentence:

"I believe the Obama administration is spending time and resources on pursuing the Romeikes because the members of this administration are our opponents--the opponents of Christians and (probable) conservatives who take their faith seriously and want to teach it to their children."

Sounds like they pull for the Lakers rather than the Celtics. Sounds weak and ridiculous. Sounds like somebody's concern trolling.

I believe Gian's position is that if I use a term like "enemies" then the only consistent thing for me to do is to stop being such a wimp and support armed rebellion and revolution. Or something like that. Needless to say, I don't agree.

I will grant that Germany's law against homeschooling is bad, mainly for liberal legal reasons you disagree with, but does that make every family in Germany that potentially objects to one or more subjects taught in German schools eligible for political asylum? I think not. And while I do believe some countries are using public schools mainly for indoctrination rather than education I seriously doubt Germany falls into that category. But hey, maybe we should get really countercultural and go back to the traditional Amish way of life and stop trying to deal with technology and end education at eighth grade.

Step2, if they are being persecuted the way that this family is being persecuted, in the sense of being fined thousands and thousands and being threatened with having their children taken away, just because they home school them, then, yes, I think they should at least be considered for asylum, assuming that they don't have other drawbacks (such as being committed to terrorism or something).

I can definitely see putting some sort of numerical limit on the number of people admitted for that reason, as in the case of the women subjected to coerced sterilization and abortion (which I mentioned in the article).

I don't quite understand why you say that you doubt that Germany is using its public schools for indoctrination when Germany more or less says that it's using its public schools for indoctrination.

And why sneer about not educating the kids past eighth grade? Frankly, to my mind, that's a rather bigoted comment. There's no reason whatsoever to think of home schoolers generally, much less home schoolers fleeing persecution in Germany, as people who would prefer not to give their children a high school education. Very much to the contrary. The counterculturalism of home schooling is of a different sort. The parents in this case are music teachers, if that fact interests you, and there is every reason to believe that they are committed to educating their children well all the way through high school. It's my experience that parents who come from these European countries are ready to survive quite a rigorous degree of scrutiny of the academic quality of the education they are giving. It's not being allowed to home school at all that they are rebelling against.

Lydia,
Political discourse demands a certain respect for the opponent and an assumption that he acts for the common good--he may be mistaken or misguided but his motives may not be impugned.

Thus words such as 'enemy', 'murderer', 'enslaver' do not belong to the political discourse.
And it is revolutionary since you speak against the rulers. It would be despotic, I suppose, if they spoke these words for you.

And while I do believe some countries are using public schools mainly for indoctrination rather than education I seriously doubt Germany falls into that category.

Step2, as Lydia points out, Germany itself SAYS that the reason they won't allow homeschooling is so they can indoctrinate the kids - not for the "academic" part of schooling. Oh, they don't use the actual word indoctrination, but it's the same thing: intentionally using a narrow program to force-feed children so they turn out according to the specific social mold they desire. This is "socialization" with a hammer. Or, indoctrination.

What's really sad is that this is the same modern Germany that (at least used to) not only admit but publicly teach the evils of Nazism. Apparently, they do not seem to have take to heart at least some aspects of just how the totalitarian state goes wrong, 'cause they are doing it all over again.

Step2, would you at least agree that if a state feels it cannot stand to let a family do something counter-cultural (not because they think the act is immoral but merely doesn't fit their social mold), the state should at least give the family the opportunity to leave? Unfortunately, Germany's sister-in-arms on this, Sweden, refuses to allow even that: they wrested a child away from his parents when they tried to leave because they weren't allowed to homeschool. The European hatred of homeschooling is definitely deeper than they are letting on, and it has a LOT to do with homeschoolers holding morals and principles that agree with traditional (Christian) morals that declare the current emperor clothing-challenged, rather than the new fad-of-the-day "values." If it were a new-ager or Wiccan (or German equivalent) trying to homeschool, the authorities might not allow it but they would be a lot more sympathetic and pliable.

I've been told that home schoolers wanting to leave Germany face similar challenges to those wanting to leave Sweden. That is, they have to be careful not to take too many of their assets, not to look like they are trying to move away or flee the country, or their children may be seized to prevent their leaving. If that doesn't resemble the treatment of political dissidents in Communist countries, I don't know what does.

When this blog was just starting I was blogging mostly at Right Reason about the case of homeschooled Melissa Busekros. She actually was seized from her parents for several months, and it was absolutely undeniable that the "problem" was that her parents were succeeding in communicating a Christian worldview to her which the German gendarmes didn't like. Melissa got back to her family when she attained the age of 16, when the authorities permitted her to choose to live with her own parents.

And why sneer about not educating the kids past eighth grade?

It is a plain fact about the Amish, which is the counterculture example I used.

Oh, they don't use the actual word indoctrination, but it's the same thing: intentionally using a narrow program to force-feed children so they turn out according to the specific social mold they desire.

I don't know how to respond to post-ironic comments.

If it were a new-ager or Wiccan (or German equivalent) trying to homeschool, the authorities might not allow it but they would be a lot more sympathetic and pliable.

