NationStates Jolt Archive

For our purposes here, let's keep the definition of religious practice simple, noting of course that different religions have different practices.

Rituals for the sake of worship and beliefs and engaging in general activities associate with a certain 'cult' - originally from French, part of devout worship - or religion would define religious practice.


Such as communion or prayer?

The religious freedom of the child is not harmed by having the rules of a religion enforced upon them unless they are actively indoctrinated - kept from questioning or exploring other religions.


The rules of a religion usually include "don't convert to a different one" if this is enforced on the child then their religious freedoms are surely harmed.

There is a difference between believing as you want and being forced to believe.

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that parents shouldn't be allowed to force their children to go to church on Sunday (for example) if the child resisted.

The age is geared to prevent forced participation, forcing children to believe as the parents do. It doesn't stop children from believing as they want to. It frees them to question the why and how.

By not being spoon-fed ignorance, they will be free to pursue their own beliefs and figure out what they really believe.

But you know, it's probably less that the kid is saying, "I don't want to go to church because I reject its teachings!" and more like "I don't wanna go! It's boring!".

Except, um, it prevents voluntary participation as well...

Look up my first post in this thread where I stated my option of "other". My idea prevents forced participation but allows voluntary participation.

Um....their whole belief is not to deal with medical science. Why would they care what is and is not applicable?

They might not. But it would make a world of difference to lawmakers and medical professionals. It provides a raional basis for government intervention in private religious practice.

...Rituals for the sake of worship and beliefs and engaging in general activities associate with a certain 'cult' - originally from French, part of devout worship - or religion would define religious practice.

Okay. By religious practice, you mean: any rituals connected with worship or belief.

Now, spinning in circles is a ritual connected with the Sufis, a mystical branch of Islam. They believe it brings about an altered state that allows for communion with god, if I recall correctly.

Would you ban spinning in circles for all children, or just those who may have come into contact with Sufis?

Such as communion or prayer?

Pretty much.

But you know, it's probably less that the kid is saying, "I don't want to go to church because I reject its teachings!" and more like "I don't wanna go! It's boring!".

So? Saying it's boring is an expression of how they feel about being there. Whether they reject it because of the teachings or because it's boring is irrelevant because both ways they are rejecting it. By forcing them to attend when it's "boring", one will only add to that hatred rather than fostering a positive outlook at religion.

Okay. By religious practice, you mean: any rituals connected with worship or belief.

Now, spinning in circles is a ritual connected with the Sufis, a mystical branch of Islam. They believe it brings about an altered state that allows for communion with god, if I recall correctly.

Would you ban spinning in circles for all children, or just those who may have come into contact with Sufis?

Ban spinning in circles for children if they are doing it other than for mindless reasons and schoolyard games.

Ban spinning in circles for children if they are doing it other than for mindless reasons and schoolyard games.

So, you would also ban Tai-Chi for Taoists but not old white people, ban sex for tantric buddhists but not for those of us who do it for fun, ban walks in the park for shamans but not hikers, ban fasting for Christians during Lent but not for atheist dieters, ban yoga for yogis but not female university students, etc.

Is this enforceable? I highly doubt it.

Would it make society better? Again, I highly doubt it.

So, you would also ban Tai-Chi for Taoists but not old white people, ban sex for tantric buddhists but not for those of us who do it for fun, ban walks in the park for shamans but not hikers, ban fasting for Christians during Lent but not for atheist dieters, ban yoga for yogis but not female university students, etc.

Is this enforceable? I highly doubt it.

Would it make society better? Again, I highly doubt it.

Now you're talking about adults, not children, and if you note an earlier post, I said that it would probably be for children around 7-8 years old that it would be open, as they can read and are asking questions.

So, the sex aspect doesn't affect children either way, so that point doesn't work.

You're assuming that the practices are banned for adults, not those unable to understand the purpose of it and question the why.

Why would you need to do that? The circumstances in which parents try to make these sorts of decisions are few and far between. They can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

That is true, but what do you do in cases such as meningitis that require treatment in as little as one day? Sounds a bit cumbersome to force an interview (which might not even be remotely revealing since the subject is extremely cranky from being sick) before deciding on whether or not to administer treatment.

Yes, they can, in the US anyways. Oregon is the only state I know of that has actually passed a law to the contrary, and it has yet to be challenged.

I'm probably with you then that the neglect laws shouldn't make exceptions for religion (I'm not sure if Canada already makes that provision- wouldn't surprise me if it did). It's still a world of difference from an outright ban on religious practice that's been called for in this thread.

Erm.....no, there aren't. Not in the US anyways. We have this crazy thing called free speech.

The U.S. doesn't have hate laws? I find that hard to believe. Maybe not the "spreading of false information" (a crime in Canada) but no hate laws I find hard to believe.

Don't think prayer is a viable option? Well how about holistic methods? Acupuncture? There are places in the world where such methods are standard practice with an interesting success rate. Are you suggesting that those approaches should be disallowed as well because of the methodology preferred by the Government?

Fixed. There's no "w".

Anyway, sounds to me like you're against the government making any kind of law for fear of infringing on someone's rights. I don't think the government defining neglect- meaning "not providing proper medical care" is the same thing as the government telling people what treatments to take. As long as options are available then defining neglect doesn't step on too many toes.

Furthermore, if holistic/acupuncture/prayer methods work (and is backed up by science) I have no problem allowing them as "proper medical care", at least when it comes to defining what *isn't* neglect.

Now you're talking about adults, not children, and if you note an earlier post, I said that it would probably be for children around 7-8 years old that it would be open, as they can read and are asking questions.

So, the sex aspect doesn't affect children either way, so that point doesn't work.

You're assuming that the practices are banned for adults, not those unable to understand the purpose of it and question the why.

Oops. My bad. Though the argument still stands for children.

Well, the tantric sex part would only work for teenagers, yes, but if you didn't meet these kinda folks during your teenage years, well....

But many of the others still apply. And you would still have the problem of being unable to enforce such a law.

And you still have to show that such a measure would somehow be beneficial to society.

Oops. My bad. Though the argument still stands for children.

Well, the tantric sex part would only work for teenagers, yes, but if you didn't meet these kinda folks during your teenage years, well....

But many of the others still apply. And you would still have the problem of being unable to enforce such a law.

And you still have to show that such a measure would somehow be beneficial to society.

We would raise a generation of free-thinkers for one. Start a whole new movement untainted by tradition with the kids making their own beliefs and setting the bar for a new era... (I suck at this touchy-feely shit.)

Tax incentives. Everyone likes incentives in the form of tax relief...

But that isn't the issue. I'm talking about across the board medical decision making, like should we try surgery or chemo to deal with a tumor? Should we remove the tonsils preemptively or just treat the infection? Glasses or contacts?

Don't make it about neglect. That's already illegal. The issue is medical decision making.

No, it isn't. And no, it isn't.

Neglect is perfectly legal in a medical sense in most of the US, so long as your reason is "my religion says so."

And no one here is talking about giving the government complete decision making power over medical treatment but you.

Don't think prayer is a viable option?

It may be a viable option, but it is not a medical treatment.

Right... but what happens when an election year rolls around and some politician decides that certain vaccinations that aren't already mandated should be, or that kids would be healthier if compelled to do some number of hous of exercise per week, as mandated by the Government whom you gleefully have trusted with deciding what's best for your kids? "Think of the Children!"

We examine such things on their merits. If they overstep the bounds of government authority, we get rid of the politicians and vote in others who will overturn the law and/or challenge the law in court.

But by your logic it wouldn't be so awful if they did, would it? Since you're saying the Government has superior judgement and ability to decide. Maybe they'll eventually decide to step in and protect children from their horrible parents who allow them to eat junk food...

Except, of course, that I am not, and never have been saying that.

I have no problem with the government stepping in when parents fail to provide for their children. I have no problem with the government taking children out of the custody of parents who see that they get enough nourishment, clothe them, or get them necessary medical attention. These are basic actions that are an absolute necessity in caring for a child.

I do have a problem with the government choosing the exact food, clothing, or medical procedures that will be carried out.

You're being ridiculous and you know it. This isn't hard to understand.

We would raise a generation of free-thinkers for one. Start a whole new movement untainted by tradition with the kids making their own beliefs and setting the bar for a new era... (I suck at this touchy-feely shit.)

Tax incentives. Everyone likes incentives in the form of tax relief...

Religion and critical thinking skills are not mutually exclusive.

Though those tax incentives do sound sweet, especially at this time of year.

We would raise a generation of free-thinkers for one. Start a whole new movement untainted by tradition with the kids making their own beliefs and setting the bar for a new era... (I suck at this touchy-feely shit.)

Wouldn't this starting a whole new movement be forcing a belief upon kid?

Wouldn't this starting a whole new movement be forcing a belief upon kid?

One would think so.

Which it does incompetently. We frequently hear of drugs that, despite having FDA approval have to be recalled due to unforseen side effects. COnsidering the powerful drug company lobbies in Washington it's little wonder so often drugs get rammed through the system so fast. It's also why they're so expensive.

Ah, it is fun when people so obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Yes, drugs have to be recalled due to unforeseen side effects. Drugs have such effects, and no drug will be fully understood by clinical trials alone. The FDA strikes a balance between keeping drugs out of the hands of patients who need them and making sure those drugs are safe. Because of the nature of trials, things are sometimes missed. This is an expected issue when moving from a controlled population to the general one.

But they are missed much less frequently than they would be if we just let drugs be sold with no regulation and testing.

How many drugs do you think the FDA examines every year? How many scandals do you hear about every year related to drugs like this?


The rules of a religion usually include "don't convert to a different one" if this is enforced on the child then their religious freedoms are surely harmed.

Does a parent actually have mind control lasers?


They might not. But it would make a world of difference to lawmakers and medical professionals. It provides a raional basis for government intervention in private religious practice.

