I couldn't agree with you more,Spunky. And when you think about the UN Treaty this is a distinct possibility. Why anyone would want to be "policed" in how they raise their children and educate them is beyond me. And I have no doubt that there are a few out there who maybe don't do a good job with educating their children at home. But, those are few and far between. So why should we all be "policed" because of a few? The public schools aren't doing a great job educating children that far outnumber those few.
Oh, so now the purpose of schools is to integrate children into society. Gee, I thought it was to educate people. Who knew?
This is completely absurd, and really scary considering the father SHOULD be qualified to teach his own children if he has a college degree in teaching. It's obviously not about the children's education at all. The father is probably qualified to teach in the public schools, but not his own children. Good heavens, this is so stupid it makes my blood boil.
Someone please go knock some sense into these people. I nominate Spunky.
Sorry I don't speak German. I'm having enough trouble just getting the English speaking Americans to understand what's really going on to be much help over there.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law:
"...homeschooling is illegal in Germany since Adolf Hitler outlawed it in 1938."
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/139
I found this quote rather humorous -
"Andre R has worked part-time as a private teacher for neighbourhood families..."
You mean that students attending the schools (that armed men are taking his children from their home to cart them off to) still need a tutor at the end of the day? Who-da-thunk-it?
"Das ist nichts gut."
I lived there for 7 yrs. and was able to homeschool (only did it for a year) because I fell under U.S. military law and not German law.
I remember my German friends telling me some horror stories about their system.
So sad. I will cover this family in prayer.
ADC
I'm reading John Taylor Gatto's book, "An Underground History of American Education" (available to read online at his website http://www.johntaylorgatto.com). In it, he repeatedly shows the Prussian origin of our education system...and he pointed to those very concepts of integrating children into society as the primary goal of Prussian education. This isn't new in Germany. The trick is to keep it from coming here....
"The trick is to keep it from coming here."
That's one of the reasons I started my blog. I have been reading about this for over 13 years. Bits of the German system is already here. Various states have implemented different aspects of it. That's why a national exam and testing is such a problem.
Gatto's book does an excellent job of discussing this issue. I hope every homeschooler reads it.
A similar situation happened to the Bryants in Massachusetts.. The state took custody of the kids but did not remove them from the home and they were told that they had to take the state test... the kids sat down with the exam but refused to put pencil to paper.. the state could not force them to take the test apparently.
Actually, the whole thing isn't as easy as it appears, German authorities can't simply take away custody just because your children don't turn up to school, it's lengthy process in which serious wrongdoing of the parents has to be proven.
Now, the argument of the judge was that the children are kept completely seperated from society an other people in a detached parallel-society, they would only leave the house in company of the parents, usually only once weak to church on sundays.
This would severely hinder a normal emotional and personal developement, they wouldn't learn important social and cultural skills.
While he acknowledged the love and the devotion of the parents towards the children, in this case the right of the children to a normal developement that would leave them prepared for live was ruled more important than the parental rights.
I agree with him.
I haven't read that in any of the aritcles that I've read. Do you have a link to show that the parents completely isolated the children? I have talked with another family who was involved and that didn't seem to be the caee. So I would like to know the source of the information if possible.
My daughter is friends with the children of the German equivalent of Michael Farris. The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany is increasing daily. They fought a valient battle, but in the end it finally got so bad for them that they had to leave for the U.S. Fortunately, his wife is an American citizen, so they could come here without much difficulty.
I seriously doubt this family is "extreme," but rather that they are being portrayed that way by the authorities. They are certainly not the only ones in Germany who are experiencing the crushing boot of the state on their small homeschooling family.
That's my suspicion as well Charley. To the government of Germnay, homeschooling is extreme and not acceptable. So why would we expect them to find any of the other parenting choices this family makes any different?
I'd say it's already here. Fitting the individual for society has long been Germany's main goal in education and court decisions as well as political statements state that rather clearly.
The central problem is their view of rights. Although our conception of fundamental rights is Germanic in origin, they have lost that and view them as something granted by the state. I actually wrote a bit on the German education system awhile back, but I like this link better. It is quite good (incidentally, I think the link you have misrepresents the Gesamtschule."