Examples? And what part of Lydia's argument would prohibit German Wiccans from receiving political asylum?

You missed one: that's post-post-ironic.

Step2, so as to enlighten you, here are some examples (first-hand, from less than nine years ago) of what indoctrination looks like in the public schools of a country neighboring Germany, a country which is actually less morally decadent and a bit less politically conformist-- whatever happens in Germany is likely to be much worse:

--three-week-long pro-BC propaganda in *biology* (not health, not "sex ed" or whatnot) class, for 13-year-olds (mitochondria one week, the miracle of condoms the next)--and yes, when there is not one word about failure rates or medical side effects, we call it propaganda.

--having 13/14 year-olds read extremely violent and sexually explicit books of dubious literary value (and I had an orthodox Catholic high school philosophy teacher acquaintance explain to me that she did not find this abnormal)

--anti-racist junk in history class, assorted with "repent for the evils of your people in the lands of the noble Arabs" creeds--and yes, in a country where the vast (VAST) majority of racist agressions are commited on whites by 2nd generation blacks/arabs (as is the case in most of western Europe), anti-racist education is not only junk, but irresponsible.

-- I actually had one of my history teachers publically say that the point of "civic education" classes was to prevent people from voting for a certain "extreme-right" party (which consistently garners about 18% of the vote)--to the approval of all her peers.

--the lies (and believe me, I do not use that word lightly) bandied about in history class.

--this is not first-hand, but happened two years ago: a high school "civics education" teacher was suspended for showing his students a movie about how abortion works (yes, it was for a debate, yes, planned parenthood had come in before, yes, the students had been warned about the graphic content and allowed to refuse to watch, and it was a parent of a child who was not involved who reported the teacher).


So yes, if you have traditionalist parents, or if your family/religious group/political movement was involved on the "wrong" side of recent and not-so-recent events, the school system can easily be used to convince you that they are bad people, or at least not to be trusted on serious issues. My parents, for example, were not wary of this, and now they are having quite a bit of trouble with one of my younger brothers, who has been successfully convinced that their political views are too extreme for them to utter a reasonable opinion on any political topic.

And lest you doubt Lydia's point, this does only go one way: rarely a word against, say, Communists, or Mohammedans.

From what I know, I think it is even worse in Germany, as they are even more scared of "Nazis!!!!!!", and homosexuality is shamelessly promoted. We had a German female visiting teacher tell us about her "wife" once...

Jane, thank you for that candid view of what indoctrination looks like in that system.

Step2, in case you are wondering whether such indoctrination also occurs in homeschooling: I imagine there are a few families where it does. For the sake of hypothesis, I am willing to grant that it most likely does in some cases. Then the natural question must be asked: if we get a situation where Mom & Pop's indoctrination is opposed to the state's indocrination agenda, by right which ought to trump the other (assuming all other things being equal - equal levels of claim to moral truth, for example)? And the clear answer is: the parents'. No question. The child "belongs" to the family much more integrally, in a much more definitive way, than to the state. The parents will love the child, which NOBODY ever said of the state.

And then, what if there are unequal claims of moral truth? That is, what if the state's claims for the "right" to indoctrinate are based not on a moral stand that "This is definitely the moral truth" but rather "this is the social milieu in which we would like our people to be comformed and comfortable to everyone else", vs. the parents claim that "we are teaching moral and religious truth that is in opposition to their theories." Does that make the matter one of religious freedom? Of course it does. If society as a whole isn't ready to oppose some family's ideas on moral truth with their own claim to a definite moral truth society cannot reasonably trump the parent's religious freedom right to raise their kids in their own faith.

Step2, we were not talking about the Amish but about the Romeikes, who have no inclination to stop educating their children at 8th grade, so why bring up the Amish? You might as well just admit that it was a gratuitous swipe at people who want to be *in some sense* countercultural (by home schooling) to say, "Hey, while we're being countercultural, why not just stop educating our kids at eighth grade?" Pointless and silly.

As for Wiccans, I was not proposing a comprehensive overhaul of immigration law to make it conform to all of my own ideals. Rather, I am and was suggesting that the Romeikes have a good claim under existing law and precedent. If Congress wants to clarify this, they could do so as they did for women seeking asylum to avoid forced abortion.

A little historical perspective might help here: The Clinton administration pursued Chinese women, trying to send them back for forced abortion, much as the Obama administration is pursuing the Romeikes. In both cases a Democrat administration was visibly hostile to otherwise reasonable claims for asylum and refugee status, and was hostile precisely because they did not sympathize with the reasons for seeking asylum, reasons which they associated with "the right." An official in the Clinton administration snarked something to the effect that, "We don't want somebody saying, 'I deserve asylum because I don't want to plan my family'," thus showing a chilling degree of sympathy for China's coercive sterilization and forced abortion regime.

