Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Parents right to choose ...


Alice

Recommended Posts

This bit of thinking was sparked in my head by a number of other threads - I'm really crap at keeping things in neat little compartments and this is a sort of tapestry of several threads woven together ...

 

firstly the one about a Judge deciding that parents couldn't raise their child in a religion that wasn't the mainstream christian one....

 

and quite a few comments/testimonies/replies that talk about how hard it is to break free from early religious 'indoctrination' ....

 

plus other threads about parents who are now worried about the things they taught their kids when they were in the church

 

and added to this I've also been separately thinking about society's efforts to protect children and young people from early sexual relationships - (go with me on this! It is connected I think!)

 

... particularly when the reasoning for this is emotional immaturity (ie before the age of consent YP's are felt not generally felt to be equipped to make decisions about sex)

 

and yet children and young people are felt to be able to make decisions about things like baptism and church membership - which are supposed to be significant and important decisions ...

 

In a 'free' society should children be 'protected' from over exposure to one set of beliefs - should they be protected from taking decisons to pledge allegiance to a faith system until they have reached an 'age of consent' when society can be confident that they are able to make an 'informed decision' ...

 

or do parents have the 'right' to teach other little lives anything they like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a tough one. I've thought about this a lot, and come to the conclusion that there's a deep dichotomy between my reasoning and my emotional reaction on this topic.

 

I'll wait to read what others say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought about this as well. It could never happen in the US, even though I think it would be a good idea. But we would just end up with lots of parents in jail or having to have social worker visits because they disobeyed the law. That would be a disaster.

 

Maybe if a bunch of us Freethinkers got together and bought an island with our own laws, it might work. But someone is going to choose Christianity, and that would again rock the boat too much. Christians really believe in that stuff, and some are militant evangelists that would claim that having an age of accountability similar to sex would guarantee that all chilren go to hell since they disagree with the age of accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "right" thing to do is to teach a child how to reason and think critically then encourage them to make their own decisions.

 

It's to be expected that a parent would show their own beliefs (or non-belief) in a favorable light, but it seems like the real win for a parent would be to turn out a young adult who can think on their own, even if that means they don't agree with the parent on all things (even on the important things.)

 

It's hard to know where to draw the line tho between society and parents when the parents are doing what I would consider to be the "wrong" thing. Do children belong to parents? Do they belong to society? Parents certainly have a great deal of lattitude in what they teach their children, but society has a stake in that too. I have to live with the results of that training when I interact with those children.

 

I don't think society should allow physical or mental abuse of a child by a parent, and to some degree I think that fundamentalist christianity is mental abuse.

 

No easy answers from me on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that no one has any right to tell people that they cannot teach their child things about their religion, or raise their children in an absence of religon.

 

I don't like it much, as it just encourages the growth of the Christian cancer, but... On the other hand, it's our fucking First Amendment right! To try to pass a law saying "You can't raise your children in your religion/worldview" is a disgusting violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

 

People should be encouraged to allow their kids to "think outside the box", so to speak, but for anyone to suggest an outright ban on parents exposing their children to religion... That's just wrong.

 

I have to agree with the others... No easy decision, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very easy decision for me folks..

 

Beastie is ours, not the f00kin' States. I do not owe my Life nor my child to the State, nor its Agencies, Proctors or Enforcers..

 

I'll raise my son as I damn well see fit. If he gets an earful of information about things unPC and otherwise unappreciated by the *norms*, they can go whiningly fuck themselves somewhere else.

 

Beastie is honorable, well mannered, intelligent, and able to help others in every subject he is involved with in PUblIK SKuLLe..

 

He has a great innoculation against sheepherditus...

 

He resists the fundy kids, all of whom are trying to recruit him into their versions of truth. Raised since he was born in a freethinker enviroment

 

Don't give a purple plated fuck if the King Fundicatious The First took command of Eastern Oregon and compelled *his version* of truth taught..

 

Beastie (will) would continue to be educated in the Arts of Science, War, and Resistance to Authority by whatever means necessary to ensure that he reamain free of the Neck Rope..

 

If I sound like a Radical, then I am proudly so.. Freedom requires intelligent participants. If we don't train our replacements, *they* will..

 

n, son of a slave who became Free, Freeman, Dad to Freeman in making

 

MOLON LABE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small questions and reasons why I struggle with this:

 

"Do we, here, believe in the rights of parents to withhold certain medical treatments from their children because of religious beliefs?"

 

"Do we believe in non-interference if it's demonstrable that a child is experiencing severe mental/emotional trauma from religious teachings received in the home?"

 

"Do we think that removing a child from a home because of what is now called 'neglect' but is actually usually poverty is more or less supportable than removal for 'neglect' of that child's right to experience autonomous, integrated personal growth?"