A quote:
"As in most other Länder of Germany in Hamburg parents started demanding Inclusive Education for their children with and without special needs in the early 80ies. They wanted common life to continue from the kindergarten to the primary school. As in other Länder, many experts at the Ministry of Education and at the Institute of Special Education at the Hamburg University declared these parents mad and asked if they had anything against their children. Some said that these parents were unable to accept the problems of their children and categorized them as people with a 'Syndrom of Digestion'. "
Note that "inclusive education" meant that the parents did not want their 10 year old to be set into a track that could not be changed. They wanted their child to have the same chances at high paying careers and university as those who were academically successful at 10.
Thanks Dana for those links. I actually tried to find them on your site but couldn't. Glad you posted them. They are definitely good to read. The link I had represents more the way we are headed right now. It may not totally represent the German way, but it was shown to me as the model we are attempting to follow here in the US.
Thanks, Spunky : ) The thing with the Gesamtschule is minor...it's just that that is the form of school I attended while there so am probably a bit pickier on how it is defined, as irrelavent as it is to the topic. It is an attempt at a solution to the "most segregated school system in Europe." Ironically, copying the idea of the American high school to some degree in its concept.
Goodness, I think I'll just post on this on my own blog...it will be easier than sifting through the hundreds of unread items in my bloglines and email to find something interesting to write about : )
btw, there are "bits" of the German system that I would love to see our system adopt. Why is it that we consistently take the worst in other systems to replace the best in our own so that we get the worst of both worlds?
We seem to be taking the very bits that German society is wrestling with and, at least in some conversations, looking "across the pond" at us for solutions. And yet those are the very things we wish to emulate.
hope you enjoyed your vacation from me as I'm back for the third time this evening, but here was what I wanted to say...mostly in response to Toasty.
"I haven't read that in any of the aritcles that I've read. Do you have a link to show that the parents completely isolated the children?"
Several German articles on Spiegel Online.
http://www.spiegel.de/
schulspieg...,434006,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/
schulspieg...,401569,00.html
That's something you have to understand about Homeschooling in Germany, it has actually very little public support and tradition in the country, even with many deeply religious people.
People so vigorously in favour of HS are often quite detached from modern Germany as whole anyway.
Not because they are homeschoolers, it's the other way around, because they are "oddballs", if you excuse the term, they start considering the rather foreign (by german standards) idea.
Being an oddball shouldn't and doesn't lose you your children, but completely isolating and violating their rights should.
As for the Hitler reference, that's a technical argument at best.
Classic homeschooling hat been outlawed in pretty much all major German states, most notably Prussia which made up about 50% of the Reich, for many decades by 1933 anyway, Hitler centralised Germany, and therefore the ban moved from state to reichs-level, but in reality very little actually changed in that respect, except for a few rural mini-states.
The original reason for the ban wasn't all that ideological either, it was to prevent parents from using their children als workslaves/ a source of income under the guise of homeschooling.
Don't expect expect any major changes to the law any time soon, the fear of prallel societies in Germany has dramatically increased with the London bombings, the bombers were born and raised in Europe, and as homeschooling laws would apply to Christians and Muslims alike, the idea of completely unregulated, possibly religious fundamentalist schooling is therefore not a popular one in Germany.
" but here was what I wanted to say...mostly in response to Toasty."
I'm not a fan of (ab)using the federal tax system to collect church alms either (but you don't have to pay "church" tax after all), I'm actually a secularist to the bone, though to be fair, the state churches are highly integrated into the welfare state, which, while in itself debateable, kind of justifies the the state doing some bureaucratic church work in return.
Germany having State churches is the same as Britain or the Netherlands being a monarchy, technically it is the case, but in reality it's not as bad as it sounds.
As for what and what not is classified as a cult, I'm actually on the fence with this one.
There are religous groups, inside and outside the christian spectrum, that I am highly critical of, because I'm sure they undermine the constitional order, and infringe upon the rights of their members by means that have to qualified as criminal.
That the 2 big churches are involved in the classification might seem odd at first, and I would prefer they weren't, but after all, they technically represent about 65% of the German population, and some 80 or 90% or so of the german religous population so going with the consensus-policy that rules German institutions, I guess you couldn't leave them out.