Congress passed a law placing such women in the category of people being persecuted for their political views in order to clarify this and get around the actions of an administration that was merely ideologically hostile to that particular dissident group. In doing so they took the reasonable step of limiting the total number of people who could come into the country under that category. They could do something similar for home schoolers, and that was what I was alluding to. That such a move would in theory allow Wiccan home schoolers (or, for that matter, Muslim home schoolers) to apply for asylum as well would be relevant only if I were proposing some kind of comprehensive and ideal set of immigration rules.

Then the natural question must be asked: if we get a situation where Mom & Pop's indoctrination is opposed to the state's indocrination agenda, by right which ought to trump the other (assuming all other things being equal - equal levels of claim to moral truth, for example)?

It depends on a couple of things, most importantly how disruptive the indoctrination is. In times of war, and this is from US law, parents have no rights to teach substantive opposition to the state. During times of peace and tranquility, they can do so within vague limits that maintain public order.

If society as a whole isn't ready to oppose some family's ideas on moral truth with their own claim to a definite moral truth society cannot reasonably trump the parent's religious freedom right to raise their kids in their own faith.

We are going to get entangled in a dispute about liberty, because the state has to ability to say some activities fall within the scope of liberty of a free people. So the state doesn't lose its authority because one religion or another says that God condemns a particular activity. And unless the German government has outlawed that religion, (which they have considered for Scientology), the parents still have the ability to raise their kids in that faith.

Step2, we were not talking about the Amish but about the Romeikes, who have no inclination to stop educating their children at 8th grade, so why bring up the Amish?

Gosh, why would I bring up the most successful traditional countercultural group in America - a group that has created a religious parallel society that has been exempted from many of the laws and controls of the state? I don't know, maybe you brought up those subjects in the original post.

Tony,
The stark fact is it is seditious for a family to educate a child in values that are contrary to the values that inform the said State.
Now, the word seditious is merely politically descriptive and does not mean it is wrong for the family to do so.

Only that the family should be aware what it is doing and the likely consequences of proceeding so.

They are likely to be good citizens of America 1.0 but the why should America 2.0 welcome them?

-- I actually had one of my history teachers publically say that the point of "civic education" classes was to prevent people from voting for a certain "extreme-right" party (which consistently garners about 18% of the vote)--to the approval of all her peers.

And don't think this is only the case in Europe. I love my Civil War class, it's extremely interesting, but my gosh SHUT UP WITH THE POLITICS. EVERY person in the class, the Professor perhaps most of all, is ultra-liberal but me. I need to spend half the class trying not to snap at everybody.

Here are things the Professor, or students in the class that the Professor verbally agreed with, actually said:

. Word for word, that Catholics campaigning for social justice is an "oxymoron" (I very nearly started yelling in the middle of the class. One of the most offensive things I'd ever heard).

. Daily (not almost daily, but each and every class), that the entire Southern half of that the entire southern half of the United States is full of complete idiots (exact wording).

. Implied extremely heavily that Republicans are the only party that commits voter fraud, or at least the vast majority of voter fraud.

. Outright stated that the real reason behind Republicans asking for IDs before being allowed to vote was to keep Democrats out of the voting booths

. That people who didn't vote for Obama didn't vote for him because he was black. This was the day after the anti-Catholic slur so I finally snapped and told them that I didn't support Obama, so was I racist? They quickly told me that that "Wasn't what they said" and to "Chill". I got a hold of myself and calmed down.

. Daily, the Professor calls tea partiers "wackos" and ultra-conservatives, (like me for example), "nutcases".

. Not explicitly stated, but very heavily implied, that thinking Roe v. Wade was evil and believing abortion to be the most important issue of the election was "radical", meant as an insult.

. Stated that if you're in a big city where black people commit the majority of crimes and you cross the street when a black person walks by and you're white, you're "racist", not playing statistics.

. Explicitly stated that thinking planned parenthood is evil means you're crazy. Also said that "Only 3% of what they do is abortions!", as if that solved things.

. Every times the words "Fox News" are mentioned a massive "GROOOOAAAAN" erupts from the entire class.

I need to put up with this Every. Single. Class. Without fail.

I still like the class, because learning about the Civil War is incredibly interesting but OH MY GOSH, STOP WITH THE LIBERAL AGENDA. I actually considered quitting the class a couple of times because of it. But I won't.

Oh, and the many comparisons of illegal immigrants to slavery, of course. Can't forget that.

Sure, of course college courses in the U.S. are heavily politically biased and left-leaning. But at least, MarcAnthony, your parents weren't told when you were six years old or so that they would be fined into poverty or have you taken away from them permanently (or both) if you weren't sent to full-time public school to be put through similar indoctrination for the next twelve years. In the U.S., parents can at least look into some other legal options.

most importantly how disruptive the indoctrination is. In times of war, and this is from US law, parents have no rights to teach substantive opposition to the state. During times of peace and tranquility, they can do so within vague limits that maintain public order.

You know, I actually stopped and thought about "what if Dad wants to teach the kids to disrupt the state?" That's why I added "all other things being equal", because, you know, the state has not only a right but a duty to look out for the common good - and it's own continued existence - and if Dad is trying to teach the kid to damage the state, then all other things are NOT equal. Individual and family rights do NOT extend to putting the state in danger unjustly.

