That sentence is horrifying. Arguably Americas greatest president Abraham Lincoln was educated at home! When a nation believes that the government of said nation can educate its children better then the parents of that land, it takes away the God-given parental place of teaching.

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

Train up a child in the way he SHOULD GO, not always the way the government wants him to go, but the way he SHOULD go. This is the command and responsiblity that God gave to parents as a childs chief authority. The communists have long taken the idea of child indoctrenation as one of thier greatest pillers. May homeschoolers find favor in the eyes of their government and be allowed to follow the Lord leading in thier life. May they be as Danial was, people who know when to make a humble appeal and when to humbly and respectfully disobey.

The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis

The government is enforcing integration. In their own words, multiculturalism is over, now everyone must integrate into the society. The government defines the societal values.

Sounds like a big step backwards towards a free country if you ask me. As was pointed out above…sounds a lot like the Third Reich.

Marshall
>

spunky

I’m glad that the bad situation here in Germany for homeschoolers gets more attention. Interesting interview even thougth Hans and I might not agree on every aspect.
And a very interesting blog you have here!

I believe Hans will be giving his response to what you’ve said at some point. However, I would like to add my own thoughts to the mix.

You said that the article in question states: “Care for and education of children are the natural rights of the parents and especially their duty. The State community watches over their use.” I assume this is an accurate translation.

Regarding the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, I do not believe there is any disagreement as to what they believe the article to mean. The question is whether their interpretation is correct.

From my own reading of the article, it would appear to be quite a stretch to argue that the state has ultimate jurisdiction and control over the care and education of children. The emphasis of the article is clearly on the parents’ duty and right, not the government’s control or oversight. For the second statement, “The State community watches over their use,” to mean, “The State community dictates and controls their use,” effectively negates any significance of the first statement.

I would therefore argue that the correct interpretation would be one that understands the family and the state to be two separate spheres of government (the other spheres would be individual and church government). Each sphere is granted specific and limited jurisdiction. This is an even deeper, and I believe, more important, understanding of the “separation of powers.” The separation is not just within spheres of government, but between spheres of government.

With this separation, there is also an interdependence… For the sake of time I will not address that now. Instead, I would focus on what is most important to our own discussion here, and that is the mutually corrective role the government spheres provide.

When individuals break covenant in one sphere of government, authorities in another sphere can take corrective action. If a child acts irresponsibly, breaking the covenant in the sphere of individual government, authorities in the sphere of family, church, or state government may take corrective action, depending on the nature of the irresponsibility.

Likewise, if a parent exceeds the jurisdictional boundaries of family government, for example, by sexually abusing a child, state government may sanction the parent for child abuse in a temporal court of justice. If the parent is a member of a local church, the government of that church may also sanction them in a spiritual court.

These mutually corrective jurisdiction may be understood as “check and balances” among governments. This, in my opinion, was what is meant by, “The State community watches over their use.”

If the parent breaks a civil law in his “care and education” of his children, such as by abusing them, the State is responsible to take corrective action.

The error in Germany then, is to uphold laws that mandate children attending government schools… And for the courts to uphold such laws as constitutional. Such laws exceed the jurisdictional boundaries of state government, and are blatantly unconstitutional.

Dr. Ronald Reichert, an associate of Redeker, a highly renowned German constitutional law office in Bonn, was a speaker at our national conference last year and affirmed that the Basic Law does not need to be changed and in fact, speaks in our favor. This is the conclusion all of our lawyers have come to, and is not merely my personal opinion.

You can find a transcript of Reichert’s speech here, unfortunately only in German: http://www.schuzh.de/artikel.php?l=de&art=20.

Of course, as Jeannine says, it would be safer to have a clause in the Basic Law that specifically guarantees parents the right to homeschool, as does Austria. However, our existing laws are sufficient and, according to Reichert and other lawyers, give parents the duty and right to determine the education of their children. The supervision given to the state does not imply interference as long as the parents fulfill their obligations. In addition, Article 4 guarantees the undisturbed practice of religion.

Tim

http://www.freetranslation.com/web.htm

Set it to German to English and it will give a far-from-perfect, but good-enough-to-give-you-the-general-idea translation.

That’s great, Tim. Be sure to let us know if/when those articles are published.

Actually I hope reality will prove me wrong, but I still doubt it.