Institutional pragmatism, more than anything, maybe comparable to unions having representatives in company boards.
I don't like it, but it's better than battling against them all the time.
Germany has a longer tradition of homeschooling than that. Compulsory education laws began under the Weimar Republic, but they were never enforced and were really only for the "lower classes." The feudal lord types continued in their traditional form of schooling involving governesses and tutors for many years. It was an attempt to give poorer youth some sort of a chance at a future, but not something the upper classes wished to have their children mixed up in.
I was somewhat involved in the discussion about the so-called cults in Germany...but that took place through the Kennedy Center in Kiel so had a distinctly American bias. I don't think I made too many friends in those discussions, but I found them very interesting and it fit well with my general opinion of the more European mindset of the role of government in people's lives. While I am decidedly against such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Scientologists, it is difficult for me to comprehend their being illegal. That is far outside the powers of government as set up by our constitution...I realize Germany is a very different country...but we contributed a fair amount to the writing of their constitution. And it serves as such a nice example of where our politics are leading us...toward something that is antithetical to our national history and tradition. (Incidentally, I don't haveno problem with granting the same rights to Muslims and other "extremist" groups in homeschooling or anything else...it is not the governmnt's role to play favorites in the religious affairs of man, only to maintain some sense of order and national security).
Interestingly, in February 2006, homeschool advocates in Germany filed a complaint with UN officials, claiming human rights abuses in the German school system and because they persecute homeschooling so heavily. The UN responed with a visit, but as of yet I have not heard any official opinion from the UN. Personally, I do feel the UN has no business in the affairs of Germany...they are a sovereign nation and have every right to self-determination. If they want homeschooling illegal, that is their affair...but I can still hold my personal opinion of the difficulties of such a highly centralized system, and warn of what I see the potential dangers of adopting similar measures here in the US.
My issue with this board the Parliament has set up to control the so-called cults isn't so much about the two state churches' control of it, but that it exists at all. We don't have such a group, and yet we still manage to prosecute those who engage in illegal activities such as polygamy and pedophilia associated with their religion, whether it be a "cult" or a mainstream religious group. I personally view quite a few religious groups as marginal at best...but unless they are engaging in physically harmful activities, the government has no role in regulating them.
While the church tax is technically voluntary, you canno
(continued)
While the church tax is technically voluntary, you cannot receive a church burial if you do not pay it...something most Germans seem to want. The church tax has numerous problems...both in the scenario I outlined in my post and in the responsiveness of churches to the needs of their congregations. They answer to the state, not to God or to their congregations.
It has created an interesting problem in Germany. Really, I believe this goes for much of Europe, but I am not so familiar with the affairs of the rest of Europe. Here in the US, we are arguing case after case about religious symbols with the ACLJ defending the cross and the ten commandments as historic or cultural symbols. Religious language in political discourse is increasingly taboo, and any religious expression is increasingly controlled. Yet religion has not died. In Germany, the symbols are ubiquitous. The churches are funded through tax dollars, great cathedrals are renovated with tax dollars, women must have a signed note that they talked with a pastor of some sort before receiving an abortion, relgion classes are taught in the public schools and one of the major parties has "Christian" in its name. Yet all this is essentially empty shadows of Germany's past with little actual religious belief left in the country, even within the churches themselves. Our mainstream churches would be considered "extreme" and "fundamentalist" by German standards...so when I read Spiegel's reports and others marginalizing particular religious groups, I am suspicious of just how "extreme" they really are. Incidentally, Spiegel has had some postive articles on homeschooling recently. Spiegel being what Spiegel is, it rather surprised me.
"Germany has a longer tradition of homeschooling than that. Compulsory education laws began under the Weimar Republic, but they were never enforced and were really only for the "lower classes." The feudal lord types continued in their traditional form of schooling involving governesses and tutors for many years. It was an attempt to give poorer youth some sort of a chance at a future, but not something the upper classes wished to have their children mixed up in."
The Weimar Republic was the phase from 1919-1933, compulsory education in Prussia, for example, for the lower classes at least, goes back to Hardenberg, von Stein and the lot in the early 19th century.
