Jump to content

Parental Authority And Control


Checkmate
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that this subject has been discussed before. (In fact it keeps returning in the middle of other threads.) But for the life of me, I can’t find the other thread on this topic, so forgive me for starting a new one.

 

Preface: I am a PARENT. I consider myself to be a somewhat good and responsible parent. I would be hurt and offended if ANYONE intruded upon my family to dictate to me HOW to raise my children. HOWEVER, I think more suitable guidelines and safeguards should be enforced on parents. Parents are not infallible. So, keeping this in mind, what do you think of the following gentile rant?

------------------------

When a parent PHYSICALLY abuses or neglects a child, society steps in and declares this “wrong.” The parent is punished, and the child is removed from the parent’s care.

 

When a parent SEXUALLY ASSAULTS or abuses their child, society steps in and declares this “wrong.” The parent is punished, and the child is removed from the parent’s care.

 

However…

 

When a parent teaches and trains their children to be racists, society remains silent. Magically the parent has the “right” to shape and warp the MIND of a child, but not it’s BODY. Even though society has deemed racism “wrong”, it is NOT “wrong” for a parent to teach children racism. ???????

 

"Prussian Blue" Hitler Enthusiasts

 

A parent teaches a child that “God” lives “up in heaven”, that “He” loves them and hates others. And if they fail to believe in this “God”, nor return His love, this same “God” will hate and torture them forever in a lake of burning fire, this EMOTIONAL abuse is ignored by society. Again, magically, it has been decided that parents have the “right” to force feed superstitious beliefs to their children, even though society recognizes the potential harm of these beliefs.

 

Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags "Family/Church"

 

Why do we condemn parental PHYSICAL abuse of children, yet turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to MENTAL and EMOTIONAL abuses of children? Why has society decided to draw this line in the sand where it is? Why is a child’s BODY protected from parental abuse, while their EMOTIONS and MIND are “fair game”?

 

What is the distinction? And why do we make it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of what constitutes physical abuse is quite clear. There's a very good reason for this. There are things we can definitely and unequivocally say harm the body.

 

The same cannot be said of the mind or emotions. It is not the place of a government like ours to tell people what or how to think or feel. We have freedom of conscience in this country. This is a good thing; it's barbaric and tyrannical to tell people what they should think. Let people figure things out for themselves. You can't force someone to mature; that defeats the purpose.

 

Who gave you the authority to punish people for teaching their children how to live? It's tyrannical to force your opinion on others. If we went your way, we wouldn't have a secular government anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It opens up a whole new can of worms. Already, particularily after some well publicised child abuse incidents, all it takes is for someone to make a call denouncing you to child protective services to get your kids yanked away from you just on the suspicion you might be harming them. Guilty before proven so. Now imagine you try to apply some mind control standard into the mix?

 

It's against the law to beat someone. It's not against the law to merely think a Jew is an inferior piece of shit, or that blacks belong in chains again. It's not even against the law tp publically shout those beliefs on the street corner. For better or for worse, that is what free speech is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of what constitutes physical abuse is quite clear. There's a very good reason for this. There are things we can definitely and unequivocally say harm the body.

 

The same cannot be said of the mind or emotions. It is not the place of a government like ours to tell people what or how to think or feel. We have freedom of conscience in this country. This is a good thing; it's barbaric and tyrannical to tell people what they should think. Let people figure things out for themselves. You can't force someone to mature; that defeats the purpose.

 

Who gave you the authority to punish people for teaching their children how to live? It's tyrannical to force your opinion on others. If we went your way, we wouldn't have a secular government anymore.

Um...what "way" is that? I don't recall declaring some "way". I asked a question or two. Don't be so touchy.

 

You say that we have "freedom of conscience". You rightly fear the government controlling our collective conscience. I agree. I never asked for that.

 

Keep on point, please. The question is: DO PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE CHILDREN TO BELIEVE THE PARENT'S WAY? Or should children, as individual humans, be allowed to grow and think freely?

 

Is it abusive to FORCE children to believe what their parent's believe? Isn't it also "barbaric and tyrannical" for PARENTS to tell children (people) what THEY should think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However…

 

When a parent teaches and trains their children to be racists, society remains silent. Magically the parent has the “right” to shape and warp the MIND of a child, but not it’s BODY. Even though society has deemed racism “wrong”, it is NOT “wrong” for a parent to teach children racism. ???????

