Not Just Reading, but Understanding is Fundamental

 

Oh my. What an interesting time we seem to be living in. There appear to be a recent proliferation of concerns about a number of different issues (gun violence/control and economy/taxation are a couple of examples). One thing I have noticed while perusing the many different opinions is the use of the word ‘fundamental’. Whether it’s a fundamental right, or a fundamental liberty, it’s used as part of an argument to bolster an individual’s assertion or position. Maybe it’s just me, but simply describing something as fundamental doesn’t immediately or automatically make it so.  I guess people presume you’ve done the research because they don’t back up this assertion with any evidence.  I may not be from Missouri, but I do tend to follow the state’s motto ‘show me’.

A very recent example of this use of fundamental is the to a certain degree implied argument that people around the world have a fundamental right to homeschool (my children are homeschooled, and I greatly value the opportunity given – full disclosure). I’ve looked at the situation which brought this out. To (greatly) summarize the situation:  a German family began homeschooling their children in 2006, in violation of German law. After being fined (and nothing I found says they paid the fines), and having German authorities come to their house and take their children to public school, they were asked by Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) to move to the United States in 2008.  Once they arrived they applied for asylum (they had other countries in Europe they could have chosen). The basis of their asylum application was they were being persecuted for homeschooling in accordance with their religious beliefs. The asylum case is now in front of a federal circuit court. An immigration judge in January 2010 granted them asylum, an immigration appeals court judge denied it in May of 2012.  The case is currently in front of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments in April 2013. The United States government is arguing against granting asylum. The government’s argument is: the family isn’t being persecuted or singled out for their religious beliefs by the law, as Germany does not allow anyone to homeschool their children. HSLDA is providing legal representation for the family and puts forward the following counterargument: the family is being persecuted because homeschooling is a matter of individual liberty and is therefore a ‘fundamental right’. Now, I’m no lawyer (and I don’t play one on TV), but the issue here is the application of the asylum law. In short, people are granted asylum if they can demonstrate they are being persecuted for religious reasons or because they belong to a particular social group.

Now, please keep in mind I am a homeschooling father so I am approaching this from a pro-homeschooling perspective. Here is how I see homeschooling involved in this situation: Both the United States and Germany (as well as a number of other countries) have addressed the issue of homeschooing in their laws. The United States allows it, with each individual state applying its own requirements. Germany (I know the German homeschooling law was made in 1938, so please don’t use the Hitler argument. Please?) forbids it. I know the law in my state, and I follow it. Maybe I disagree with it, but I still follow it. I have difficulty believing one of the rights upon which all other rights are built (which is one of the definitions of fundamental) is to homeschool. There may be (I can’t think of any off the top of my head) countries where there is no educational system whatsoever (there are most certainly communities where this is the case).  Are we to provide those communities with homeschooling curriculum, because it’s a fundamental right? That might be akin to that community being Eve, and we are the serpent providing them with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It’s an application of our culture and beliefs without consideration of their culture.

Another argument is that homeschooling is essential to freedom of thought. This argument assumes the parents cannot tell their children what the school is teaching them goes against their religious beliefs. I cannot count the number of times my wife or I have commented to our children (either during an event or after) we did not believe something presented because of our religion. We also explained to our children WHY we didn’t believe that idea or concept. Yes, it’s work. It can be difficult. But sooner or later, our children leave us and they will encounter these things through their interactions in society. When we take the time to explain why we disagree with something, we are teaching our children freedom of thought. We are also teaching them logic and apologetics.

Since religion has been introduced as an issue, let me put this forward.  From a religious perspective, the imperative to ‘be subject to the governing authorities’ stated in Romans 13:1 appears to be ignored in this situation. Not paying the fines levied (bad law or not) is not being subject to the governing authorities.  Not only this, but we are to live peaceably with our neighbors.  How peaceable were they being towards their neighbors when they brought the authorities into their neighborhood?  Or with the media attention they brought in with their cause celebre? Before you respond, I know the counterargument is from Acts chapter 5 where Peter tells the Jews they must obey God rather than men.  I haven’t found a passage in the Bible where it commands us to homeschool our children. 