And compulsory education was applied to some 95% of the population, as soon as the classes were legally done, (1919) so were the exceptions for the aristocracy.
Besides, few of the aristocrates educated their children themselves, therefore barely qualifying as classic homeschooling.
Homeschooling was never a widespread phenomenon in Germany, there was and is almost no grassroots movement whatsoever, I think it's hard to argue with that.
" it is difficult for me to comprehend their being illegal."
They aren't "illegal" by default, again, a long and lenghty process (of which there are many in Germany) they are denied some legal advantages for religious groups and often monitored for illegal activity.
The reasoning for this is simple, the state is obligated to protect organized religion, but he has to have ways and means to protect abuse of that practise.
Also, if a group is breaking laws, the sticker "religion" schouldn't protect it in any way.
The reason why the classification as "cult" is necessary has more to do with the way the German legal system works, many benefits, priveliges and responsibilities are awarded to groups rather than individual persons, therefore you have to legally deal with groups as whole.
"but I can still hold my personal opinion of the difficulties of such a highly centralized system, and warn of what I see the potential dangers of adopting similar measures here in the US."
Justfor the record, Germany isn't highly centralized, it's highly bureaucratic, legally it's almost as federalist as the USA, even though it's smaller than California.
"but unless they are engaging in physically harmful activities, the government has no role in regulating them."
Financial and psychologic harm are illegal as well, esp. the financial aspect is very hard to nail down to individual persons.
"While the church tax is technically voluntary, you cannot receive a church burial if you do not pay it"
That's definately wrong (I am in the business) church owned cemeteries have the right to chose their "customers", that's right, but they rarely do, at least here in the northeast. But with public cementaries it's down to the individual charter when it comes to what and what no is allowed (pretty much everything, though some are rather concerned with rock music and the like).
Wether you get a formal church burial depends on the local clergyman.
If you can find a burial ground and a clergyman of your faith, you can get a any burial you want, nobody is going to ask for your tax record.
" In Germany, the symbols are ubiquitous. The churches are funded through tax dollars, great cathedrals are renovated with tax dollars, women must have a signed note that they talked with a pastor of some sort before receiving an abortion, relgion classes are taught in the public schools and one of the major parties has "Christian" in its name."
Sorry, a whole lot of half truths in there.
Not only the two big state churches have their own "taxes", also the "central committee of German Jews" and several smaller christian churches do that.
Every formally organized religion can do that, but cults can't, that's why there is that distinction.
"Church tax" euros, aren't "tax euros" per definition anyway, as they aren't compusory.
"State collected alms" fit the practice.
I don't pay them, for example.
You don't have to visit a pastor if you want an abortion, you have to visit a counsellor.
Church institutions are state accepted counselling institutions, but there are also secular ones.
Religion classes aren't taught in all states, and are under no circumstances compulsory.
"Our mainstream churches would be considered "extreme" and "fundamentalist" by German standards...so when I read Spiegel's reports and others marginalizing particular religious groups, I am suspicious of just how "extreme" they really are."
The whole Idea of German religious policy was and is to prevent religious fundamentalism, when the second Reich was formed 1971, religious differences between the dominating, protestant North and the catholic south were a major concern, when Bismarcks Katholikengesetze wouldn't work out, a more rational approach to moderation was taken, after WW2, with a lot of protestant areas lost the policy was continued.
What you might consider a problem, the moderation and involvement of the churches in the modern society, is to me a great achievement, and a developement that has to continue, especially when the religious landscape is profoundly changing with demographic developement and the immigration people of turkish and middle eastern origins.
Which brings me to the last, rather controversial thing.
"(Incidentally, I don't haveno problem with granting the same rights to Muslims and other "extremist" groups in homeschooling or anything else)"
Me neither.
I don't consider Muslims per se extremist, I just realize there is a small, but significant number of extremists among the muslims living here.
I don't want those people to homeschool their children because I don't want them to seclude them from the country they live in, the values that form it, as I think integration and understanding are the only way to prevent home-grown terrorism.
If that means that a few christian fundamentalists cannot homeschool their children, then I consider it a small price to pay.