But NO, that's not what we have here. Nothing the German parents were trying to teach the kid was going to put the German state, or its security, or its safety, or its people in jeopardy. It is a purely political decision that they just don't LIKE people to be homeschooled, and they are willing to back that up with legal sanction. That sure sounds a lot like targeting a group for political reasons.

How would you like it, Step2, if Wyoming were to start putting socialists into jail, not for actually trying to violently overthrow the government, but for trying to teach their kids that socialism is better than capitalism? See, Wyoming doesn't think that it's OK to allow kids to doubt or even feel uncomfortable with capitalism. They are trying to run a tight ship, socially speaking, because that's how they make sure that the state doesn't have difficult personalities around asking unpleasant questions of people. Which is, y'know, incredibly dangerous, you never know what might happen if someone asks questions!

In the U.S., parents can at least look into some other legal optionsm blockquote>

True-as of now, at least.

Uh-oh, looks like I'm a radical crazy right-wing loony!

Lydia,
stop being such a wimp and support armed rebellion and revolution.
This is what it ultimately entails. The 1950's style individualism is inadequate to
the (self-appointed) task of fighting the 10th crusade.

The cry of political equality is born of Envy, as the cry of economic equality. The cry of weak, the slothful and deficient men. As there shall always be rich among men, there shall always be rulers among men.

The Church, when it came to power, closed down the pagan temples. She extinguished religious liberty whenever and wherever it attained power. For She is a Ruler. The only difference from a Moslem or a Communist State is that Church is the True Ruler.

Thus why the horror of burning books?. Singer's books should be burned. Church in Her heyday would have burned Singer himself.

I say again, to homeschool is an act of sedition against the State. For the State is not defined by violence (as libertarians falsely) maintain but by reason. And to teach a child to reason contrary to the State is to rear a subversive.

Everyone with any sense can see that Step2 and Gian are in lockstep on veneration of the State, so I hardly need show why the latter's counsel for American conservatives is to be doubted of its good faith.

MarcAnthony, I assume this is a state-supported institution? Strong suggestion: document each and every instance, by writing down the particulars after class, with date and time. (If there is even one other person who will verify your data, get them to do so regularly (every week would be good.)) At the end of the semester, or (if you might have to take another class from this professor) some later time, send in to the Dean and to the local newspaper an official complaint. Use the best 10 or 15 examples, (none that are slightly ambiguous, for example), and show that they are abridging people's freedoms by running a class this way - freedom of religion, for sure, but also freedom of speech as well. Just as it is illicit to chill free speech by making a person's views so unwelcome as to force them to shut up as it is to chill freedom of religion by starting class with a prayer to Jesus Christ when they don't believe in Jesus.

Oh, you won't get anywhere officially, at least not likely. At best you will get an insincere "apology" with snide comments about "he didn't really understand" and "was always seeing things in the wrong light" sort of nonsense. But it may put one or two people on guard against allowing the prejudice such free rein all day long, all the time.

...the state has not only a right but a duty to look out for the common good...

Which is a reason why the German government doesn't consider public schooling to be a bad thing, while homeschoolers obviously do. Personally, I have a slight amount of sympathy for homeschooling, but it is only slight.

Nothing the German parents were trying to teach the kid was going to put the German state, or its security, or its safety, or its people in jeopardy.

If they don't end up like Gian, I would agree. I mean, calling for armed rebellion against a democratically elected government because of a law in a different country? Combined with domestic book burning and burning at the stake, that is pure reactionary nonsense.

Step2, there's obviously a difference between "not considering x to be a bad thing" and forcing everybody to use x. I don't consider Brussels sprouts to be a bad thing, but I don't support a law requiring everybody to eat them. For that matter, and to give a more relevant example, I consider church attendance and children's Bible clubs and Sunday School to be very good things, but I don't support a law requiring everyone to attend church and send their children to Sunday School and Bible clubs. Let's not understate the draconian nature of the German legal setup. Essentially, the German govt. is requiring everyone to send their children for five days a week to receive ideological training from the state so that they do not develop "parallel" ideologies. That is totalitarian and creepy and very much akin to requiring all children to be raised in a state church.

That is totalitarian and creepy and very much akin to requiring all children to be raised in a state church.

I suppose it is if you think exposure to civil religion is creepy. Here is an online definition:

Set of quasi-religious attitudes, beliefs, rituals, and symbols that tie members of a political community together. As originally formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the concept referred to the virtues that citizens need to serve the state. The concept was later elaborated by the American sociologist Robert N. Bellah, who found in the U.S. a strong sense of “American exceptionalism” and reverence for secular elements such as the national flag, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, the annual holiday calendar, and the concepts of individualism and self-reliance. Another form of civil religion is presented by the example of Confucianism, where the nation is subordinated to a moral order.

If they don't end up like Gian, I would agree.

And I will bet you a good bottle of wine that he was NOT educated for grammar school and high school at home instead of in a brick & mortar school. "Ending up like Gian" isn't something you can ascribe to the schooling in any simple manner anyway.