 

"Do we have any sympathy for fundies who worry over their children's 'indoctrination' in public schools if we can imagine our own children having no choice but to go to a religious school?"

 

My brain feels like a pendulum when I consider these and other questions re: children, parental and Constitutional rights, and religious freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brain feels like a pendulum when I consider these and other questions re: children, parental and Constitutional rights, and religious freedom.

 

I'm swinging with you Pitchu.

 

I believe intervention is right and proper when a child is being harmed by his parents. (The greater the harm the greater the duty to intervene, but who decides what's harmful and what intervention is proper?)

 

I believe in high levels of personal liberty and don't want the government interfering in what I consider to be my personal choices.

 

I struggle to reconcile the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm swinging with you Pitchu. 

 

I believe intervention is right and proper when a child is being harmed by his parents. (The greater the harm the greater the duty to intervene, but who decides what's harmful and what intervention is proper?) 

 

I believe in high levels of personal liberty and don't want the government interfering in what I consider to be my personal choices.

 

I struggle to reconcile the two.

 

 

Freedom is extremely hard, and not many people can handle it, nor do they want the personal responsibility that comes with it. which is also why people (The Majority) create nanny-states for themselves, They want someone take care of them, they are in essence lazy or to scared to be "Free", that and some don't trust their fellow citizens to be free, as in the concept that the founders had.

 

This question is indeed hard, Both Freedom and helping people (against their will, or helping their children) so forth are contradictions. One could be seen as both an aid and an infringement. Both Aid and Freedom have their down sides, This is were discernment comes in, but again who's discernment?

:scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rhuiden

Interesting topic....I believe no person or government has the right to tell a parent what they can teach their children. This is one of the reasons why we pulled our daughter out of the government school and started homeschooling. We wanted to give our daughters a Bible-based education. It is my job to indoctrinate my children not the government schools. My wife and I spend a great deal of time teaching our daughters our values....we look for oportunities to share with them how they should look at various situations. We do not just tell them what to think but why they should think that way. I like to say (and my wife hates this) that it is my goal to raise our daughters to be just like me.

 

Rhuiden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my job to indoctrinate my children not the government schools.  My wife and I spend a great deal of time teaching our daughters our values....we look for oportunities to share with them how they should look at various situations.  We do not just tell them what to think but why they should think that way. 

 

Ever ask the girls what they think then merely answer, "Thanks for letting me know."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small questions and reasons why I struggle with this:

 

"Do we, here, believe in the rights of parents to withhold certain medical treatments from their children because of religious beliefs?"

 

Nope.. As insane as I'd consider witholding the best and most modern treaments for the ill, I will not interject myself into parental rights and responsibilities..

 

"Do we believe in non-interference if it's demonstrable that a child is experiencing severe mental/emotional trauma from religious teachings received in the home?"

 

pitchu, it may be that someday soon that my Son will be scoping this fundie foot soldier as same comes to burn Beastie and his nest of unbelivers out..

That kid may be the little tyke we see held up to jebus' and the modern fundie church today, turned into a nutcase Arm of God eventually..

Or somewhere a ray of Rationality may enter said mind and he excape. I don't know how this could ever pan out

 

"Do we think that removing a child from a home because of what is now called 'neglect' but is actually usually poverty is more or less supportable than removal for 'neglect' of that child's right to experience autonomous, integrated personal growth?"

 

As more people see their jobs get Perot'd out of Country and our booming economy becomes one of asking "Y'all want fries wit dat?" type of work, wht will define *poverty*?

My House and I are not *rich* by any standards, but Kid is clean in good clothing, prepared and given what supplies he needs. Misses few meals.. We don't have a ton of income, but our outgo is not as bad as others.. "Poor"? Accordig to Fed dot gov we are..

The Proctors come for my boy will be Veto'd until they stop..

 

"Do we have any sympathy for fundies who worry over their children's 'indoctrination' in public schools if we can imagine our own children having no choice but to go to a religious school?"

 

Hell no.. King Fundicatious can rule all he wants over everything he sees and wants to pay attention to.

My instruction to Beastie as Father Tzu teaches will allow him to learn as he needs, even while being bombarded with the propaganda of daily indoctrination camp.

*Wait!* That happens NOW in pubLIK SkuLle..

 

*I* own my son and his thinking ming at this time, The King can't compete.

 

My brain feels like a pendulum when I consider these and other questions re: children, parental and Constitutional rights, and religious freedom.

 

I used to have similar problems until I set a course for those whom I am responsible for. My Girls and Son will outlive me. medically I'm a wreck waiting to happen. it is incumbent for me to train the beastie to be a Man, even at not yet thirteen. I have done my work as best I can to make him resistant to the religious statists who want his being.

 

Yeah, talk about being *Free* is cheap, especially on a Net BBS..

Buddy of mine, William Michael Kemp, taught me that sitting on the fence just gives ya razor wire cuts on the ass..