...which is fine. But you said you would argue with the religious person that their religious practice does not include rejecting medical intervention, not that you would argue with lawmakers and medical professionals about when they should intervene.


That is true, but what do you do in cases such as meningitis that require treatment in as little as one day? Sounds a bit cumbersome to force an interview (which might not even be remotely revealing since the subject is extremely cranky from being sick) before deciding on whether or not to administer treatment.

Good question.

I suppose there would have to be a process for a minor to appeal to the court and get it in the general record.

The U.S. doesn't have hate laws? I find that hard to believe. Maybe not the "spreading of false information" (a crime in Canada) but no hate laws I find hard to believe.

Believe it. A lot of us actually see the types of hate speech laws we see in Canada and European as far too authoritarian. The right to free speech is highly valued in this country.

If you are actively inciting violence, you can be prosecuted for it. Other than that, you can say whatever you like. The KKK, for instance, has just as much of a right to spread their racist spew as a peace-loving group of Buddhist monks has to spread their ideas.

No age for religion. Why? Because no age on any thought or philosophy. I don't care if a mom is reading Mein Kompf to her 3 year old, no thought police! Deal with the loonies as they break the laws and endanger others. Never try to manage the clergy! If this girl died by negligence by religious belief, prosecute the parents for manslaughter. Leave thoughts and weird beliefs out of it. I like my South Park and porn way too much to be pointing fingers and throwing stones.

I'm new, hope not to offend.

No age for religion. Why? Because no age on any thought or philosophy. I don't care if a mom is reading Mein Kompf to her 3 year old, no thought police! Deal with the loonies as they break the laws and endanger others. Never try to manage the clergy! If this girl died by negligence by religious belief, prosecute the parents for manslaughter. Leave thoughts and weird beliefs out of it. I like my South Park and porn way too much to be pointing fingers and throwing stones.

I'm new, hope not to offend.

you'll offend someone, don't worry. I agree with what you said though. ;) you can offend me tomorrow perhaps. :D

Fixed. There's no "w".

Thank you.


Anyway, sounds to me like you're against the government making any kind of law for fear of infringing on someone's rights. I don't think the government defining neglect- meaning "not providing proper medical care" is the same thing as the government telling people what treatments to take. As long as options are available then defining neglect doesn't step on too many toes.

Furthermore, if holistic/acupuncture/prayer methods work (and is backed up by science) I have no problem allowing them as "proper medical care", at least when it comes to defining what *isn't* neglect.

But here's the thing, and I'm going to make the same point again in a moment in response to Dem. The definition of neglect is at issue. What I consider neglectful and what you consider neglectful may vary. For example, I don't put a band-aid on every little cut or scrape my kids get. I have a sort of idea of how serious it has to be before I do, but overall I rarely need to. On the other hand, you might be the sort of person who, for the sake of prudence, puts a band-aid on every single injury that breaks the skin. In your mind, I could very well seem to be a neglectful parent.

Now apply that variance to the Government.


We examine such things on their merits. If they overstep the bounds of government authority, we get rid of the politicians and vote in others who will overturn the law and/or challenge the law in court.


That still sets a dangerous precedent. Politicians have a way of selling their ideas for the "sake of the children" and most people will not look at it critically enough. That's how they get away with most of the pork spending they do now.


Except, of course, that I am not, and never have been saying that.

I have no problem with the government stepping in when parents fail to provide for their children. I have no problem with the government taking children out of the custody of parents who see that they get enough nourishment, clothe them, or get them necessary medical attention. These are basic actions that are an absolute necessity in caring for a child.

I do have a problem with the government choosing the exact food, clothing, or medical procedures that will be carried out.


Like I said above, what you feel is neglectful may well be a matter of opnion, and when the politician's opinion is more restrictive than yours? What will you do then?


You're being ridiculous and you know it. This isn't hard to understand.

Well that's alright if you think that, I think you're being naieve. I mean no offense by saying that (and I would hope you didn't either) but you and Cabra both seem to have an awful lot of faith in an organization that's known for its inefficiency, incompetence and corruption.

No age for religion. Why? Because no age on any thought or philosophy. I don't care if a mom is reading Mein Kompf to her 3 year old, no thought police! Deal with the loonies as they break the laws and endanger others. Never try to manage the clergy! If this girl died by negligence by religious belief, prosecute the parents for manslaughter. Leave thoughts and weird beliefs out of it. I like my South Park and porn way too much to be pointing fingers and throwing stones.

I'm new, hope not to offend.

What you say has a resonance of truth. oh and it's Mein Kampf i think, not that i'm an expert on spelling of Nazi propaganda.

what if the particular belief is damaging? would it not make sense to prevent preaching it?
What if there was another religion that stated all people with green eyes should be murdered, would this be acceptable to be taught to young people?
Seeing as there is an age certificate on Video games, movies you name it religion should also fall under the scrutiny of censorship.

Ah, it is fun when people so obviously have no idea what they are talking about.


I remember a time when you weren't so fast to take personal shots. I kinda miss that.

I certainly hope that you're not mistaking my refraining from doing so as some kind of evidence of a superior position on your part. I just prefer to keep it civil.


Yes, drugs have to be recalled due to unforeseen side effects. Drugs have such effects, and no drug will be fully understood by clinical trials alone. The FDA strikes a balance between keeping drugs out of the hands of patients who need them and making sure those drugs are safe. Because of the nature of trials, things are sometimes missed. This is an expected issue when moving from a controlled population to the general one.

But they are missed much less frequently than they would be if we just let drugs be sold with no regulation and testing.

How many drugs do you think the FDA examines every year? How many scandals do you hear about every year related to drugs like this?


Are you suggesting that lobbyists have *NO* influence on the process? Please please please tell me you don't believe they do. Are you suggesting that drug companies are so ethical and good that they'd n ever exert their influence to get drugs pushed through?

Didn't you read the news last year when some drug (the name of which escapes me at the moment but since you feel you know a lot about these things surely you'll remember) was found to have been FDA approved despite glaring deficiencies in following procedure and testing, including data being left out of reports that would have led to the drug being rejected?

What you say has a resonance of truth. oh and it's Mein Kampf i think, not that i'm an expert on spelling of Nazi propaganda.

what if the particular belief is damaging? would it not make sense to prevent preaching it?
What if there was another religion that stated all people with green eyes should be murdered, would this be acceptable to be taught to young people?
Seeing as there is an age certificate on Video games, movies you name it religion should also fall under the scrutiny of censorship.

does it really matter? I mean if they aren't actually killing green eyed people, who cares what they think?

people say a lot of stupid stuff, it's the US, that's what we do here, we have freedom to say stupid stuff.

we don't always have freedom to do stupid stuff though, which is fine, when your stupidity affects people around you, something has to be done. neglect your kids, they get taken away, it's life.

does it really matter? I mean if they aren't actually killing green eyed people, who cares what they think?

people say a lot of stupid stuff, it's the US, that's what we do here, we have freedom to say stupid stuff.

we don't always have freedom to do stupid stuff though, which is fine, when your stupidity affects people around you, something has to be done. neglect your kids, they get taken away, it's life.

so cure is better than prevention of a potential dogma?
What happens when the said kids grow up with a distorted view of the world, and become isolated?
sure it's nice to have freedom, but i don't see it about anywhere do you?

so cure is better than prevention of a potential dogma?
What happens when the said kids grow up with a distorted view of the world, and become isolated?
sure it's nice to have freedom, but i don't see it about anywhere do you?
everyone who doesn't share your world view has a distorted world view? how arrogant.

freedom isn't freedom if everyone must think the same things.

I vote NO.

Why?:rolleyes:

Because, kids are kids. Although its true that kids are as human as any adult, why is it they don't have the same rights? Why can't they decide for themselves, like adults? Why is there a driving limit, drinking limit, smoking limit, and so on. Because kids are dumb. Therefore, it is up to their parents or legal guardian to decide for them. They chose what they eat, what they do, where they go to school, and what they believe in. They have to, because kids aren't smart enough to decide for themselves, and its up to the parents to make the right choices for them. As they grow older, they pack there own lunches, they start to drive, drink, chose their college, move away, get married. This is also the time that they can choose what they believe in. Until then, its up to mom and dad.

Wow, this is the longest post I've ever had. Then again, I've only had a few.

everyone who doesn't share your world view has a distorted world view? how arrogant.

freedom isn't freedom if everyone must think the same things.

No i wasn't saying that other people who believe different things are distorted, however should their parents believe in some cult they might also believe in a cult and follow strange ideas that are dangerous, for example.

So what is freedom then? I haven't seen it around, maybe i should put in a missing notice for it.

No i wasn't saying that other people who believe different things are distorted, however should their parents believe in some cult they might also believe in a cult and follow strange ideas that are dangerous, for example.

So what is freedom then? I haven't seen it around, maybe i should put in a missing notice for it.
I'm pretty sure you don't get more freedom by restricting more things.

Out of curiosity, how would one enforce that legislation?

I'm pretty sure you don't get more freedom by restricting more things.

But what is freedom? It's just an illusion to keep people happy, it doesn't have any real substance.

Out of curiosity, how would one enforce that legislation?

by really wanting to piss off the religious voters in their country.

But here's the thing, and I'm going to make the same point again in a moment in response to Dem. The definition of neglect is at issue. What I consider neglectful and what you consider neglectful may vary.

And some people may say that refusing to feed their children isn't neglect. Should we allow them to starve their children?

For example, I don't put a band-aid on every little cut or scrape my kids get. I have a sort of idea of how serious it has to be before I do, but overall I rarely need to. On the other hand, you might be the sort of person who, for the sake of prudence, puts a band-aid on every single injury that breaks the skin. In your mind, I could very well seem to be a neglectful parent.

This isn't really relevant to the discussion of a parent who does not seek necessary medical treatment and instead sits at home and watches their child die.