That is totalitarian and creepy and very much akin to requiring all children to be raised in a state church.

It is more than merely "akin" to requiring kids to be raised in a state church. During the period of school hours, the children cannot help but receive from the state the state's views about religion. Whether these views are stated explicitly or made only implicit in 100 different ways (how the curriculum is structured, the allowed list of "acceptable" views explicitly put into literature, history, etc.) there is literally no way the state's views on religion can be sequestered off so that the children don't "get" what it is implying all along. For children to be in a secularized school for 35 hours per week (some, much more with extended day care etc), is for the children to be indoctrinated with secularism itself as a belief system. It's just more subtle than calling it a "state religion" and making it a separate subject to study.

And there is a VERY BIG difference between attitudes, beliefs, and rituals that tied the American community together as a community (before 1950), and secularism. You cannot equate secularism with the common patriotic and civic beliefs of the Henry Clays, the Lincolns.

Strong suggestion: document each and every instance, by writing down the particulars after class, with date and time. (If there is even one other person who will verify your data, get them to do so regularly (every week would be good.)

I very well might just do that. Yes, it's state supported-a community college. I enjoy the class. I really do. But there isn't even a pretense that they're trying to be partisan except for vague comments that "conservatives used to be able to make good points". Yeah. Sure.

Unfortunately, I doubt anybody would be willing to get on board with me though.

calling for armed rebellion against a democratically elected government because of a law in a different country? Combined with domestic book burning and burning at the stake, that is pure reactionary awesome
Edited for truth. :)

Speaking of history classes, mine have not been too bad, but I did go watch Machete for extra credit, which more than made up for that.

I doubt anybody would be willing to get on board with me though.

Well, getting someone else to verify the accuracy of your *documenting* is only useful in case someone calls you a liar, or impugns your accuracy. Which is only a bit-part in the overall struggle.

Sneaky way to do it - probably not worth your time - is to "take thorough notes" that covers everything not just the nasty stuff, and get various class members to comment on their accuracy. I can't figure out how you would get that in writing, though. Nah, never mind.

I realize now that my arguments are merely variations on Zippy's arguments, presented before November, that it is a sin to confer legitimacy on an election that presents a choice of grave intrinsic evil.

That is, if you vote for A against B (who stands for a grave evil), then you have to accept the possibility of B actually winning and by taking part in the election, you end up legitimizing B.

He argued from explicit Catholic point of view but I seem to have landed up in the same spot by a general political and logical perspective.

Logically, arguing with another person entails acceptance of the possibility that he ends up convincing you. Thus, you don't argue over your fundamental convictions.

Clarification:
Nowhere I have called for any call for arms. I merely point out the logic in Lydia's own statement.
It is very unsafe to play politics with one's enemies. But judging from the recent history, it appears to be an American trait.

are merely variations on Zippy's arguments, presented before November, that it is a sin to confer legitimacy on an election that presents a choice of grave intrinsic evil.

This is an argument that was explicitly rejected by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, in 2004 I think it was, in a letter to Cardinal McCarrick. I don't have time to find the reference right now.

It is very unsafe to play politics with one's enemies.

Ironic in light of how clearly this thread has revealed the view of a confessional state, ready and willing to deploy severe coercion to protect an orthodoxy, that you and Step2 share.

Gian plays at opposing things modern, and then gives robust defense of a Rousseauian civic religion that, quite rightly (we are to understand), crushes Christian homeschoolers.

Ironic in light of how clearly this thread has revealed the view of a confessional state, ready and willing to deploy severe coercion to protect an orthodoxy, that you and Step2 share.

Because I've written about persecuting the Amish, or any other religious group, or said that the German law is good, or claimed that Americans have no legal right to homeschool? Gian on the other hand did mention extinguishing religious liberty, so you might have something there. The only way I can be accused of defending "severe coercion" it is by respecting the autonomy of a different nation to make its own laws, which are necessarily coercive. Btw, if we should grant political asylum to German homeschoolers, we best have a very good legal reason for not granting asylum to parents from a bunch of other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics

You're right, Step2. Gian is indeed defending German coercion far more robustly than you. Hmm.

Well, Step2, when we're inundated with home schooling refugees from Malta and Montenegro, you can say "I told you so." Meanwhile, I already suggested that it would be understandable to have limits on the total numbers of people coming under particular categories in a given year, simply as a practical matter. That, however, is not what the Obama administration is proposing. There are also many countries in the world that persecute political dissidents and critics of the government, yet whaddaya know, being persecuted for being a political dissident is a known category for political asylum in the U.S.

There are also many countries in the world that persecute political dissidents and critics of the government, yet whaddaya know, being persecuted for being a political dissident is a known category for political asylum in the U.S.

That was an interesting response for a different reason than you intended. Do you consider homeschooling to be a type of political dissent and government criticism? Because I don't, and furthermore I'm fairly sure Germany permits government criticism. In any case, freedom of political speech is a fundamental American right and thus by civil religion a virtue, by your own admission homeschooling is not a fundamental right, although it can of course be virtuous.

