Overblog
Edit post Follow this blog Administration + Create my blog

Published by jack elliot

 

When did the ban on homeschool in Germany begin?

Whose idea was it to eliminate homeschooling in a land where self-education had for centuries produced Bachs and Mozarts?
______
A new ruling from the European Human Rights Court has affirmed the German nation’s Nazi-era ban on homeschooling, concluding that society has a significant interest in preventing the development of dissent through “separate philosophical convictions.”

The Strasburg-based court addressed the issue on appeal from a Christian family whose members alleged their human rights to educate their own children according to their own religious beliefs are being violated by the ban.

The specific case addressed in the opinion involved Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who filed the complaint in 2003 and argued that Germany’s compulsory school attendance endangered their children’s religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family’s Christian faith.

The court said the Konrads belong to a “Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible” and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs that the courses there include.

The German court already had ruled that the parental “wish” to have their children grow up in a home without such influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.” The decision also said the parents do not have an “exclusive” right to lead their children’s education.
________

 

 

Where can a German homeschool family turn?

In 2003, the trial mentioned above was held at the European Court of Human Rights. This court, established in 1998, is seen as a “last recourse” for the people of Europe who feel that their rights have been violated. It was established by the European Convention of Human Rights, a treaty signed by almost every European power all the way back in 1953. Ever hear of it? In the charter it specifically states that “The State shall respect the right of parents to ensure education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” That’s a quote from the document which underpins the existence of this “court”. Keep reading.

The 2003 trial was initiated by a German family insisting on its right to homeschool. The family wanted a more Christian-based education for their children than the German Schools provide. That was their reason for homeschooling. The court’s decision? That a nation has the right to decide how children will be schooled. Parents do not have this right. That a family’s beliefs should not be allowed to in any way determine their child’s education. (And, by the way, that a “strong belief in the Bible” was reason to prevent that family from homeschooling.)

That’s right – families have NO right to determine what sort of education their children receive, a decision precisely contravening the founding document of that so-called court, as well as tossing out the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which in Article 26 guarantees that the parent has the prior right to determine how their child will be educated.

Between 1953 and 2003, apparently “human rights” in Europe has been somewhat redefined. Today, it seems that “human rights” really means STATES RIGHTS – that the state shall have all rights at the expense of individuals.

This trend contradicts the very purpose of civilization. Civilization is a system whereby individuals may work together for their mutual survival and well-being. In other words – governments exist for the protection of the people and their lives and rights. People do not exist to protect governments and their rights. This all-important key to understanding the relationship between government and its people has been reversed and redefined. When President John F. Kennedy said “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”, he unfortunately verbalized the reversed ethic that today empowers the state over its constituents.

Historically and in fact, countries exists to protect individuals and their rights and lives. Without this as the sole and entire goal of a government, there is no reason for that government or country to exist. No less a creator of governments than Thomas Jefferson would have encouraged a revolution against a government that has forgotten the central purpose of its existence, to serve the people.

The banning of homeschooling in Germany by the Nazis and upheld by their current government is a classic example of government rights protected by government (the judges sitting on the court were selected by the governments participating) and at the expense of the people. It is government gone mad. But again, why should anyone be surprised that government has gone mad in Germany?

What we should be surprised and profoundly worried about is that other European nations are following Germany’s lead.

 

To be informed of the latest articles, subscribe:
Comment on this post