That still sets a dangerous precedent. Politicians have a way of selling their ideas for the "sake of the children" and most people will not look at it critically enough. That's how they get away with most of the pork spending they do now.

The precedent is no more dangerous than the one set by taking children out of the custody of parents who refuse to feed them.

And people need to pay more attention. Our government is never going to work properly if they don't.

Like I said above, what you feel is neglectful may well be a matter of opnion, and when the politician's opinion is more restrictive than yours? What will you do then?

Oppose the politician. Vote out the politician. Take it to court. Whatever I have to.

Well that's alright if you think that, I think you're being naieve. I mean no offense by saying that (and I would hope you didn't either) but you and Cabra both seem to have an awful lot of faith in an organization that's known for its inefficiency, incompetence and corruption.

I have very little faith in the government, if any. But I do expect it to do its job, which I believe includes keeping parents from neglecting their children.

You can try to argue that sitting at home while your child dies of an easily treatable disease is not neglect, but your argument isn't going to be successful with me.

I remember a time when you weren't so fast to take personal shots. I kinda miss that.

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that drugs get through the FDA process quickly is clearly ignorant of the process. The process is lengthy and incredibly expensive.

I could have said it a little more nicely, I suppose, but it would still be true.

Are you suggesting that lobbyists have *NO* influence on the process?

No. In some instances, they have too much. In some instances, the president's religious objections to certain medications have too much influence as well. Most often, when it happens, they have way too much influence over the administrators, who then ignore the medical and scientific reasoning of the people actually qualified to make these decisions.

But the overall process is carried out much better than people give it credit for. Are there drugs that are held up longer than they should be or drugs that get through when they shouldn't? Of course. No process is perfect. But given the volume that the FDA sees and the small rate of problems, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

Out of curiosity, how would one enforce that legislation?

One couldn't. That's what makes this discussion academic.

...which is fine. But you said you would argue with the religious person that their religious practice does not include rejecting medical intervention, not that you would argue with lawmakers and medical professionals about when they should intervene.

To be honest, I wasn't quite sure what you meant by your question.

I would argue with any religious person who tries to pass off their belief as being as equally valid as science theories, but I would do that becuase I'm a bit mean. Would it change their mind? Maybe not. But it would be fun.

If we were going to argue about it as an aspect of restricting religious practice for minors, I would argue that such a distinction is important when we are discussing cases of medical neglect. It is important because it takes the debate out of the realm of the spiritual into the real and verifiable. And whenit comes to the health of our children, it is important to keep the debate practical.

But what is freedom? It's just an illusion to keep people happy, it doesn't have any real substance.

that's outside the scope of the thread I believe, but what substance do you expect any idea to have? love, hate, freedom, lust, it's all without substance.

that's outside the scope of the thread I believe, but what substance do you expect any idea to have? love, hate, freedom, lust, it's all without substance.

Well love is between people, hate is also between people they're emotions, lust is a desire, freedom is different from those, freedom seems to ask for something which isn't there, and asks people to do things to find it for no real profit. Freedom is an ideal, sure it's nice to have but really it doesn't exist, except in the mind.

And some people may say that refusing to feed their children isn't neglect. Should we allow them to starve their children?
This isn't really relevant to the discussion of a parent who does not seek necessary medical treatment and instead sits at home and watches their child die.
The precedent is no more dangerous than the one set by taking children out of the custody of parents who refuse to feed them.
I have very little faith in the government, if any. But I do expect it to do its job, which I believe includes keeping parents from neglecting their children.
You can try to argue that sitting at home while your child dies of an easily treatable disease is not neglect, but your argument isn't going to be successful with me.


I don't know why you keep going back to the issue of neglect to the point of death or starvation. That's already been conceded and is already illegal.

But the reality isn't that black and white. There's Jehovah's Witnesses who won't accept blood transfusions. There are sects out there that would probably object to any treatment resulting from the use of embryonic stem cells. Where does the line get drawn? Would you deny parents the right to seek alternative treatments that may be less effective because their religion prohibits more effective ones? Where does that line get drawn? Surgery vs. chemotherapy. Radiation vs. drugs. What if there are objections to one and not the other but the difference in effectiveness varies?


And people need to pay more attention. Our government is never going to work properly if they don't.


Damn right. The problem is that at this stage, it's going to take some major social upheval to make that happen...


Oppose the politician. Vote out the politician. Take it to court. Whatever I have to.
An ounce of prevention...


I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that drugs get through the FDA process quickly is clearly ignorant of the process. The process is lengthy and incredibly expensive.

I could have said it a little more nicely, I suppose, but it would still be true.


I'm only going by what I read. The FDA has been caught with their pants down on this issue more than once.


No. In some instances, they have too much. In some instances, the president's religious objections to certain medications have too much influence as well. Most often, when it happens, they have way too much influence over the administrators, who then ignore the medical and scientific reasoning of the people actually qualified to make these decisions.

But the overall process is carried out much better than people give it credit for. Are there drugs that are held up longer than they should be or drugs that get through when they shouldn't? Of course. No process is perfect. But given the volume that the FDA sees and the small rate of problems, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

I don't mean to suggest that the FDA isn't doing good. What I'm saying is that the FDA is a Government agency and as such it is subject to the same inefficiency, corruption and overspending that every other Government agency is.

The last thing I want is yet another Government agency enforcing yet another set of laws that deprives people of yet another level of freedom. Will there be times when some idiot makes a call that results in their child dying? yeah, there will. Know what? We can't delude ourselves into thinking that somehow all will be perfect with Government stepping in on a regular day-to-day basis.

Parents who have kids make a dozen judgement calls a day that could directly affect the life and health of their child. Parents are human beings. Having children is an awesome responsibility but this isn't a perfect world and tragedy sometimes happens. Sometimes it's the parents fault, sometimes it isn't. You're not gonna make it all better by attacking religious freedom in the name of the "think o f the children" mentality. We already have mechanisms in place for dealing with cases of gross neglect of children. Let the system that's already in place do it's work. If it's not functioning well enough, then let's fix it. More laws aren't the answer. Less freedom isn't the answer.

Physical practice aspects of it, to some extent (like the story from the link or GM) yes. Practice through learning or "Indoctrination", no way!

I don't know why you keep going back to the issue of neglect to the point of death or starvation. That's already been conceded and is already illegal.

No, it isn't.

It is perfectly legal throughout most of the country for a parent to sit back and watch a child die of a perfectly treatable disease without seeking medical intervention, so long as their excuse for doing so is "my religion says so."

But the reality isn't that black and white. There's Jehovah's Witnesses who won't accept blood transfusions.

Indeed. Which is fine for the JW.

But should a surgeon let a child die on the table because they did everything they could to avoid the necessity for a transfusion and a parent says "Let him die, even though you could easily save him"? I don't think so.

Damn right. The problem is that at this stage, it's going to take some major social upheval to make that happen...

That's true at any stage. I don't think keeping the government from doing its job because you're afraid it might overstep its bounds is the way to solve the problem.

An ounce of prevention...

We could prevent improper use of police power by getting rid of the police altogether. But is that the best option?

I'm only going by what I read. The FDA has been caught with their pants down on this issue more than once.

They have been "caught" making mistakes. Yes. Any human-run organization will make mistakes.

But the clear truth of the matter is that they are effective much more often than not.

Parents who have kids make a dozen judgement calls a day that could directly affect the life and health of their child.

Indeed. But there are some calls they should not have the authority to make.

Parents are human beings. Having children is an awesome responsibility but this isn't a perfect world and tragedy sometimes happens. Sometimes it's the parents fault, sometimes it isn't. You're not gonna make it all better by attacking religious freedom in the name of the "think o f the children" mentality.

As I've already said, I don't agree with the OP's proposal. What I do agree with is limiting the extent to which a parent can enforce religion upon a child. When such enforcement is harmful and/or permanent (such as neglecting to seek medical treatment, making bodily changes etc.), I do not agree that the parents should have authority to enforce religious precepts on their children any more than they could do it on someone unrelated to them.

We already have mechanisms in place for dealing with cases of gross neglect of children.

...except, in most cases, we don't. "My religion says so" is enough to allow a parent to sit back and watch a child die of an easily treatable disease in most of the country.

Let the system that's already in place do it's work. If it's not functioning well enough, then let's fix it. More laws aren't the answer. Less freedom isn't the answer.

We don't need more laws. We simply need to stop seeing the parents' religion as a valid excuse for things that would be illegal otherwise.

No, it isn't.

It is perfectly legal throughout most of the country for a parent to sit back and watch a child die of a perfectly treatable disease without seeking medical intervention, so long as their excuse for doing so is "my religion says so."


Where do you get that?


Indeed. Which is fine for the JW.

But should a surgeon let a child die on the table because they did everything they could to avoid the necessity for a transfusion and a parent says "Let him die, even though you could easily save him"? I don't think so.


And again, what if it's not a question of life and death but a question of choosing a less effective treatment over a more effective one?


That's true at any stage. I don't think keeping the government from doing its job because you're afraid it might overstep its bounds is the way to solve the problem.


The Government's job is not to micromanage people's lives.


We could prevent improper use of police power by getting rid of the police altogether. But is that the best option?


That analogy would work if I had said abolish Government.


They have been "caught" making mistakes. Yes. Any human-run organization will make mistakes.

But the clear truth of the matter is that they are effective much more often than not.


Fine, but that doesn't somehow prove the angelic and wonderful nature of Government which you appear to be promoting.


Indeed. But there are some calls they should not have the authority to make.


And that's where we disagree, and it's the crux of the issue.


As I've already said, I don't agree with the OP's proposal. What I do agree with is limiting the extent to which a parent can enforce religion upon a child. When such enforcement is harmful and/or permanent (such as neglecting to seek medical treatment, making bodily changes etc.), I do not agree that the parents should have authority to enforce religious precepts on their children any more than they could do it on someone unrelated to them.