I understand there are those who are concerned that this case shows the U.S. governments ‘anti-homeschooling’ bias and this is a harbinger of coming persecution against American homeschoolers.  As I stated above, the case involves granting asylum, not whether or not one of the questions on a future immigration form will be ‘do you intend to homeschool your children?’ Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, or I’m stupid, but I just don’t see persecution coming because of that particular choice. Maybe because my reason for homeschooling is about the quality of the education my children receive instead of being based on a moral imperative. Please let me reiterate:  I’m thankful for the opportunity and the ability to homeschool, and do not want that taken away.  On the other hand, I’m not going to be a ‘chicken little’ responding with fright just because the government mentions the word ‘education’.  If I did, I will miss situations that are or will be a matter of concern.  But hey, what do I know?

Is North Korea the defiant child of the world?

North Korea's actions this past week have been thoroughly examined and opined in other places, so I'm not going to go into great depth other than to give a quick recap. They have shot at least (by my count) five missiles of different types, conducted a nuclear test (not definitively confirmed), and threated to back out of the armistice that has been in place since 1953. What has been the general response towards North Korea in all this? 'Come back to the negotiating table'. My response to that suggestion is: or what? There's no reason for North Korea to negotiate right now. There are no consequences for their actions. At this point they can pretty much do what they want and the most they're going to get is hand-wringing. The best illustration I can use as comparison is parents see this with children. Children at one time or another will deliberately disobey the parent as a test. They are trying to see what they can get away with, and for how long. They're also testing the parent: are the rules and boundaries you told me the actual rules? I've seen it multiple times, and the way to shut it down is to look the child in the eye and say 'you sure you want to do that? Okay, but there will be severe consequences', and name them. After that, if the child continues, you follow through. You let the child know they're crossing a line they don't want to cross.

In this case, for North Korea, the consequences cannot be economic sanctions, or similar threat which really won't hurt. Using those methods is essentially telling North Korea 'we really don't mean what we say. But we'd appreciate it if you did what we told you.' There will be no respect from North Korea, and they'll eventually turn into the bully. Making noise and threats whenever they want to get their way. If I were in charge for a day (I know it'll never happen but just let me pretend, okay?), the method I would use with North Korea would probably be something on the lines of 'you want to try to fire a nuclear missile at the US or Japan? Okay, but it will be the last thing you do as a county.' Is that the most diplomatic method? No, I know it isn't. But sometimes diplomacy doesn't work, and you answer a threat with a threat. See who backs down. We've done it before with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will we ever do it again? I don't see the current government doing something like that.

What have we taught our children?

As parents, one of the biggest things we have to deal with in our children is conflict, and how to deal with it. Our children (I mean this in a general sense) fight with each other, children from other families, and when they're old enough they'll even try to fight with their parents. As adults, we see conflict every day. Between coworkers, between groups of people with differing views on a variety of subjects, and with spouses as well. How we react to and resolve those conflicts is one of the most important lessons we teach our children.

Our society has taught that if you are not 'getting along' with your spouse, you can divorce them. What society is teaching our children is: to give up and walk away is an appropriate form of conflict resolution. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't appropriate times when people shouldn't 'step away' and try to calm down in order to resolve the conflict. But far too often people aren't willing or able to take the time and energy necessary to engage the other person to find out what the root problem is, any and all misunderstandings between the two people, and to find an agreement both people are comfortable with.

One of the other things society has taught us is that it is entirely appropriate for people to say, as in the title of the Queen song: 'I want it all, and I want it now.' There is no way that everyone can have things that way and not be in conflict. And when both people in the conflict have that mindset, the end result is easy to predict: both people will be hurt, angry, and something that could have been easily resolved is now an unconquerable mountain.

The title of an old Rolling Stones song is more appropriate for dealing with conflict, at least on a personal level: 'You can't always get what you want.' We must learn to apply that principle when dealing with other people in a conflict situation. We must be careful, however, that one person doesn't do all the 'compromising', as that only teaches the one who didn't compromise they can get their way.

The last we should keep in mind in a conflict is to keep the emotional responses to a minimum. We've often heard as children, and even adults,we should count to 10 before we answer someone if we feel ourselves getting angry. Taking the time to listen to the other person and understand them will go a long way in keeping a conflict from getting out of hand. Our emotions will lie to us sooner or later, and we need to remember that.