I consider that the parents in question here are engaging in a kind of political dissent from the government by the very act of not turning their children over to the government. The government's political view is that it is wrong and un-civic to home school. They dissent and act accordingly and are punished by the government for this act of disobedience. I do consider that inter alia the question, "Do my children belong to the government to indoctrinate?" is a political question--one on which the home schoolers obviously differ from the German government.

My point, in any event, was that it certainly doesn't follow from, "Many governments in many lands persecute and disallow x" that "X should not be grounds for asylum in the U.S."

Many governments also persecute racial minorities, for example. Face it: The grounds for asylum appear on their face to be quite broad, and we'd be in a pickle if everybody who belongs to an oppressed people group were to seek asylum here. Consider only the fact that the "untouchables" of India would obviously fall under the category of being persecuted for being members of an identifiable social group and then ask whether we have room in America for all the members of that caste to come here at once. Obviously not. Yet nobody worries about that stuff, because all the people in the world who could qualify _don't_ come here at once. Nor do we conclude that these categories must be unreasonable simply because they would cover people in a lot of different countries. So your implicit argument was a poor one.

by your own admission homeschooling is not a fundamental right,

No, you missed that one. Lydia was saying even apart from whether homeschooling is a fundamental right, there are other perfectly adequate grounds for saying that asylum law covers this case. She was not "admitting"
the notion that homeschooling is not a fundamental right.

The problem, of course, is that "fundamental" in this context has an awful lot of baggage. Let's rephrase it a little: do parents have the fundamental right to raise their kids? Yes, the answer is YES, certainly, definitely. Though, just as with all of our other fundamental rights, they are rights within a context: the fundamental right to free speech does not include the right to yell "fire" in a crowded nightclub when there isn't one. The right to freedom of movement is lost when you commit a crime and are imprisoned. Fundamental rights are not free of all qualifications.

The right to raise their kids includes within it several facets, one of which is the right to direct their education. This is a fundamental aspect of that fundamental right. But again, it is subject to context: "directing" can be carried out so abusively as to amount to child neglect, if the parents' think that "I am going to wait until Johnny is 32 before I start to instruct him". The fact that parents have authority over their children doesn't mean they have the authority to gravely neglect or abuse them. And saying that abuse and neglect are limitations on the right doesn't disqualify the right from being fundamental.

Within rational limits, though, parents DO actually have a fundamental right to direct the education of their children. They have primacy of authority, even before (a) the state, and (b) the Church, in that regards. (This primacy is stated clearly in numerous Church documents, including the Catechism and Canon Law). The hierarchy of authorities (the state is higher than the family) and the origin of authorities (the family is prior to the state) makes it possible for the state to take a child away from the parents, ONLY FOR DUE CAUSE, and that due cause can only be found in a parent gravely abusing his position over the child. Short of that, the parents exercising their primacy of office are to be secure in that exercise without undue interference. Educating the child is both a right and duty of the parents, either by their own powers or by their obtaining the assistance of others. If the parents by a rational judgment decide that they can meet their obligation to educate on their own steam, they have a positive right to do so even if the state (or another entity) can prove that their education is good. When there is a dispute as to debatable objectives for said education, the state has no authority to simply supplant its preferred objectives for those of the parents. Doing so is a direct violation of subsidiarity.

I strongly suspect that when HSLDA lawyers, etc., argue that home schooling _is_ a fundamental right, they are using the term in much the sense that Tony has just laid out.

How that intersects with asylum law I don't know, which is one reason I didn't worry about it in the main post. The little research I've done indicates that persecution for one of the listed reasons is sufficient, and therefore that defining and delineating a "fundamental right" isn't necessary.

Tony,
The Brights agree with you. Only they deem depriving the children the benefits of a secular education
to be an instance of grave neglect and abuse.

Doing so is a direct violation of subsidiarity
which is honored neither in Germany nor in America.

Paul Cella,
isn't the fact that orthodoxy has largely broken down in America (and West more generally) a consequence of the unwillingness and unreadiness of the state to enforce orthodoxy?.

Why this distaste to enforce the orthodoxy? Was the West built through this scrupulosity?. Were the crusades (I to IX) fought thus?

The word orthodoxy does not imply coercion of individual conscience. Merely that the orthodoxy informs the State. It even implies respect for minority rights.

robust defense of a Rousseauian civic religion that, quite rightly crushes Christian homeschoolers.

Not even a word of defense. Merely that given their orthodoxy, they would do so.

Lydia,
the fact that the "untouchables" of India would obviously fall under the category of being persecuted
You are misinformed. On the contrary, they are thriving as never before. But conservatives get their foreign news through progressive channels, so it is expected. The Indian Christianity is all progressive.

isn't the fact that orthodoxy has largely broken down in America (and West more generally) a consequence of the unwillingness and unreadiness of the state to enforce orthodoxy?

No.

Not even a word of defense. Merely that given their orthodoxy, they would do so.

Nice evasion. But you asseverated that when faced with seditious teaching (a) orthodoxy by austere enforcement is just, and that (b) German orthodoxy prohibits Christians homeschooling their children, for that is to commit sedition.