'enforcing religion.' I wonder what your view is on circumcision.


...except, in most cases, we don't. "My religion says so" is enough to allow a parent to sit back and watch a child die of an easily treatable disease in most of the country.

We don't need more laws. We simply need to stop seeing the parents' religion as a valid excuse for things that would be illegal otherwise.


Back to that again.

Where do you get that?

From legal precedent. A parent who is of a religion that will not seek medical treatment can make that decision for children as well.

In response (as the article that prompted the discussion states), Oregon, at least, has passed a law against such practice. It has yet, however, to be challenged, and may or may not stand.

And again, what if it's not a question of life and death but a question of choosing a less effective treatment over a more effective one?

As a general rule, the exact treatment chosen out of possible treatments should be decided by the parent. If the minor is old enough and mature enough to be a part of that decision, they should be.

The Government's job is not to micromanage people's lives.

Nope. So I guess it's a good thing I'm not suggesting they do that.

That analogy would work if I had said abolish Government.

Your logic is "The government will misuse any power we give it, even if there is a sound reason for the authority we give it. Therefore we shouldn't give it this authority."

By that logic, we should abolish the government.

Fine, but that doesn't somehow prove the angelic and wonderful nature of Government which you appear to be promoting.

If you think I'm promoting any such thing, you aren't really reading what I've written, nor have you bothered to pay attention to anything I've ever said about government in the entirety of my time on NSG.

And that's where we disagree, and it's the crux of the issue.

Is it. Do you think parents should have absolute power over the lives of their children?

I doubt it.

'enforcing religion.' I wonder what your view is on circumcision.

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to allow a parent to cut a portion of their child's body off because the parent's religion dictates it. If and when the child is old enough and mature enough to make that decision for himself, he can do so.

There are possible medical benefits, and for that reason, I do not think neonatal circumcision should be illegal at this juncture. I am not personally convinced by the medical literature that it should be done routinely, but there are those who disagree with me. This means, in the end, that parents who are really doing it because of religion can do it as a medical procedure and get away with it.

But if the medical community comes to a conclusion that elective circumcision is more harmful than helpful, I would not support a religious exception for the circumcision of children.

Back to that again.

"Back" to it? It is what I have been discussing all along.

It is you who want to pretend that I'm suggesting a larger role for the government than that.

We simply need to stop seeing the parents' religion as a valid excuse for things that would be illegal otherwise.
Exactly.

I'd take it a bit farther and insist that the application of no law should be contingent on the presence or absence of religious beliefs. There must be no cases where one can freely violate the law and be exempt from legal consequences simply based on one's religious beliefs.

Ever. Under any circumstances.

Good question.

I suppose there would have to be a process for a minor to appeal to the court and get it in the general record.

After the fact, I guess, so that "if it ever happens again" the physicians know what to do.

That might work. I must admit, I'd be interested in seeing how many children opt for "no medical treatment" after such a traumatic experience.

Believe it. A lot of us actually see the types of hate speech laws we see in Canada and European as far too authoritarian. The right to free speech is highly valued in this country.

If you are actively inciting violence, you can be prosecuted for it. Other than that, you can say whatever you like. The KKK, for instance, has just as much of a right to spread their racist spew as a peace-loving group of Buddhist monks has to spread their ideas.

I believe the law is similar in Canada- I'm not sure. I do want to know- does that apply even in education? I imagine there's some kind of stipulation about incendiary and/or racy opinions being expressed in schools- I mean, I understand the KKK may have a right to run a white supremacy Web Site but I doubt they'd be able to teach their views in front of five-year-olds.

But here's the thing, and I'm going to make the same point again in a moment in response to Dem. The definition of neglect is at issue. What I consider neglectful and what you consider neglectful may vary. For example, I don't put a band-aid on every little cut or scrape my kids get. I have a sort of idea of how serious it has to be before I do, but overall I rarely need to. On the other hand, you might be the sort of person who, for the sake of prudence, puts a band-aid on every single injury that breaks the skin. In your mind, I could very well seem to be a neglectful parent.

Now apply that variance to the Government.

Well, what law *isn't* the manifestation of some opinion expressed by a lawmaker? I'm sure if you ask enough people you'd find someone who'd object to any law you could think of, even the violent ones (for whatever reason), so asking that the laws do not express an opinion would leave a country with no laws because there are just too many opinions to cover. So it's the lawmaker's job (which, I agree, doesn't always work out this way) to ensure that the laws they enact cover what most people think (or would think- sometimes a law may be unpopular at first but would eventually prove to be beneficial and thus would become "majority opinion")- they're probably going to still step on a few toes no matter what they do, but you hope it's the fewest amount of toes possible.

I agree that defining neglect is a matter of opinion and that it's a tightrope, but I do think there's enough of a majority opinion on the issue that some kind of "common ground" (or "common definition") can be reached.

What you say has a resonance of truth. oh and it's Mein Kampf i think, not that i'm an expert on spelling of Nazi propaganda.

what if the particular belief is damaging? would it not make sense to prevent preaching it?
What if there was another religion that stated all people with green eyes should be murdered, would this be acceptable to be taught to young people?
Seeing as there is an age certificate on Video games, movies you name it religion should also fall under the scrutiny of censorship.

See, this is the issue I've been having this entire thread- this is a very nice idea in theory but in practice it's next to impossible to implement. There's very little tangible within a religion that can be regulated, whereas things like voting, playing video games, driving, drinking, smoking, etc. are all actions that can be seen and thus regulated. In a religion you'd be able to regulate attendance and the sale of holy artifacts (including the sale of holy books) but you'd miss the most damaging part- the one which all agree is the culprit- indoctrination. I don't even know how you begin to regulate that, because most of it (probably) takes place or could take place inside the home where it's unavoidable. Besides- as others have mentioned- telling others what views can be taught and expressed sounds a lot like the Thought Police, and I think restrictions on the teaching of incendiary material (like white supremacy) to children are already covered somewhere (or probably should be).

This whole idea is bordering on the regulation of opinions and something there just doesn't sit well with me, no matter how noble this question actually is.

EDIT- Yes it is "Mein Kampf"

Damn right. The problem is that at this stage, it's going to take some major social upheval to make that happen...

It's the subject of another thread, but I figure one day when the tide is clearly turning on the West and/or the people have "had enough" with their governments they'll "take action"- the problem is now there's nothing "major" to rise up against. We may have our disagreements but I don't think many of us feel those are such big problems that we can't just "live with them" so we do nothing.

After the fact, I guess, so that "if it ever happens again" the physicians know what to do.

Or beforehand. There is already a mechanism in place for adults who want to make sure they don't get medical treatments they don't wish to have. This process would have to include the interview, but it would be similar.

That might work. I must admit, I'd be interested in seeing how many children opt for "no medical treatment" after such a traumatic experience.

That's an interesting question. My guess would be that lots of them would start questioning their parents' beliefs very quickly if they actually went through something traumatic and got treatment.

I believe the law is similar in Canada- I'm not sure. I do want to know- does that apply even in education? I imagine there's some kind of stipulation about incendiary and/or racy opinions being expressed in schools- I mean, I understand the KKK may have a right to run a white supremacy Web Site but I doubt they'd be able to teach their views in front of five-year-olds.

Political/religious/etc. groups don't have any right to be in a public school at all (except as parents of the kids there). It would be possible, I believe, for a private school to teach some pretty awful things, but public schools have much more controlled curriculum.

Also, there are areas (such as public schools for minors) where free speech can be more restricted. Teachers and administrators are considered to be part of the government, so they cannot teach religion or push political ideologies in their positions. Even students can be more restricted in schools (to prevent disruption) than they would be at large.

It's the subject of another thread, but I figure one day when the tide is clearly turning on the West and/or the people have "had enough" with their governments they'll "take action"- the problem is now there's nothing "major" to rise up against. We may have our disagreements but I don't think many of us feel those are such big problems that we can't just "live with them" so we do nothing.

I also think that, for better or worse, most of us are committed to making changes within the system, rather than any true "rising up" against it.

But the apathy is frustrating.

Or beforehand. There is already a mechanism in place for adults who want to make sure they don't get medical treatments they don't wish to have. This process would have to include the interview, but it would be similar.

Ah, I see- it's like those "do not revive" bracelets (or something like that- I've only heard about it in passing).

That's an interesting question. My guess would be that lots of them would start questioning their parents' beliefs very quickly if they actually went through something traumatic and got treatment.

I agree wholeheartedly. Reminds me of this parable (http://jaysmoney.blogspot.com/2007/10/flood.html), kind of puts everything in perspective.

Political/religious/etc. groups don't have any right to be in a public school at all (except as parents of the kids there). It would be possible, I believe, for a private school to teach some pretty awful things, but public schools have much more controlled curriculum.

Also, there are areas (such as public schools for minors) where free speech can be more restricted. Teachers and administrators are considered to be part of the government, so they cannot teach religion or push political ideologies in their positions. Even students can be more restricted in schools (to prevent disruption) than they would be at large.

I figured so. I don't know how well private institutions can be regulated by law, but I figure one law that might be worth pursuing is not granting accreditation to schools who teach incendiary material. I also thought of putting in a stipulation against falsehoods but I don't know if it could fly considering all the fundamentalists who'd complain about us striking down Creationism...wait, maybe that's not a bad idea after all? :cool:

I also think that, for better or worse, most of us are committed to making changes within the system, rather than any true "rising up" against it.

But the apathy is frustrating.

It is. My point is that until there's a need for change you probably won't see it. I don't doubt the willingness of a devoted group for change, but I doubt such calls will get heeded until the majority feels there's a need for it- and that only happens in times of crises, I'm afraid (think of the Civil Rights movement for one, or the Crisis of the Third Century in Rome for another). As long as we're all living comfortably I doubt you'll see anything except a minor change, if anything.

I can understand why you see that as a contradiction.