 

My cuts are healed, *side* is selected... And I sure do have a big ass.. :)

 

We can only be responsible for ourselves and families..

 

n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I'm particularly interested in - are the 'rights of the child'. This doesn't seem to have featured hugely in the comments here.

 

Sure - children don't 'belong' to the state - but the thought that children 'belong' to their parents makes me uncomfortable as well.

 

I do get myself caught on a loop in that I think parents should be teaching their children that there are a wide variety of world views and life explanations out there and that each individual person has the right to choose their own path. But this is my 'world view', and as just one explanation in a whole range - I don't have the 'right' to impose it on other families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I'm particularly interested in - are the 'rights of the child'. This doesn't seem to have featured hugely in the comments here.

 

Sure - children don't 'belong' to the state - but the thought that children 'belong' to their parents makes me uncomfortable as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Who should the "Rights of the child" fall to if not to the parents?

 

 

 

No Human being owns another human being, however aren't we responsible for our own Children?

 

Dare I say some bible thumper who works for the state perhaps disagrees with my philosophy in life about Jesus being a huge hoax, Dare anyone tell me I must teach my children about this mythical figure, and indoctrinate a dogma for them to be well rounded. I believe my children have a much better chance in life relying upon themselves and logic then on their knees wishing hard to an invisible being that may or may not exist.

 

The state has ZERO rights, the state was created to represent the people, the state wasn't created to save the people from themselves. :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rhuiden
Ever ask the girls what they think then merely answer, "Thanks for letting me know."?

 

They are 8 and 5. They are not old enough to know what they think. At this age, they mostly just emulate what their mother and I do and say.

 

Rhuiden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankful,

 

you ask the question 'What IF, the government started yanking kids out of homes of parents who didn't measure up to my parenting standards'

 

I'm not sure about the situation in the States - but certainly within British Law - is enshrined the concept of 'good enough parenting' - and parents that don't measure up to this DO risk having their children removed rom their care. Lines are being drawn and have been drawn.

 

I guess where this line should be drawn should be an ongoing debate. Parental freedom to raise a child in the religion of their choice is also protected under British Law - a recent change has come about since the UN convention on the Rights of the child was ratified here - and young people can now have the protection of the law to leave or refuse to participate in their families religion and or adopt a religion of their own - although the age at which they can do this is still under some debate.

 

You say - 'what one parent allows their children to do is their business' - but I guess you mean within certain 'acceptable' parameters. If a parent wished to allow their small child to work in the sex industry - or inject crack cocaine or take a 'good ole' spanking or refuse life saving medical treatment ... would you just think that was their business?

 

(I'm guessing from some of your comments that some of these examples would be outside your perameters and some would be inside)

 

And now I'm going to go off at a bit of a tangent because I have to tell you that a 'good ole spanking' would be well outside mine - although I would think that parents that use this outmoded and barbaric form of discipline need to be educated out of this position rather than have their children removed from their care on any permanent basis.

 

From your comments I guess that wouldn't be your position. I don't see anything I would describe in 'good ole' friendly terms about hitting a child - maybe this is just another difference between the USA and the UK.

 

I'm assuming from your comments that you think a 'good ole spanking' is OK - and that you won't agree with my view that this is an outmoded and barbaric way to treat a child. Hmmmm I hadn't intended feeling that I would need to say anything this contentious so early on - but this happens to be one of the things I feel the most passionate about.

 

Personally I can't wait for a time when children have the same protection as adults - why it is OK for the smallest most vulnerable members of society to be slapped and spanked when adults have the protection of the law from this - is beyond me.

 

Spanking a child is all about bending them to someone else's will and using pain and humiliation to achieve this. There are many effective, creative and far more loving ways to teach a child positive behaviour.

 

(The second reason I left the church was because of the embarrassing promotion and justification for such ongoing cruelty that is given by the evangelical wing of the church to smacking/spanking. In the UK it's mostly only fundamentalist christian or fundamentalist muslim groups plus Daily Mail readers ((the unthinking secular right)) that think its OK or right to hit children)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are 8 and 5.  They are not old enough to know what they think.  At this age, they mostly just emulate what their mother and I do and say.

 

Rhuiden

 

Knowing this - doesn't that make you want to protect them from voicing an allegience to your religion, when they are not old enough to know what they think and are just emulating their parents?

 

Isn't evangelical christianity all about 'personal choice' - about making a 'personal decision for christ'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um Hesitant...I think you are overreacting here.  You left out parts of my post that clearly showed that I would never stand for any abuse of children.  Why the "sex/crack cocaine" comment was thrown in there after my example of what we feel isn't appropriate for our children is beyond me.  Especially when I had clearly said that any abuse of children sexually, physically, etc. should disqualify their parents as having rights.  Did I word something wrong?