I understand that Germany is a federal system like ours...but that does not negate centralization. Public transportation, the telephone system, education, health care, etc...all things which here are traditionally fully under local control are under the control of the central government in Germany.
Interesting on the church burial...my pastor friend in Northern Germany is the one who told me you must pay the church tax in order to receive church services such as burial. Maybe that is just her congregation, but it seemed in line with other reports I have read and seen. And I had a Christian friend who decided she couldn't pay the church tax because she was opposed to certain actions of the state churches and didn't feel she could support them. She was grieved that this effectively excommunicated her from her church.
My issue with state churches is not so much what that does to secularism, but what that does to the church. Southern Baptists seem to be considered in the "extremist fundamentalist" group over there while they are pretty mainstream here. President Clinton was supposedly Southern Baptist. We manage to control illegal activities and while "religious reasons" may protect some individuals in some sorts of behavior, it does not protect them from outright crime.
Sorry...I knew that you just had to visit a counselor, not necessarily a church one. Obviously it isn't relavent here, but I doubt that the state would accept the input from a pastor. That was my point, not that everyone needed counselling from a pastor. I know some pastors have questioned the practice, feeling that in many ways signing the form is like signing a permission slip rather than really helping dissuade the person from an abortion. It is just interesting to me...nothing more, really.
And back to the extremists and so-called cults, whether technically illegal or not...I do not see why you think they need to be controlled as a group as opposed to the illegal activities of individuals. That is a foreign concept to me. We have a fundamental difference in worldview as to the role of the church and the role of the state in the church. Yes, Germany has a long and complicated religious history. The Protestant Reformation was not pretty in the German landscape and I understand the desire to mediate between groups. But we have many religious groups here who are fundamentally opposed to one another. Some are quite strong in their language and some I wish would just fade away. But yet we manage not to blow each other up and set each other's farms on fire. And those few who do things like shoot doctors manage to end up in prison (where they belong) without their group necessarily losing its freedom unless the group itslef actually promotes the killing of doctors.
I don't think that controlling homeschooling is going to prevent "home grown" terrorism. I actually believe there is a lot Germany could do to help with their integrat
I don't think that controlling homeschooling is going to prevent "home grown" terrorism. I actually believe there is a lot Germany could do to help with their integration problem with Turks and other groups of immigrants, but that is an entirely different subject and again, I have a distinctly American perspective. We also have a somewhat longer tradition here that favors individual rights and liberties, meaning the state cannot take them away without cause. Hence, being associated with a group which has been linked with illegal activity does not automatically negate your rights, such as in the education of your children. (Although you may come under greater scrutiny, especially since 9/11). Controlling groups may actually make the problem worse.
Sorry, but that is just a fundamentally different world view. I think we have more to fear from state control than from isolated groups of people who may or may not wish to do us harm. Just for some perspective, look at the way Germany has tended to crontol the neo-Nazi movement and the way America has tended to stand back and merely watch the KKK. Both groups are a serious threat to safety and deserve some scrutiny due to their history. But Germany's tendency has been to control Nazi demonstrations and the US tendency is to just watch and monitor the activities of the KKK. The KKK is not quite the same threat that it used to be...but the neo-Nazi movement seemed to be growing at least when I was there. There a lot of factors in that, not least of which was problems with unification. There are certain parallels, however, and only bring them up because it highlights a distinct difference in the way American and Germany view groups of significantly varying viewpoints, even when they become potentially dangerous. I know Germany does not have wide scale support for homeschooling...that has never been an issue. Perhaps my history is off...I don't know, it is from Unterricht zu Hause which obviously has an interest in promoting homeschooling. However, I know Konrad Adenauer was homeschooled...one of Germany's greatest statesmen in my opinion. Prior to the Weimar Republic (and during really) Germany as we know it didn't really exist. Germany as we know it hardly existed prior to Hitler and I know a lot of Germans who rejected the vocabulary for "re-unification" mentioning that it was the first time outside of Nazi Germany that "Germany" was a single nation. For specific laws, etc., one would almost have to look city by city. And enforcement was a different matter.