See, the whole basis for the American Constitution is to keep Government power in check. It's written using logic that assumes that any Government that is not held in check will eventually oppress its people. Government by its nature promotes corruption but is a necessary evil. This is the position of the writers of the Constitution.



Which it does incompetently. We frequently hear of drugs that, despite having FDA approval have to be recalled due to unforseen side effects. COnsidering the powerful drug company lobbies in Washington it's little wonder so often drugs get rammed through the system so fast. It's also why they're so expensive.

And who forces the companies to withdraw medication that's showing side effects? Sure you can test all you want and still miss out on some aspect, that doesn't mean that the testing as such is futile.



No, it's about money. Just last week (And I almost st arted a thread about it but I couldn't get the article link to work) there was an article in the local Dallas news about the traffic cameras in the city. You see, the cameras were actually reducing the number of red lights run and thus, accidents. The problem is that revenue from fines also went down since fewer violations were being committed. With revenue down the cameras were no longer supplying funds as before. The city council's proposed solution:

Remove the cameras.

That's right. The Government, which you trust so much, actually managed to improve safety and now they're thinking about undoing it because it doesn't generate enough money. Think that's an isolated case? What about the Traffic fines imposed last year in Virginia boosting the fine for repeat traffic offenders to the thousands, imposed by the state highway administration to help fund highway construction? (This measure was proposed by a state representative who owned a law firm specializing in... traffic cases.)


If they actually try to do that, that would be legal grounds to sue them for endangering the public.


Actually, a measure to do exactly that was proposed in a California municipality 2 years ago. (I don't remember which and I don't know if it passed, but I read an article about it at the time.) They wanted to monitor the amount of recycled material as compared to the amount of garbage being generated by each home to be sure that it met a particular ratio.

"Proposed" being the key word... was it put into action?
There are ridiculous proposals to governments every day, everywhere. Most of them get thrown out right away, some of them are given some consideration for various reasons. Some manage to get press attention, like the one above.


It doesn't provide unemployment benefits. Those are paid for by unemployment insurance and witholdings from employers. And it does mean they can compel you to work since the benefits are only temporary and are conditional upon your providing proof of an active effort to secure employment.

It does provide unemployment benefits, there are no unemployment insurances here.
And no, they cannot force you to work to earn those benefits. They can cancel the benefits if they believe you could work but don't want to, but they can't force you to work in order to receive benefits.


Are you assuming that it would? Because if someone wants to kill and can't get a gun, they'll find another, possibly even more destructive means. Ask yourelf this: If you wanted to kill as many people as possible in a crowded shopping mall, would you use a gun or a bomb?

A bomb. Much more effective.
And guns do seem to be first choice for violent crimes in the US. I'm not saying they cause violence, but they do facilitate it.

Well that's alright if you think that, I think you're being naieve. I mean no offense by saying that (and I would hope you didn't either) but you and Cabra both seem to have an awful lot of faith in an organization that's known for its inefficiency, incompetence and corruption.

I don't know if I would trust the US government, to be honest.
And I trust the Irish government only so far. But the government isn't just one big, uniform moloch, it's many people doing many different jobs, advising, legislating, evaluating and deciding, with the public being able at each point to step up and influence the decision one way or another. As I am part of the public, I'm also part of the government's decision process. It's called democracy.

Wouldn't this starting a whole new movement be forcing a belief upon kid?

And the current way isn't forcing beliefs?

Like... for example, a parent forcing a child who doesn't want to attend religious services because "it's boring" isn't forcing beliefs upon said child?

Religion and critical thinking skills are not mutually exclusive.

Though those tax incentives do sound sweet, especially at this time of year.

Some days it seems as though they might as well be.

Tax incentives are sweet... ;) People hate taxes... it's simple really.

I vote NO.

Why?:rolleyes:

Because, kids are kids. Although its true that kids are as human as any adult, why is it they don't have the same rights? Why can't they decide for themselves, like adults? Why is there a driving limit, drinking limit, smoking limit, and so on. Because kids are dumb. Therefore, it is up to their parents or legal guardian to decide for them. They chose what they eat, what they do, where they go to school, and what they believe in. They have to, because kids aren't smart enough to decide for themselves, and its up to the parents to make the right choices for them. As they grow older, they pack there own lunches, they start to drive, drink, chose their college, move away, get married. This is also the time that they can choose what they believe in. Until then, its up to mom and dad.

Wow, this is the longest post I've ever had. Then again, I've only had a few.

You've just proven why I wanted to create this thread.

You're equally as guilty as I. One upon reading that could claim thought police. You're in favour of just that, but in the opposite way that I am proposing as a matter of academic discussion.

You are suggesting that the parent override the child even if the child is saying that they don't believe and force-feeding that child their beliefs. That isn't doing the side against the idea of freeing children from forced indoctrination any favours, really.

Out of curiosity, how would one enforce that legislation?

In theory... as I have suggested before, tax incentives.

One couldn't. That's what makes this discussion academic.

...and why it would never happen. :)

EDIT - There, caught up from last night... (some of us do sleep :))

From legal precedent. A parent who is of a religion that will not seek medical treatment can make that decision for children as well.

In response (as the article that prompted the discussion states), Oregon, at least, has passed a law against such practice. It has yet, however, to be challenged, and may or may not stand.


What I asked you was where you got the info that 'most' states would not prosecute.


As a general rule, the exact treatment chosen out of possible treatments should be decided by the parent. If the minor is old enough and mature enough to be a part of that decision, they should be.


I'm glad you feel that way, but you might remember a case about a year ago of a 15 year old cancer patient who wanted to go with holistic medicine rather than the chemo. His parents supported his decision. The Government, our wise, benevolent and powerful Government, decided that was a bad thing and obtained a court order to FORCE him to undergo chemotherapy.

So are you comfortable with that?


Nope. So I guess it's a good thing I'm not suggesting they do that.


Mhm.


Your logic is "The government will misuse any power we give it, even if there is a sound reason for the authority we give it. Therefore we shouldn't give it this authority."

By that logic, we should abolish the government.


I'm a Libertarian and the way we see Government, it's a necessary evil. You have to have one, but it needs to be limited as much as possible. Ideally we wouldn't even need it, but this isn't an ideal world and so we do.


If you think I'm promoting any such thing, you aren't really reading what I've written, nor have you bothered to pay attention to anything I've ever said about government in the entirety of my time on NSG.


Oh I read quite carefully, and what I'm reading is someone who is comfortable allowing the Government to have a hand in child raising. You said yourself that you think there is a lavel of control that parents should not have. Now, since we agree that letting a kid starve or die of neglect is an obvious case where action needs to be taken, the fact that we're still arguing means that you are comfortable with a level of Government intervention in cases that fall short of neglect. Otherwise you're just arguing for its own sake.


Is it. Do you think parents should have absolute power over the lives of their children?

I doubt it.


Parents have ultimate responsibility for them thus they should have full control (within the obvious limits of reason. Neglect is a case where parents shirk that responsibility and thus it is a propriate for someone else to step in and take it up.)


I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to allow a parent to cut a portion of their child's body off because the parent's religion dictates it. If and when the child is old enough and mature enough to make that decision for himself, he can do so.

There are possible medical benefits, and for that reason, I do not think neonatal circumcision should be illegal at this juncture. I am not personally convinced by the medical literature that it should be done routinely, but there are those who disagree with me. This means, in the end, that parents who are really doing it because of religion can do it as a medical procedure and get away with it.

But if the medical community comes to a conclusion that elective circumcision is more harmful than helpful, I would not support a religious exception for the circumcision of children.


Alright so you would support Government intervention in a case that's not about neglect and does not threaten the child's life. Where would you draw the line? What if the parents believed in piercing ears? I personally wouldn't pierce a baby's ears but suppose someone does. Would you support Government action to criminalize it? Where does it end?

The point I'm making here, and have been all along, is that you have to be VERY careful what you allow the Government to be involved in. Once you open certain doors you can't close them again and it's naieve to think the Government can, in general, do a better job of making decisions regarding your children than you can.


"Back" to it? It is what I have been discussing all along.

Yes, YOU have. You keep going back to the letting kids die argument as if I were promoting it.


It is you who want to pretend that I'm suggesting a larger role for the government than that.

Actually, your willingness to let Government regulate circumcision (hindered only by tenuous medical evidence that suggests it's beneficial) shows that you are.

And who forces the companies to withdraw medication that's showing side effects? Sure you can test all you want and still miss out on some aspect, that doesn't mean that the testing as such is futile.


1)Most recalls these days are voluntary, in fact I can't remember a case recently where it wasn't, although I won't assert that there aren't any.
2)I never said testing was futile. I said it had been handled incompetently.


If they actually try to do that, that would be legal grounds to sue them for endangering the public.


Except that a lawsuit has to be based on breaking the law or liability. If the State takes out the cameras through legislation then at no time is it in violation of the law, and liability would be hard to prove unless you can show that somehow the Government is making the intersections inherently less safe.


"Proposed" being the key word... was it put into action?
There are ridiculous proposals to governments every day, everywhere. Most of them get thrown out right away, some of them are given some consideration for various reasons. Some manage to get press attention, like the one above.


Ahh yes but this particular incident was newsworthy precisely because it DID have a lot of support and was expected to pass. For all we know, it did.


It does provide unemployment benefits, there are no unemployment insurances here.
And no, they cannot force you to work to earn those benefits. They can cancel the benefits if they believe you could work but don't want to, but they can't force you to work in order to receive benefits.


Well that's a difference in the laws between here and there.


A bomb. Much more effective.
And guns do seem to be first choice for violent crimes in the US. I'm not saying they cause violence, but they do facilitate it.

Anything used as a weapon facilitates violence, but none are the source of it.