You have left no room for qualifications like "orthodoxy does not imply coercion of individual conscience" and "even implies respect for minority rights."

The Brights agree with you. Only they deem depriving the children the benefits of a secular education to be an instance of grave neglect and abuse.

Gian, unlike liberals and progressives generally, I don't think that the meaning of "grave neglect and abuse" is to be understood procedurally as "whatever the majority wants to call grave neglect and abuse." Just as I don't think the "right" to an abortion is a right in the proper sense of the word, and to hell with the majority opinion on that. Whether people want them or not, there are realities that underlie our words and concepts and those realities do not bow to the opinion of media heavyweights.

Furthermore, the primacy of which I spoke means that it belongs primarily to the parents in first instance to decide on the concrete objectives of the education. It belongs to the state insofar as the parents seek assistance - parties outside of the family have a role insofar as the parents want that, not the other way around.

Why this distaste to enforce the orthodoxy? Was the West built through this scrupulosity?. Were the crusades (I to IX) fought thus?

The Roman Catholic Church, the most steadfast western claimant to orthodoxy, has repudiated such a view, in its Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae. Read it. Either you disagree with it, in which case you reject orthodoxy's own stance, or you agree with it and reject that "orthodoxy" of necessity implies enforced orthodoxy.

By the by, at least the bulk of the Crusades were fought over security of territory and the right of Christians to be in Palestine safely. They weren't primarily about enforcing orthodoxy on non-orthodox Christians.

As long as the "untouchables" face any sort of systematized discrimination for belonging to a group through no fault of their own, my example holds. AS far as I know, that is still true. But pick something else if you like--some African tribe systematically persecuted by its government. We don't actually want the entire tribe transported en masse to the U.S. The point is that these asylum categories are quite broad and would in theory allow a lot of people to come here, but generally we don't use that to exclude individuals. We assume, rather, that not all the people who could in theory take advantage of the categories will do so. There is no more reason to exclude home schoolers on the grounds that a lot of countries have laws against home schooling than to make a similar argument about racial, caste, or political persecution or totalitarianism.

Lydia,
any sort of systematized discrimination for belonging to a group
Very low bar this. American whites would qualify since they are discriminated against by affirmative action quotas.
All Indians face systematized discrimination somewhere in India so all of them would qualify.

Tony,
You are missing my point since you ever think in individualistic terms and hardly politically.
Eg when you say
They weren't primarily about enforcing orthodoxy on non-orthodox Christians.
But they meant to establish orthodoxy on particular states and also they discriminated among Christians, Jews and Muslims. Equal rights were not granted to all. Eg ancient Church abolished pagan worship but tolerated Jewish practice, provided they knew their place.

regarding schooling, a general comment not directed to the special case of persecuted Christians.

Aristotle says that rule in the households becomes perverted when detached from the rule in the City.
I have quoted this previously on this site. This is a very wise observation.

Schooling has ever been done in a social setting. It really takes a village to educate a child. That is, Schooling is done by the City (that is, the State) but the City itself is informed by the Church. This is no denial of any parental rights since either
1) The parents are citizens in the full sense i.e. they belong to the Church (meaning they share in the State orthodoxy).
2) The parents are minority group. Then the group itself forms a sub-city and undertakes to educate its children. Eg in India, minority educational institutions are given certain privileges.

When you say
it belongs primarily to the parents in first instance to decide on the concrete objectives of the education
You are denying the political nature of man; your preconceptions here are Lockean. Parents are simply not and can never be so detached from the City. They have ever been a part of the City and simply can not have any individual objectives apart from the City. Remember, classically the City is the community of people united in the common object of love and that common object is the City itself.
Similarly
It belongs to the state insofar as the parents seek assistance
And why would not they want it. You assume an alienated citizenry, a natural assumption, I suppose for a beleaguered Christian but the temporary situation should not blind us to permanent realities.
The reality is that a State forms its individuals, as I think you corrected me once.

Similarly, Dignitatis Humanae, if I am not mistaken, hardly talks about the political matter of intelligent discrimination between people. I am not talking about forcing individual consciences but of privileging certain consciences. Eg in England, the fellows of the Universities had to confess belief in the thirty-nine articles.

Paul Cella,
I realize that subversion would be apter than sedition. The later word has too-strong connotations.
I had not yet made any value judgment. But now I make one--it is good for Christians to subvert atheistic regimes. It was good to subvert Communist Russia. Indeed, a Christian can not help but subvert an atheistic regime.
Persecuting Christians is what the atheistic states do. Mexico is a near example. It had waves of anti-Christian persecution.

I realize that I created some confusion by using the word orthodoxy both for the public reason that informed any state (their orthodoxy) and the Christian orthodoxy (used without any modifier or qualification.
It was the Christian orthodoxy that enjoined respect for minority rights for Jews (but not for pagans and Muslims?).
Tolerating a minority is different from establishing the minority belief in the public reason . The State is to be informed by the Orthodoxy of the Church only. This is what I meant by enforcing the orthodoxy. This is entirely consistent with a whole panoply of minority freedom and rights (even of atheists and pagans).