Much the same argument was made here in the early days of the modern homeschooling movement. To find our "tradition" of homeschooling, one would have to go back to the early 1800s. There is a large gap there...almost 100 years where public school was the norm. So is that really "tradition?" Anymore than in Germany? It wasn't an issue until a sizable portion of the population determined their values diffe
Much the same argument was made here in the early days of the modern homeschooling movement. To find our "tradition" of homeschooling, one would have to go back to the early 1800s. There is a large gap there...almost 100 years where public school was the norm. So is that really "tradition?" Anymore than in Germany? It wasn't an issue until a sizable portion of the population determined their values differed from the state's. And here, the state's responsibility is not to ensure unity of thought and practice, but to ensure security and liberty.
As I said, Germany has a right to determine its own affairs for its own reasons. I'm not predicting a Third World War instigated by our sister Germany by any means...it is a beautiful country and I loved my time there. But there are a lot of policies there which are foreign to American history. Yet we are adopting these reforms and hearing similar argumentation for these reforms here in the states. They don't fit...and they deny some of the rights and liberties that our forefathers fought for.
Thanks for the discussion!
This is way off topic, but one of the things that really surprised me when I was over there the first time was that most of the neo-Nazi's propoganda is/was actually printed in California. That seemed like the biggest irony to me!
"Public transportation, the telephone system, education, health care, etc...all things which here are traditionally fully under local control are under the control of the central government in Germany."
Em, no? I can see where you come from, but public transport and telecommunications are privatised, for years, health care is a huge overregulated behemoth, but neither tax founded (it's technically a mandatory insurance) nor directly state controlled, education is "ländersache" which means, is regulated on state level, not federal level (apart from a few obvious basics, that are mostly given in the constitution anyway).
You'd be amazed how powerless the "central government" actually is in Germany compared to other european states.
___
"Prior to the Weimar Republic (and during really) Germany as we know it didn't really exist. Germany as we know it hardly existed prior to Hitler and I know a lot of Germans who rejected the vocabulary for "re-unification" mentioning that it was the first time outside of Nazi Germany that "Germany" was a single nation. For specific laws, etc., one would almost have to look city by city. And enforcement was a different matter."
OK, it's off-topic, but that's a pretty wild theory there, considering the WR was nothing but the 2nd Reich of 1871 rehashed, and that was nothing but the North German Federation +Friends under a different name.
And the NGF was nothing but a fancy name for "Prussian sphere of influence in Germany".
And the latter third Reich was called the third reich because Hitler alluded to 2 Reichs before, obviously.
The first one, existing, more or less, from medieval times to 1806, not a nationstate in the traditional sense, but already with a strong "teutonic theme" and more importantly, the second one from 1871 to 1918, (which was critized by German nationalists for not encompassing the German parts of Austria, for all things) but was stil a nationstate in that the overwheming majority of it's citizens were German and also considered themselves as such.
Indeed German re(!)unification was the common theme during the 19th century for almost the complete political spectrum from right to left, culmulating in the Revolution 1848.
Long before Hitler German nationalism had overtaken local sentiment to a point where deviding the Reich of 1871 wasn't on the table anymore, indeed, even the (intended) joining of German Austria after WWI had to be explicitly forbidden under the treaty of Versailles, long before Hitler appeared on the scene.
Hitler did, apart from annexing Austria in '38 which certainly isn't on the table today or was in '89, nothing to unite "Germany", he merely changed the administrative structure of the existing Reich for political reasons, but even that happened within the boundaries of the 1919 constitution which he never bothered to formaly abolish or replace.
Germany was never the centralistic Nationstate that France was, but then, I
...consider that a bad thing.
"I know Konrad Adenauer was homeschooled...one of Germany's greatest statesmen in my opinion."
He made his Abitur at a catholic Gymansium ("high school") I doubt he lived there
Also, while I respect him as a post-war figure, I am not a fan of his role during the Weimar years.
OK, enough history lessons.
"my pastor friend in Northern Germany is the one who told me you must pay the church tax in order to receive church services such as burial."
Well, as the church tax is used to pay for church expenses such as burial grounds and pastors, I fail to see the problem here, even in Europe, not everything is free.