 

-------------------

A parent teaches a child that “God” lives “up in heaven”, that “He” loves them and hates others. And if they fail to believe in this “God”, nor return His love, this same “God” will hate and torture them forever in a lake of burning fire, this EMOTIONAL abuse is ignored by society. Again, magically, it has been decided that parents have the “right” to force feed superstitious beliefs to their children, even though society recognizes the potential harm of these beliefs.

 

:)Hi Mr. Grinch! IMO, people can BELIEVE what they want in a free world. However, people do have to respect these rights of others... no matter what their beliefs about them may be. It seems the problem is that when people teach these hateful things, it DOES effect their behavior and how the physically disregard these rights of others! A bigoted person may say diesrespectful things to/about others... well, they can expect a reaction to it, accordingly. Hopefully someone will emphatically and enthusiastically say something that will stop the masses from getting carried away in the wrong direction! :vent:

 

Mr. Grinch, you've always been nice to me, yet you've said things to me that smacked me in the face and brought me to my senses. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, when it comes to physical abuse, it's easier to distinguish when or not it has happened. You can see physical evidence for it.

 

While mental abuse or indoctrination is harder to prove, since it's a sliding scale. Where is the line between indoctrination and not? Is there even a line? Isn't everything we hear, read and see affecting our minds, and in essence indoctrination? And who decides what it harmful?

 

The problem isn't so much that mental abuse exists, it's just so that it is so much harder to prove in a case. Laws that are written too open for interpretation can easily be misused, because there exists judicial abuse as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest beanheel

i hope this isn't too tangential to the topic, but: i believe that parents have been held accountable in courts of law if their teaching has been found to be abusive in that it instigated the child to commit a crime.

 

i hope that's not too vague. what i mean is, if a parent instills in a child that homosexuals are an abomination to the lord and not worthy of life, and that child proceeds to assault a homosexual, then that parent can be held accountable. i don't know if that's likely, but the defense team is sure as hell going to use such testimony in the hope that an extenuating circumstance clause will lighten the charge or the sentence for their client.

 

i think this is as close as we can come to holding parents accountable for psychological and emotional abuse of the sort you describe, mr. grinch. anything more would require some sort of scary thought-police prying into people's private lives. a little big brotherish for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grinch...

 

I teach Beastie a curious Zen.. "The Way of Peace Through Superior Firepower", or "How not to get your Ass Kicked by Bipedial Micreants".

 

He also taught things he won't learn as PuBLiK SkuLLe, history, mathmatics, philosphy, how to make change for odd numbers of bills, how to read and underSTAND what he preuses.

 

He'll be taught fully the results of many, many human things including the high cost of failure and lack of commitment.

 

He is in the teen_doldrums at moment, trying to get some spark back to get his ass motivated about things other than computer and goofing off..

 

I will not *allow* him to become a vid-iot and a computer potato.

 

Fuck that shit, one mostly useless fatman in House is enugh, and I nailed that job years back.. (Don't call Shop Steward, I'm Union Rep here!)

 

I, the Father of the House am responsible for what goes into Beastie's furry little brain. In return I am also for time being responsible for his actions and commisions.

Should he publicly fuck up, I am responsible and will stand with him in punishment.

 

Not gonna like shouldering the inevitable teen_screwups_that_happen, however as i've learned; 'If someone continues to fuckup, look at who taught him to do it that way".

 

Know that as he gets older, (13 now, level headed and responsible kid) I'll not be so able to influence him. But the foundational work that had been laid down, and the continual work on making his mind sharp and clear seems to be working.

 

When it is his time to cut the ties and sail alone, I believe he'll be as prepared as best I could, and will be a good man for the effort expended.

 

See the pic below? Beastie can strip, clean, maintain, and do his Manual of Arms quite well with this Homeland Security Tool. It is not a semi amigo, that is a fullauto.

 

Beastie has been given the opportunity to do and work things most adults only might think about.

 

Wish the World around us did more such exposure.. We need to train our inevitable replacements.