 

As to spanking.....My children are rarely if ever spanked, I was rarely if ever spanked and I am not a violent person nor have I ever had violent tendencies.  Mine are disciplined and spanking has always been a last, not first resort.  One time, my son ran out in the road as a toddler after several attempts to stop him.  A little swat on the butt and that was the last time that he ever did that, I'd rather he be stung by my hand than run over by a car.  I refuse to be the "1.....2....you better stop it, or else...1....2...okay, Mom's not kidding.....1....2...get over here before you get hit by that...." kind of parent. Most of the people I know that spank do not do it in anger and it is rarely needed, just like with my family and I.  Matter of fact, I can't remember the last time that either of our kids were spanked. 

 

Guess, I'll agree to disagree on the spanking. But if you read my post and thought that I believe it's okay for a parent to inject crack cocaine and that other stuff you wrote, you have clearly misread my post.

 

I think you missed my bit about some of the things I said being outside your perameters and some inside. (I deliberately chose the first two precisely because you'd made it clear that sexual/physical abuse were things you'd be opposed to)

 

I included the sex industry and crack cocaine bit because I assumed these would be OUTSIDE your perameters.

 

Even occasional spanking is outside mine.

 

I maybe do 'overact' - but I think referring to hitting a child as 'good ole spanking' is a serious under reaction to something that if you really examine it just can't be right.

 

When I'm talking to parents about finding better ways to teach and guide their children I usually use this analogy - that children are 'learning' to be adults - when we take a new job that requires learning new skills we do not expect our supervisor to swat us on the butt when we make a mistake.

 

I smacked my eldest two children till they were 3 and 4. I really believed it was the right thing to do. I went everywhere with my James Dobson 'dare to discipline' handbook. I'd had a lifetime of swatts and slaps and used to say 'well it never did me any harm' - that was one big lie of course.

 

I'm so pleased to be free of it.

 

I'm glad you don't often hit your kids - I'm just sad you call it a 'good ole spanking' and think it's OK.

 

Why assume that it was spanking your child that eventually stopped him from running into the road - you used words as well and time was passing - he was learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rhuiden
Knowing this - doesn't that make you want to protect them from voicing an allegience to your religion, when they are not old enough to know what they think and are just emulating their parents?

 

Isn't evangelical christianity all about 'personal choice' - about making a 'personal decision for christ'?

 

I want my kids to emulate me in just about every way. I work very hard at being a good role model for them. As such, I do not do things that I am going to tell them not to do and I don't make them do things that I won't. Most people believe that I am just weird and they follow the "do as I say not as I do" model with their kids.

 

One of the things I model for them is Christianity. I fail often but they see that I try and what it means to me. It is my hope that by laying the proper foundation, they will make the "personal choice" to follow Christ when they realize their need for Him. My "protection" involves developing this foundation in their lives. Beyond that, it is up to them.

 

Rhuiden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL...not at your feelings but as I was putting clothes in the dryer I was thinking "I bet my use of "good ole'" is what did it. 

 

I came back to apologize for the wrong phrase, I certainly can see how that would cause ones hairs to stand up on end.  Hesistant, I apologize to you and anyone else who may be upset at my careless phrase regarding "good ole' spanking".

 

Apology accepted! - I know people do ofetn think I over react - but its not so long ago that 'knocking some sense into the little lady' - was how society lived with wide spread acceptance of physical assaults on women.

 

So yes - in one way - it was your wording - but only because 'good ole spanking' is a way of disguising an assault on a child.

 

I have participated in many many discussions with parents who support smacking/spanking - usually christians. I know there are lots of arguments put forward to support the use of these methods, but I don't believe they hold up to thorough investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nivek,

 

Thanks for answering all of my "small questions." I sure do see where you're coming from, though I'm still left uncertain about many issues surrounding conflicting rights of children, parents and citizens.

 

Rhuiden,

 

I don't understand how you think your 8 and 5 year olds don't think independently. I've had four of them and I couldn't even keep up with their amazing thoughts when they were that age. I dunno. (Maybe you've just done a top-notch job of shutting down their brains...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought about this as well.  It could never happen in the US, even though I think it would be a good idea.  But we would just end up with lots of parents in jail or having to have social worker visits because they disobeyed the law.  That would be a disaster.

 

Maybe if a bunch of us Freethinkers got together and bought an island with our own laws, it might work.  But someone is going to choose Christianity, and that would again rock the boat too much.  Christians really believe in that stuff, and some are militant evangelists that would claim that having an age of accountability similar to sex would guarantee that all chilren go to hell since they disagree with the age of accountability.

That's the type of chruch I attend's beliefs. I am an atheist but I still go to a fundy Southern Baptist and it's just stupid the stuff they say there. I go cause of mom and dad. Otherwise, I would never go back. My parents raised me Christian but I don't believe that way so they just deal with me not being one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.