I don't feel qualified to speak of the theological ramifications that come with resigning from one of the big churches, because, quite frankly, I don't care that much, but nobody is forcing you into the big 2, there are a lot of other free churches, some with taxes, some without.
"I don't think that controlling homeschooling is going to prevent "home grown" terrorism."
If you insert an "alone" in there I would agree, but stand by the theory that radical elements should bring up their children completely seperated from the society they live in, of course only as one of many measures to prevent home grown terrorism.
" We manage to control illegal activities and while "religious reasons" may protect some individuals in some sorts of behavior, it does not protect them from outright crime."
Well, what than about corporate laws?
There are laws that apply to corporations, and unions and families and other groups of all kinds, why make a difference for religious groups, esp. when -and here the dog bites it's tail- such groups are granted special privileges.
I don't like the church tax either, but if you protect religious groups, and enlist them, as independet entities, in the political process, you have to walk the whole mile and regulate them in return.
You create an unbalance if you don't.
Germany was never the centralistic Nationstate that France was, but then, I DON't consider that a bad thing.
(the "don't" got lost, sorry.)
"Much the same argument was made here in the early days of the modern homeschooling movement. To find our "tradition" of homeschooling, one would have to go back to the early 1800s. There is a large gap there...almost 100 years where public school was the norm. So is that really "tradition?" Anymore than in Germany?"
Aside from the fact that I still maintain that homeschooling in most of Germany was basically done for the majority of the population after the wars of independence in the early 19th century, one thing you have to realize about Germany is that it is a deeply conservative (original meaning of the word) society deeply in love with existing structures and compromises.
Heck, the biggest upheaval in the newer history of the German Nationstate (1871+) was indeed Hitler, and he didn't putsch his way to power, he got elected, at first into a coalition government nonetheless.
And when he was finally gone, everything basically went back to weimar, a few electorial and constitutional tricks were implemented to keep little Hitlers at bay and that was basically it.
Don't let anybody fool you when talking about modern tasks in terms of nationbuilding in the middle east or Africa or whereever, the reconstruction job in post-war-Germany wasn't so much nation buildung, as it was nation funding and nation teaching, all the administerial tools were already there.
The bureaucracy still in place today, and with it the school system and social system, goes back to the 2nd Reich of 1871.
And that one had its roots in Prussia, which made up more than 50% of it.
Point is, the day a sizable portion of the population determined their values differed from the state's, those Germans will probably discuss it, at length, and then shrug and go home.
Happened more or less in 1848 (that was a "me-too-revolution anyway), happened in 1918/19, weimar was a parade example for constitutional compromises and general half-arseness ('scuse the french) and would have happened in 1989 if the system wouldn't have been in its last grasps anyway.
"If the revolution reaches Germany and the revolutionaries try to occupy a Train station, the Germans will buy tickets first"
-Vladimir I. Lenin
Well, for once, he did have a point.
"And here, the state's responsibility is not to ensure unity of thought and practice, but to ensure security and liberty."
Well, what about the children then? Who protects their personal liberty and their constitutional right to education?
The state's aim isn't to prevent parents from homeschooling, it is to take children to school, because it is their right, and right and duty usually come in pairs in Germany, which means even their own parents can't deny them their right.
I think the basic difference has to do with the understanding of "personal freedom".
Whereas in anglosaxon countries freedom usually boils down to the least possible interference of the state or anyone else, rationale be damned, in Germany it isn't so much what you can or can't do, as long as everyone can (not) do it as well.
Freedom in Germany is about protecting granted rights for everyone and not about having less regulation in general, that's a small but vital differnce.
Personal freedom stops where the personal freedom of the other person starts, and, coupled with a deep rooted sense of jurisdiction (I wouldn't call it justice, because that is a slightly different thing) this has lead to the point were "justice" -as in equality- is regarded higher than freedom in absolute terms, with sometimes equally irrational results.
The German state-citizen-relationship echoes in many ways the feudal system of liege and vassal, in that, contrary to popular belief, BOTH sides are equally entitled and obligated.
No wonder the american or the french sentiment differs, as one country was born out of the ruins of such a system, and the other one was founded by people basically fed up with it.
If this goes beyond the scope of this blog we can continue this via email.
Commenting by HaloScan