I don't know if I would trust the US government, to be honest.
And I trust the Irish government only so far. But the government isn't just one big, uniform moloch, it's many people doing many different jobs, advising, legislating, evaluating and deciding, with the public being able at each point to step up and influence the decision one way or another. As I am part of the public, I'm also part of the government's decision process. It's called democracy.

Actually, and this is nitpicky I admit, but neither of us lives in a democracy. We both live in republics. The reason that's important is that politicians who make decisions are easily corrupted and influenced not by public sentiment but by special interest groups and corporate lobbies who do NOT represent the majority but rather, groups who can come up with generous campaign donations.

And I don't blame you for not trusting the US Government. I don't trust it either. I vote, I speak out, I blog, I do what I can to make as much of a difference as I can, but it takes a lot more than the opinions of a single big-mouthed software developer to hold back the tide.

1)Most recalls these days are voluntary, in fact I can't remember a case recently where it wasn't, although I won't assert that there aren't any.
2)I never said testing was futile. I said it had been handled incompetently.


To avoid lawsuits (made possible by the government) in case of serious harm done to the public. Admittedly, governments could be more efficient at protecting the public, but they sure as hell are WAY more effective at that than any corporation.


Except that a lawsuit has to be based on breaking the law or liability. If the State takes out the cameras through legislation then at no time is it in violation of the law, and liability would be hard to prove unless you can show that somehow the Government is making the intersections inherently less safe.

The simple two statistics of before-cam and with-cam would be sufficient.


Ahh yes but this particular incident was newsworthy precisely because it DID have a lot of support and was expected to pass. For all we know, it did.

Government support or public support? And I think we would know if it did, especially here on NSG.

Anything used as a weapon facilitates violence, but none are the source of it.

I never claimed religion was the source of violence. But looking at the current state of the planet, it sure is a big facilitator.

Actually, and this is nitpicky I admit, but neither of us lives in a democracy. We both live in republics. The reason that's important is that politicians who make decisions are easily corrupted and influenced not by public sentiment but by special interest groups and corporate lobbies who do NOT represent the majority but rather, groups who can come up with generous campaign donations.

And I don't blame you for not trusting the US Government. I don't trust it either. I vote, I speak out, I blog, I do what I can to make as much of a difference as I can, but it takes a lot more than the opinions of a single big-mouthed software developer to hold back the tide.

True that, but I was refering to the democratic process of decision making, not the general form of government ;)

See, the thing is, the tide isn't the politicians. The tide flows between money and public opinion. Politicians are a lot like surfers in that way.
And yes, single people can make a difference, that's the beauty of it.

To avoid lawsuits (made possible by the government) in case of serious harm done to the public. Admittedly, governments could be more efficient at protecting the public, but they sure as hell are WAY more effective at that than any corporation.


Maybe. It is true that Police and Fire Departments, once privatized in the USA are now Government agencies because it just wasn't working as a private industry. On the other hand, I do not trust the motives of politicians when they say they're acting for my safety.


The simple two statistics of before-cam and with-cam would be sufficient.


If I were arguing to defend the state, I'd point out that the traffic accidents were not caused by the state, but by drivers who run red lights, which is already illegal. I'm pretty sure you can't hold the Government liable for the illegal acts of others. Otherwise we could sure the Government every t ime a crime was committed against us on the grounds that the G overnment failed to enforce the law.


Government support or public support? And I think we would know if it did, especially here on NSG.


Who is to say it wasn't a thread here? Remember this was some time ago.


I never claimed religion was the source of violence. But looking at the current state of the planet, it sure is a big facilitator.

Deep Kimchi would be proud of you.

Religion can be used as a tool, an excuse. People who claim to be doing God's work in holy war are typically doing it for other reasons, and religion is the way they justify it. Isn't that what people always say about the Crusades? That it wasn't about God's church having the holy land but rather, to enrich and empower European nobility? Do we have more faith in the motives of Osama bin Laden than in Pope Gregory VI?

True that, but I was refering to the democratic process of decision making, not the general form of government ;)

See, the thing is, the tide isn't the politicians. The tide flows between money and public opinion. Politicians are a lot like surfers in that way.
And yes, single people can make a difference, that's the beauty of it.

Well TBH I do agree with you completely on that. It's why I keep trying. I just wish more people did.

Maybe. It is true that Police and Fire Departments, once privatized in the USA are now Government agencies because it just wasn't working as a private industry. On the other hand, I do not trust the motives of politicians when they say they're acting for my safety.

I totally agree with not trusting a politician. However, the government does not solely consist of politicians. Most government work, once the legislating bit is over, is done by people working in specialised departments, such as social workers, policemen, judges, etc. I do tend to trust these people (well, apart from the policemen, I've got this think about uniformed people) in much the same way I would trust my GP or my lawyer.
As for politicians, you don't have to trust them. It would be counterproductive to trust them. But they don't have carte blanche to do as they please, not as long as the public keeps an eye on them.
To bring this back to the case in question : Creating a law that makes regulare medical check-ups mandatory for all children under a certain age will not give them permission to make certain medications or treatments mandatory. They can legislate that the kid has to see a qualified GP, but that still means you can see one you choose, and if you don't agree seek second opinion.



If I were arguing to defend the state, I'd point out that the traffic accidents were not caused by the state, but by drivers who run red lights, which is already illegal. I'm pretty sure you can't hold the Government liable for the illegal acts of others. Otherwise we could sure the Government every t ime a crime was committed against us on the grounds that the G overnment failed to enforce the law.

True, but it is the liability of the state to ensure public safety. The statiscs show that road safety was greatly improved by putting up those cameras, so in order to remove again, the government will have to put up a very good excuse indeed. And income from fines won't hold water before the judge.
.

Religion can be used as a tool, an excuse. People who claim to be doing God's work in holy war are typically doing it for other reasons, and religion is the way they justify it. Isn't that what people always say about the Crusades? That it wasn't about God's church having the holy land but rather, to enrich and empower European nobility? Do we have more faith in the motives of Osama bin Laden than in Pope Gregory VI?

Nope. I'm seriously tempted to quote Karl Marx right now, but I think I'd rather not.
Yes, it is a tool. It's being used by those in power to manipulate those below. Historically, that's more or less what it's always been. It creates a handy "us vs them" mentality that can be exploited, and de-humanises "them".
I don't doubt it can be beneficial on an individual basis. But on the whole, it allows for an awful lot of damage.

I totally agree with not trusting a politician. However, the government does not solely consist of politicians. Most government work, once the legislating bit is over, is done by people working in specialised departments, such as social workers, policemen, judges, etc. I do tend to trust these people (well, apart from the policemen, I've got this think about uniformed people) in much the same way I would trust my GP or my lawyer.
As for politicians, you don't have to trust them. It would be counterproductive to trust them. But they don't have carte blanche to do as they please, not as long as the public keeps an eye on them.
To bring this back to the case in question : Creating a law that makes regulare medical check-ups mandatory for all children under a certain age will not give them permission to make certain medications or treatments mandatory. They can legislate that the kid has to see a qualified GP, but that still means you can see one you choose, and if you don't agree seek second opinion.


My problem with that is twofold: First, letting the Government mandate those things will make it easier later to give over more control. It's the whole slippery slope thing. Second, if Government mandates these checkups, then a side effect will be that it would be expected to cover the expense for those who can't afford it. Another tax hike that will go more toward filling the pockets of corrupt officials than to actually providing what it's suposed to we don't need


True, but it is the liability of the state to ensure public safety. The statiscs show that road safety was greatly improved by putting up those cameras, so in order to remove again, the government will have to put up a very good excuse indeed. And income from fines won't hold water before the judge.
.

I disagree. If the State were soely responsible for our safety then you could conceivably sue the Government every time you get hurt for failing to do its job.

The Government is here to secure freedom, not safety.


Nope. I'm seriously tempted to quote Karl Marx right now, but I think I'd rather not.
Yes, it is a tool. It's being used by those in power to manipulate those below. Historically, that's more or less what it's always been. It creates a handy "us vs them" mentality that can be exploited, and de-humanises "them".
I don't doubt it can be beneficial on an individual basis. But on the whole, it allows for an awful lot of damage.

I'd say it doesn't allow for damage any more than, say, a car does. A car is a device whose intended purpose is peaceful and nonviolent. It's meant to transport us to where we need to go. If someone uses a car to commit a crime (as happens all the time) does that mean cars are bad, or that the person misused the car?

And the current way isn't forcing beliefs?

Like... for example, a parent forcing a child who doesn't want to attend religious services because "it's boring" isn't forcing beliefs upon said child?

The actual beliefs, not so much. The child could certainly not believe and still attend services.

I had a curfew as a teen that I still don't think I needed, but my mother forced me to be home by a certain time or face punishment anyways.

I think it's rather hard to separate some religious rules from the rest of the rules we have no problem with parents enforcing.


I'm glad you feel that way, but you might remember a case about a year ago of a 15 year old cancer patient who wanted to go with holistic medicine rather than the chemo. His parents supported his decision. The Government, our wise, benevolent and powerful Government, decided that was a bad thing and obtained a court order to FORCE him to undergo chemotherapy.

So are you comfortable with that?

No, actually. Unless the government could show that he was incapable of making the decision, I think his decision should have been respected. And, in that case, his parents should have been making his medical decisions.

They weren't refusing to get him treatment, however.

I'm a Libertarian and the way we see Government, it's a necessary evil. You have to have one, but it needs to be limited as much as possible. Ideally we wouldn't even need it, but this isn't an ideal world and so we do.

I agree.

But I do think that preventing harm to children is part of the government's job.

Oh I read quite carefully, and what I'm reading is someone who is comfortable allowing the Government to have a hand in child raising.

No, you're reading someone who is comfortable with allowing the government to protect children from negligent parents, even if that negligence is based in religion.

You said yourself that you think there is a lavel of control that parents should not have. Now, since we agree that letting a kid starve or die of neglect is an obvious case where action needs to be taken, the fact that we're still arguing means that you are comfortable with a level of Government intervention in cases that fall short of neglect. Otherwise you're just arguing for its own sake.