Tony,
The German state suppresses Nazism as well. Would you say, as do some conservatives, that it is being tyrannical in not allowing the freedom of Nazi discourse?.
Should parents be free to homeschool their children in Nazi precepts?

it belongs primarily to the parents in first instance to decide on the concrete objectives of the education.

See this item for The Corner at NRO:

A Colorado school district has informed two parents that their first-grade son, Coy Mathis, will not be able to use the girls’ bathroom at their local elementary school, prompting the family to file a complaint with the state’s civil-rights division. The reason for their complaint is that although Coy is a boy, he identifies as a girl.

The Fountain-Fort Carson School District reasoned that even though Coy identifies as a girl, his presence in a girls’ bathroom could make girls uncomfortable, especially as he develops physically over the years. Instead, his school will offer the first-grader access to the gender-neutral faculty bathrooms or the nurse’s bathroom, along with the boys’ room.

The parents, who will homeschool their child until further notice, disagreed with the decision, saying that the district was “targeting [Coy] for stigma, bullying and harassment” and missing an opportunity “to teach Coy’s classmates a valuable lesson about friendship, respect and basic fairness.” CNN also reports that Coy’s state-issued ID and passport recognize him as a girl. But, the district attorney pointed out that the school refers to Coy as is requested by the parents and permits him to wear girls’ clothes, and that the decision regarding the bathroom was made out of consideration to female students and to set a precedent for older students.

And your point is that this is some kind of black eye for home schooling? Puh-lease. I say, if nothing else, the school is well rid of a child who would be disruptive. In Massachusetts, they are going in the opposite direction and will punish children who object to a boy using the girls' bathroom.

For what it's worth, I've been doing some research into Head Start programs. The opinions of them are very mixed.

You know what would get much better results? Ending tenure. But of course, we can't touch the precious teachers' unions.

Some people seem to be calling for a total redesign of the program. Okay. Now explain what it is.

If we really want to help students, improve the teachers.

Lydia,
no black eye to homeschooling, properly understood. But a consequence of the view that
it belongs primarily to the parents in first instance to decide on the concrete objectives of the education

What's the consequence? That the state doesn't take the child away from the parents for raising him as a girl? Wouldn't that depend on whether raising him as a girl amounted to child abuse? I fully admit that such judgements are judgements based on moral premises, but since both Tony and I have admitted that such judgements must be made and that parents can abuse their authority over their children, then perhaps this is such a case. Neither Tony nor I ever advocated that principle as indefeasible. Notice the phrase "in the first instance." If you're involving your child in your drug-dealing business or your pornography business, then you've abused your prima facie authority.

Let's remember in this particular case that the school, that institution of "socialization," had *no problem* with playing along with the destructive pretense that this little boy is a girl. They just didn't want to play along quite so far as to have him using the girls' bathroom.

Right, Lydia.

Gian, what you are pointing to as a "consequence" is simply the consequence of parents have authority to raise their child. That's what parental authority means. If parents don't have that authority, then there is no argument here. The only possible way one can argue that these parents are abusing the authority of their office is if you first admit that the parental office does in fact have authority capable of being abused.

I am quite well aware of the awful, intense idiocy of parents who want to play around with the "Coy"s of this damaged generation, to mal-form kids according to their degenerative notions. At some point that playing around does in fact amount to child abuse. When that abuse arises to a level that overcomes the rightful, natural presumption in favor of parental authority, the state can take a positive role.

One: Last year 56,000 people requested asylum in the U.S. Of those, 24,000 requests were granted. Most of those who were granted asylum got it because their lives would be in danger if they returned. This isn't the case here.

Two: Conservatives have argued that the U.S. Constitution should only apply to U.S. citizens. The Romeikes aren't U.S. citizens, and so by the precedent that conservatives have tried setting in the last decade, they aren't afforded First Amendment protection.

While they are _here_ they are afforded 1st amendment protection, and should be. American laws apply to people on our soil. For example, a non-citizen living on American soil should not be subject to double jeopardy, nor should he be denied the right to face his accusers, and so forth, simply because he is in fact a non-citizen. I don't recall knowing of any conservative who has argued that, while living here, non-citizens lack 1st amendment protections.

Obviously, the 1st amendment isn't directly relevant to applications for asylum. However, indirectly, it is also pretty obvious that our own American notions of justice and the like, of which things like the right to political dissent, have informed the development of the categories for political asylum.

It is not, in fact, necessary to prove that you will lose your life or even probably lose your life but only that you will suffer serious persecution in order to get political asylum.

Look, deal with it: The conditions for political asylum are fairly broad, and a good argument can be made that the Romeikes fall under them. If you don't like the categories, argue with someone else. The fact is that the Obama admin. would be taking an entirely different line and would not be wasting time and taxpayer money trying to deport these carefully law-abiding immigrants if they happened to be more sympathetic to the politics and ideology of the immigrants. Just look at all the trouble they are going to to get illegals granted amnesty.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.