 

This part of the "Easy Answer Jar" has LOTS of slips in it.. ;)

 

k, loves his kid, L

beastnek02.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the parent of a now adult child, I can recall many people telling me how to raise my son. Some of them were subtle, others were very in-my-face with their opinions. To me it boils down to a simple question.

 

Who is willing to take responsibility for the kind of adult this child becomes?

 

Because I can tell you without reservation that not one of the people who were in my face telling me I was an inadequate mother were willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their "advice." I know this because I would ask them, "Okay, if I take your advice and discipline/teach/raise my son the way you want me too, will you sign a contract accepting full responsibility if he gets into trouble? Will you pay his medical expenses if he contracts AIDS or gets a girl pregnant? What about psychotherapy if your methods end up doing more harm than good? If he dies in Iraq will you be there to support me in my old age?"

 

Nobody was willing to take me up on the offer, so I raised my son the way I thought was best for him. Because in the end I am willing to accept the consequences of my decisions regarding his upbringing, I am willing to pay his medical expenses and college tuition and therapy bills if he needs them. IMHO that gives me the right to make any and all decisions about how to raise him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something I found:

 

"SCF and law enforcement generally lack the resources or time to investigate and take actions in cases involving Threat of Harm or Mental and Emotional Abuse. This does not mean the law does not cover these issues. In most cases, it means that SCF and law enforcement don't have the time or skills to become intensively involved. For these cases you may need to seek out private rather than state interventions."

 

This is in Oregon. It appears the law covers mental abuse, but they don't have the time to get involved. That tells me that there is probably a whole lot of areas that have to covered in order to show that it is abuse. Such as intent. If the parents do not know that it is mental abuse (such as the doctrine of hell), then it probably would be extremely difficult to stop it. That is mental abuse to me, but only because I can understand the harm it does. Now, with this understanding, I told my daughter she was going to hell because she did this or that (and I didn't believe it), I would expect to be in trouble for it. Ignorance is sometimes an excuse. :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who is willing to take responsibility for the kind of adult this child becomes?

 

 

Nobody was willing to take me up on the offer, so I raised my son the way I thought was best for him. Because in the end I am willing to accept the consequences of my decisions regarding his upbringing, I am willing to pay his medical expenses and college tuition and therapy bills if he needs them. IMHO that gives me the right to make any and all decisions about how to raise him.

 

 

As I read the opening post I was trying to formulate a reply in my head. I was wavering back and forth on the issue until I ran into this.

 

‘nough said. I think that covers it.

 

IBF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it actual factual abuse to teach children racism? Is it abuse to tell them that god hates fags? I think abuse here is not the most accurate term for that. One might say that teaching such philosophies could result in social ostricism and possible physical violence. Of course teaching your son there's nothing wrong with being gay could lead to the same thing. On the other hand, there are environments that welcome both ideologies and are protective of those that feel and act those lifestyles.

 

Should this be allowed therefore? Unfortunately yes for those that teach such ugly beliefs. Of course, in the case of those girls, I heard their mother say that if they ever shacked up with blacks she'd disown them. Can't wait till they're 18 and get NAILED by some black guys and end up disowning her before she has the chance.

 

Not by me though, I wouldn't touch them with a 12 foot pole, much less a 10 foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Um...what "way" is that? I don't recall declaring some "way". I asked a question or two. Don't be so touchy.

 

You say that we have "freedom of conscience". You rightly fear the government controlling our collective conscience. I agree. I never asked for that.

 

Keep on point, please. The question is: DO PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE CHILDREN TO BELIEVE THE PARENT'S WAY? Or should children, as individual humans, be allowed to grow and think freely?

 

Is it abusive to FORCE children to believe what their parent's believe? Isn't it also "barbaric and tyrannical" for PARENTS to tell children (people) what THEY should think?

 

Being allowed to think freely does NOT mean freedom from influence by one's parents. If that's your goal, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. The choices we are presented with are circumscribed by our environment. Our freedom or lack thereof consists of our response to it. One's intellectual environment up until the end of the teenage years is almost always framed in terms of one's parents. To learn to grow and think freely is not something someone else can give you; real maturity can only be gained on one's own terms, although circumstances can, of course, aid or hinder it.