You mean you are arguing for its own sake. I have made it exceedingly clear that I advocate government intervention only in cases of neglect and/or harm.

Parents have ultimate responsibility for them thus they should have full control (within the obvious limits of reason. Neglect is a case where parents shirk that responsibility and thus it is a propriate for someone else to step in and take it up.)

Precisely.

Although I would say that full control should end before the age of majority in favor of a more sliding scale.

Alright so you would support Government intervention in a case that's not about neglect and does not threaten the child's life.

....but is clear harm.

Cutting off a portion of a child's body may not kill them, but it clearly harms them.

Should my mother have been allowed to cut off my earlobes just for the hell of it.

Where would you draw the line? What if the parents believed in piercing ears? I personally wouldn't pierce a baby's ears but suppose someone does. Would you support Government action to criminalize it? Where does it end?

I don't support that either.

I don't support parents making unnecessary changes to a child's body.

Strangely enough, I don't see it as a breach of freedom to keep one person from having that much control over the body of another.

Yes, YOU have. You keep going back to the letting kids die argument as if I were promoting it.

If you aren't, you don't have much room for argument with me.

Actually, your willingness to let Government regulate circumcision (hindered only by tenuous medical evidence that suggests it's beneficial) shows that you are.

Ah, I see. My willingness to keep parents from lobbing off body parts means that I think we should have a really big powerful government.

:rolleyes:

The actual beliefs, not so much. The child could certainly not believe and still attend services.

I had a curfew as a teen that I still don't think I needed, but my mother forced me to be home by a certain time or face punishment anyways.

I think it's rather hard to separate some religious rules from the rest of the rules we have no problem with parents enforcing.
True, the wouldn't HAVE to believe but they could be forced to through following certain rules and having to act a certain way and only have certain friends, et cetera.

That is true.

Curfew is set for a child, I believe, for no other reason than to know that if you go to sleep the child will be home safely at that time. Of course, I was a flexible one so, maybe I see it differently.

My problem with that is twofold: First, letting the Government mandate those things will make it easier later to give over more control. It's the whole slippery slope thing. Second, if Government mandates these checkups, then a side effect will be that it would be expected to cover the expense for those who can't afford it. Another tax hike that will go more toward filling the pockets of corrupt officials than to actually providing what it's suposed to we don't need


First of, no it doesn't. That's the same argument that people opposed to gay marriage are using "They'll be allowed to marry animals next!!!"

Second, yes, government is expected to cover medical expenses for those who can't afford them or can't afford health insurance. There are several models, like the NHS in Britain which is a government agency, or a simple compulsory health insurance, with the insurance companies operating privately as they do in Germany (government contribution to health insurance will come out of benefits for people who can't afford it). I find the second model more effective, both financially in in regards to overall public health.


I disagree. If the State were soely responsible for our safety then you could conceivably sue the Government every time you get hurt for failing to do its job.

The Government is here to secure freedom, not safety.

If they weren't responsible for road safety, they would have no legal basis for fining you if you go over the speed limit.
And they can in fact be held responsible if the condition of the road led to the accident (for example, a speed sign obscured by a tree, a faulty traffic light, etc.)


I'd say it doesn't allow for damage any more than, say, a car does. A car is a device whose intended purpose is peaceful and nonviolent. It's meant to transport us to where we need to go. If someone uses a car to commit a crime (as happens all the time) does that mean cars are bad, or that the person misused the car?

Never said religion was bad. I said it lends itself to abuse easily. As do cars. Which is why you have to be 18 and pass a test in order to be allowed to drive on public roads, and why there are so many rules as to what you can and cannot do in a car and with a car. Religion on the other hand is completely unregulated.

No, actually. Unless the government could show that he was incapable of making the decision, I think his decision should have been respected. And, in that case, his parents should have been making his medical decisions.

They weren't refusing to get him treatment, however.


But that's just it. There are a great many who would equate turning to holistic cures with refusing treatment altogether. That was certainly the Government's position in this particular case. How does that square with you?


I agree.

But I do think that preventing harm to children is part of the government's job.


No. Preventing harm is the parent's job and even to an extent, defining what that harm IS is the parent's job. There are obvious cases where the parents simply refuse to meet those responsibilities, but ultimately neither you or I get to enforce how someone else is parenting their kids. (Remember, exceptions being cases where they simply refuse to parent their kids.)


No, you're reading someone who is comfortable with allowing the government to protect children from negligent parents, even if that negligence is based in religion.
You mean you are arguing for its own sake. I have made it exceedingly clear that I advocate government intervention only in cases of neglect and/or harm.

And what constitutes negligence is the point of the discussion.


Precisely.

Although I would say that full control should end before the age of majority in favor of a more sliding scale.


I don't even want to imagine what a nightmare that would be to enforce.


....but is clear harm.

Cutting off a portion of a child's body may not kill them, but it clearly harms them.

Should my mother have been allowed to cut off my earlobes just for the hell of it.


I wouldn't call it clear harm. And of the two of us, I'm comfortable asserting that I know more about it than you do.


I don't support that either.

I don't support parents making unnecessary changes to a child's body.

Strangely enough, I don't see it as a breach of freedom to keep one person from having that much control over the body of another.


Interesting. So my question is, would you be comfortable with legislation preventing ear piercing of babies?


If you aren't, you don't have much room for argument with me.


Then it's the definition of neglect we are discussing.


Ah, I see. My willingness to keep parents from lobbing off body parts means that I think we should have a really big powerful government.

:rolleyes:

Yeah THAT wasn't melodramatic...

First of, no it doesn't. That's the same argument that people opposed to gay marriage are using "They'll be allowed to marry animals next!!!"


:rolleyes:


Second, yes, government is expected to cover medical expenses for those who can't afford them or can't afford health insurance. There are several models, like the NHS in Britain which is a government agency, or a simple compulsory health insurance, with the insurance companies operating privately as they do in Germany (government contribution to health insurance will come out of benefits for people who can't afford it). I find the second model more effective, both financially in in regards to overall public health.


Having the ability of Government to provide health care for the poor is a nice benefit but that is NOT the established purpose of Government because you can't have a welfare state AND freedom.

Think of it this way. In my previous marriage I occasionally debated my mo ther-in-law over issues like compulsory motorcycle helmet laws. he felt that the Goernment had a ri ght to enforce such a law because if some fool wasn't wearing a helmet and got hurt, their medical care might well have to be paid for by public funds if he didn't have insurance. In other words, her belief was that if the Government was to be held responsible for providing h ealth care, it should have the right to mandate things like helmets.

Now, maybe you agree with her. I do not. My feeling is that personal liberty comes FIRST. We're all adults. We can all make grown up decisions on whether to use a helmet or wear a seatbelt in a car. All these laws chip away freeedom one piece at a time.

Applying this line of thinking to the issue of Government mandated laws regulating ages for religious belief and so forth Gives them an excuse to exert more control.


If they weren't responsible for road safety, they would have no legal basis for fining you if you go over the speed limit.
And they can in fact be held responsible if the condition of the road led to the accident (for example, a speed sign obscured by a tree, a faulty traffic light, etc.)

Actually, speeding tickets are about generating revenue for the state. This was made clear in the case I mentioned before in Virginia where fines were boosted at the behest of the State Highway Administration.

And yes, the state can be sued if the roads are in poor contition, etc but only because there's an assumption of safety when one uses the roads, which are paid for by taxes and fines. That isn't my point. Look closely: You cannot sue the government if you're out there riding your bike and, in a moment of carelessness, you crash and get hurt on the basis that somehow the Government was responsible for your safety.

I wish I knew where this bizarre idea originated that somehow the Government is somehow responsible for our personal safety.


Never said religion was bad. I said it lends itself to abuse easily. As do cars. Which is why you have to be 18 and pass a test in order to be allowed to drive on public roads, and why there are so many rules as to what you can and cannot do in a car and with a car. Religion on the other hand is completely unregulated.

Are you suggesting that religion SHOULD be regulated beyond the age issue we're discussing here? Would you violate the separation of church and state that way/

But that's just it. There are a great many who would equate turning to holistic cures with refusing treatment altogether. That was certainly the Government's position in this particular case. How does that square with you?

I've already told you how it squares with me, or doesn't, as it were.

No. Preventing harm is the parent's job and even to an extent, defining what that harm IS is the parent's job.

And who protects the child from the parents?

There are obvious cases where the parents simply refuse to meet those responsibilities,

....like failing to seek medical care or actively harming their children?

but ultimately neither you or I get to enforce how someone else is parenting their kids. (Remember, exceptions being cases where they simply refuse to parent their kids.)

Or cases, I would hope, where they are actively harming their children.

And what constitutes negligence is the point of the discussion.

And, like I said, you can make the argument that sitting back and watching your child die of a treatable disease is not negligence, but I highly doubt you're going to convince me.

I don't even want to imagine what a nightmare that would be to enforce.

It already is. There are certain decisions we allow minors to make for themselves and many we don't. There are legal methods by which a minor can gain more control over her life.

I wouldn't call it clear harm. And of the two of us, I'm comfortable asserting that I know more about it than you do.

You don't think chopping off body parts is clear harm?

The fact that you healed from it is irrelevant. I would likely heal if someone stabbed me, but it would still be harm. I would heal if someone cut off my earlobes, but it would still be harm.

Would you argue, out of curiosity, that forcibly circumcising a grown man should not be a crime, since he isn't really harmed?

The only reason you are comfortable with circumcision is that it has been accepted by most of society. I highly doubt that you'd be ok with it if you heard of a sect that had started pulling out an infant's fingernails or chopping off earlobes or removing any other body part just because.

Interesting. So my question is, would you be comfortable with legislation preventing ear piercing of babies?

