
Advancing the goal of tolerance in society may require denying parents the right  to determine their children's education, the U.S. Justice Department argued in a  legal brief for the case of a German homeschooling family seeking  asylum.
 The Romeikes fled to the United States from Germany when  they were faced with heavy fines and the possibility of having their children  taken away from them for choosing to homeschool rather than send their children  to the German public schools. They chose to homeschool because they believed the  public schools were teaching their children lessons antithetical to their  evangelical Christian beliefs.
 Though they were initially granted  asylum by a district judge, an immigration court and the Justice Department has  sought to send them back to Germany. In May, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals  agreed with the Justice Department. The Justice Department's June 26 brief is in  response to a request for a rehearing of the case filed by the Home School Legal  Defense Association, which is representing the Romeikes.
 In the  brief, the Justice Department supports a German court's reasoning for forcing  the Romeikes to send their children to public school.
 The value of  Germany's law, the DOJ explained, is to bring "people of differing views  together to learn from each other and to learn to accept those whose views  differ from their own." The brief praised this goal of an "open, pluralistic  society."
 "Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps  to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen of Germany,"  the DOJ wrote. 
 With this goal in mind, the brief continued,  it is "scarcely feasible" that Germany is persecuting homeschoolers.
 Since Germany's mandatory public schooling law applies to everyone, not just  homeschoolers, the department reasons, it does not discriminate against  homeschoolers.
 In other words, it is reasonable, the Justice  Department argues, for Germany to work toward the goal of an open, pluralistic  society by forcing the children of religious minorities to attend public  school.
 The Justice Department brief also states in the  introduction that government, rather than parents, should decide whether  homeschools, public schools, or private schools are best.
 The  "propriety of homeschooling versus schooling in a public or private school" is a  judgment "properly left to the political branches of government," the brief  states.
 In response to the brief, Michael Farris, chairman of  HSLDA, argued that what the Justice Department calls pluralism is not really  pluralism.
 While pluralism seeks to respect a diversity of views,  the Romeikes removed their children from the public schools because they  believed their views were not respected in the public schools. Their view that  their children would best be served by homeschooling was also not respected by  Germany.
 "Targeting religious minorities for the purpose of  suppressing 'parallel societies,' however, is the antithesis of pluralism,"  Farris wrote.
 The reasoning found in the Justice Department's brief  was similar to that of some American legal scholars who also argue against a  parent's right to determine their children's education, Farris  continued.
 "American legal academics have made the argument that  American homeschooling should be banned or curtailed to promote tolerance. The  [attorney general's] argument marches to the dangerous cadence of the drumbeat  of these scholars. Silencing the 'intolerant' to promote tolerance is not only  illogical; it is antithetical to any theory of freedom of conscience," he wrote.
Editors note.....This amounts to tolerance of every aberrant philosophy, behavior, view and religious conviction, but it is totally intolerant of the convictions of the Christian. This is the imposition of the values of one group upon another. This is the foundation for a totalitarian state and it is the removal of religious freedom in one act supposed tolerance.
This is a repeat of that which has transpired all down through the Church age, and resulted in followers of Christ going to the stake for their convictions. It was for this very reason that believers originally came to the new world.
Beyond moral persuasion the Christian does not seek to take away the liberty and right of non-believers to act as they choose. The act of moral persuasion is a right that the Christian grants to the non-believer as well, in fact immoral persuasion is constantly directed toward all of society.