 

The problem is that you are making personal judgements about certain ideas which the government is not really allowed to make. At least, our government isn't, constitutionally. And it could well be argued that no government can rightly make such judgements. In essence, you are suggesting thati it would be legitimate for the government toimpose your personal judgements about what ideas are good and bad onto the populace. It seems to me that such a thing is disallowed by the very form of our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being allowed to think freely does NOT mean freedom from influence by one's parents. If that's your goal, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. The choices we are presented with are circumscribed by our environment. Our freedom or lack thereof consists of our response to it. One's intellectual environment up until the end of the teenage years is almost always framed in terms of one's parents. To learn to grow and think freely is not something someone else can give you; real maturity can only be gained on one's own terms, although circumstances can, of course, aid or hinder it.

 

The problem is that you are making personal judgements about certain ideas which the government is not really allowed to make. At least, our government isn't, constitutionally. And it could well be argued that no government can rightly make such judgements. In essence, you are suggesting thati it would be legitimate for the government toimpose your personal judgements about what ideas are good and bad onto the populace. It seems to me that such a thing is disallowed by the very form of our government.

What about parents who are monopolistic and restrict a child's environment? Clearly, parents who lock their kids up in cages and never let them out to see the light of day would be considered abusers. What about parents who lock their kids within the Fundamentalist Christian circle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very afraid of any government entity deciding what constitutes mental/emotional abuse of children. For one thing, they don't seem to have brains enough to assertain whether a child is getting physically abused let along deciding what should go into their minds. For example, the case of the little girl in New York who was beaten by her step-father yet child protective services knew and did nothing until the child was eventually found beaten to death. Then you have a foster care system that's so inadequate very few children come out of it unscarred. And we want these folks to also choose what we can teach our children? Ohhh no!

 

Besides, with too many who are trying to force Christian beliefs into legislation, who's to say these people won't make it criminaly negligent for parents to keep their kids away from religion? It wouldn't surprise me that, in custody cases, the Christian parent would be able to use the other parent's atheism or practicing a non-Christian belief as legal ammo to keep the parent away from the kids. This already happens now so can you imagine if there were written laws that could back the Christian parent up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest beanheel

i'm with you nirrti. i don't think the government can be trusted as the arbiter of what is or isn't mental or emotional abuse. and even if they could, municipal enforcement agencies have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to enforce child abuse laws in a way that protects children completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being allowed to think freely does NOT mean freedom from influence by one's parents. If that's your goal, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. The choices we are presented with are circumscribed by our environment. Our freedom or lack thereof consists of our response to it. One's intellectual environment up until the end of the teenage years is almost always framed in terms of one's parents. To learn to grow and think freely is not something someone else can give you; real maturity can only be gained on one's own terms, although circumstances can, of course, aid or hinder it.

 

The problem is that you are making personal judgements about certain ideas which the government is not really allowed to make. At least, our government isn't, constitutionally. And it could well be argued that no government can rightly make such judgements. In essence, you are suggesting thati it would be legitimate for the government toimpose your personal judgements about what ideas are good and bad onto the populace. It seems to me that such a thing is disallowed by the very form of our government.

Hadouken24, this is the SECOND time you have accused me of doing/saying that which I have not said. Please STOP IT. I will not be drawn into the position of arguing a strawman. DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH! I have not said, nor have I called for GOVERNMENT intrusion or any LAWS to be enforced on parents. It is YOU and others who keep bringing up THIS avenue.

 

I have ONLY spoken of SOCIETY. You know, WE THE PEOPLE. FUCK the government!

 

I have only asked WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS? I did not say "Let's get the government to do something about this!"

 

Stop projecting YOUR fears into MY conversation. Thank you.

 

And thank the rest of you, especially SoulinCrisis, for your HELPFUL insights. It has been illuminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down, Grinch. You sound kinda hysterical.

 

You've been using language that implies government intervention. You've been suggesting that raising a child with one's own beliefs might be abusive. Hanging in the background of the conversation is the American use of the word abusive--and our removal of children from abusive parents. It's not much of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down, Grinch. You sound kinda hysterical.

 

You've been using language that implies government intervention. You've been suggesting that raising a child with one's own beliefs might be abusive. Hanging in the background of the conversation is the American use of the word abusive--and our removal of children from abusive parents. It's not much of a stretch.

 

Maybe not, but it's not what he's been saying. You are putting words into his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.