Yes. I can't poke unnecessary holes in an infant's body in any other circumstance. Why should it be ok in this one?

In reality, you're the one arguing for an exception here. You're arguing for a complication of the law in that some instances of poking useless holes in a child would be abusive while some are ok. What is your reasoning for that? Do you have anything at all other than "It's socially accepted"?

Yeah THAT wasn't melodramatic...

It wasn't. No matter how you look at it, circumcision is the permanent removal of a body part. The fact that this happens to be a somewhat socially accepted practice doesn't change the fact that what you are doing is cutting off a body part. If it were any other body part, society would be up in arms and calling for the parents' heads. But since it's just a foreskin, for some reason it's ok.

You tell me. Why should parents have the "right" to have perfectly functional body parts cut off of their children? Would you be ok with a parent who removed his child's fingernails? How about one who had a child's earlobes removed?


The really funny thing is that you're trying to frame this as "parents' rights". But children are not property. They are human beings. Parents need a great deal of authority over children to take care of them. That authority is justified by the fact that a child cannot take care of herself. But there is no such justification for allowing parents to poke holes in their children or cut off body parts or deny them medical treatment. These are things that would be illegal if they did it to another adult, and should be equally illegal if they do it to a child, precisely because the "I need this authority to take care of my child" justification simply isn't there.

I would think that a self-described Libertarian would recognize the principle that even children are human beings, and are thus entitled to certain rights. Absolute control of a parent over a child is more like slavery than child-rearing. I really don't see how someone who held to a Libertarian viewpoint could advocate allowing the branding of a child with someone else's religious or aesthetic preferences by making permanent alterations to that child's body

I've already told you how it squares with me, or doesn't, as it were.


Sure, because you happen to think holistic medicine is an alternative (apparently.) But not everyone does. The Government apparently doesn't and so your response would seem to imply that you are against such Government intervention despite the fact that it could easily be argued that the holistic approach is tantamount to neglect.


And who protects the child from the parents?


The community. Assuming a consensus can be reached on what constitutes an appropriate level of need.


....like failing to seek medical care or actively harming their children?
Or cases, I would hope, where they are actively harming their children.


Yep.


And, like I said, you can make the argument that sitting back and watching your child die of a treatable disease is not negligence, but I highly doubt you're going to convince me.


Have I made that argument?


It already is. There are certain decisions we allow minors to make for themselves and many we don't. There are legal methods by which a minor can gain more control over her life.

They also constitute special exemptions.


You don't think chopping off body parts is clear harm?

The only reason you are comfortable with circumcision is that it has been accepted by most of society. I highly doubt that you'd be ok with it if you heard of a sect that had started pulling out an infant's fingernails or chopping off earlobes or removing any other body part just because.


Actually that isn't the only reason. Being cicumsized does carry with it a host of practical benefits, son in that sense I'd agree with what you said earlier about possible medical benefits. However, I do see this as covered by parental rights and so specific medical justification isn't necessary.


Yes. I can't poke unnecessary holes in an infant's body in any other circumstance. Why should it be ok in this one?

In reality, you're the one arguing for an exception here. You're the one arguing for less freedom by arguing that a parent should have control over things that are not, in any sense, necessary to raising a child.


Watching the Mickey Mouse Club is not in any way necessary to raise a child and yet nobody would deny a parent's right to decide whether or not to allow it. I find it disturbing that you'd be comfortable with a level of Government involvement in child raising that woul dput them in a position to regulate something as simple as ear piercings. Like I said before, I wouldn't do it, but it hardly constitutes child abuse.

The fact is your premise increases Government involvement while mine minimizes it and yet you assert that mine is the perscpetive that gives less freedom. That's completely illogical. In general, the level of Governmnet involvement in any issue is inversely proportinal to the level of freedom retained.


It wasn't. No matter how you look at it, circumcision is the permanent removal of a body part. The fact that this happens to be a somewhat socially accepted practice doesn't change the fact that what you are doing is cutting off a body part. If it were any other body part, society would be up in arms and calling for the parents' heads. But since it's just a foreskin, for some reason it's ok.


When you refer to it as a "body part" you make it sound like a left arm or a kidney.


You tell me. Why should parents have the "right" to have perfectly functional body parts cut off of their children? Would you be ok with a parent who removed his child's fingernails? How about one who had a child's earlobes removed?


Do adults routinely remove their own fingernails or sever their own earlobes? No. But they do seek circumcision and ear piercing.

What about animals? Is it animal cruelty to neuter a pet? What about the surgery routinely performed on larger dogs that anchors their stomach to their ribcage? (My wife could tell you what it's called but the name of the procedure escapes me at the moment.) We do these things because we recognize that there's medical and cultural value in these procedures and thus they don't constitute cruelty. In some species it's also beneficial to bob tails and ears. (And in others it is not)


The really funny thing is that you're trying to frame this as "parents' rights". But children are not property. They are human beings. Parents need a great deal of authority over children to take care of them. That authority is justified by the fact that a child cannot take care of herself. But there is no such justification for allowing parents to poke holes in their children or cut off body parts or deny them medical treatment. These are things that would be illegal if they did it to another adult, and should be equally illegal if they do it to a child, precisely because the "I need this authority to take care of my child" justification simply isn't there.


Children aren't property but the level of parental authority is absolute short of abuse and/or neglect. Why? because kids are a responsibility. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm mistaken) you haven't got kids yet so on some level you and I are from two different worlds on this. I've got 3 (and in 3 weeks or so I'll have 4) so I am much more aware of what it's like to be responsible for children and the level of authority that's needed.


I would think that a self-described Libertarian would recognize the principle that even children are human beings, and are thus entitled to certain rights. Absolute control of a parent over a child is more like slavery than child-rearing. I really don't see how someone who held to a Libertarian viewpoint could advocate allowing the branding of a child with someone else's religious or aesthetic preferences by making permanent alterations to that child's body

This is how: To support your point of view one must have more Government. To support mine, one must have less. That's what being a Libertarian is about.

Having the ability of Government to provide health care for the poor is a nice benefit but that is NOT the established purpose of Government because you can't have a welfare state AND freedom.

Think of it this way. In my previous marriage I occasionally debated my mo ther-in-law over issues like compulsory motorcycle helmet laws. he felt that the Goernment had a ri ght to enforce such a law because if some fool wasn't wearing a helmet and got hurt, their medical care might well have to be paid for by public funds if he didn't have insurance. In other words, her belief was that if the Government was to be held responsible for providing h ealth care, it should have the right to mandate things like helmets.

Now, maybe you agree with her. I do not. My feeling is that personal liberty comes FIRST. We're all adults. We can all make grown up decisions on whether to use a helmet or wear a seatbelt in a car. All these laws chip away freeedom one piece at a time.

Applying this line of thinking to the issue of Government mandated laws regulating ages for religious belief and so forth Gives them an excuse to exert more control.

I wouldn't agree with her, as I belief that health care ought to be provided for if the person in the accident was wearing a helmet or not. It's not a conditional right.

Yes, we are all adults. As such we have certain individual rights.
And we are a society. As such, we give certain rights back to the public. Seat belts protect yourself and others. Same goes for helmets.


Actually, speeding tickets are about generating revenue for the state. This was made clear in the case I mentioned before in Virginia where fines were boosted at the behest of the State Highway Administration.

If that was true, I'm sure the state would most certainly find a way of getting that revenue without having to bother with expensive equipment to trace speed, and without spending money on enforcing speed limits by employing police officers for the task?


And yes, the state can be sued if the roads are in poor contition, etc but only because there's an assumption of safety when one uses the roads, which are paid for by taxes and fines. That isn't my point. Look closely: You cannot sue the government if you're out there riding your bike and, in a moment of carelessness, you crash and get hurt on the basis that somehow the Government was responsible for your safety.

I wish I knew where this bizarre idea originated that somehow the Government is somehow responsible for our personal safety.

It's not. It's responsible for providing advise and laws for a safe environment (on the road, at work, in hospitals, etc.), that doesn't mean that personal responsibility is rendered obsolete. They provide the structure. How you use it is up to you, if you're an adult, as are the consequences.
If you're a child, however, you get special protection as you cannot take up personal responsibilty for yourself yet.



Are you suggesting that religion SHOULD be regulated beyond the age issue we're discussing here? Would you violate the separation of church and state that way/

Isn't that what we're arguing here? And how would that violate the already heavily regulated relationship between church and state? You know, with churches being given special status by the state that makes them excempt from taxes, with religions not allowed to harm others even though their religion might dictate it or if it offends the public (think female circumcision, think child marriages, think sky burials, etc).
If you're arguing that allowing the state to pass laws about religion will open the floodgate for total control, I think that would already be wide open then, wouldn't it?

If that was true, I'm sure the state would most certainly find a way of getting that revenue without having to bother with expensive equipment to trace speed, and without spending money on enforcing speed limits by employing police officers for the task?


Two things:
First, I think you mean, "If that were true..."
Secondly, it sadly is true. The state needed money for transportation, and it was either raise taxes or create abusive driver fees. (And it's very important that they are "fees," as it is unconstitutional to charge "fines" as high as these.) Of course, in Virginia, raising taxes is bad as...well, as passing gun laws. It doesn't happen. The state would much rather go to all that trouble than make people pay more for gasoline.

I wouldn't agree with her, as I belief that health care ought to be provided for if the person in the accident was wearing a helmet or not. It's not a conditional right.

Yes, we are all adults. As such we have certain individual rights.
And we are a society. As such, we give certain rights back to the public. Seat belts protect yourself and others. Same goes for helmets.


She wasn't saying that the right was conditional, only that since healthcare would have to be provided, the state had a right to mandate the use of helmets, not that someone who didn't have a helmet shouldn't be cared for.


If that was true, I'm sure the state would most certainly find a way of getting that revenue without having to bother with expensive equipment to trace speed, and without spending money on enforcing speed limits by employing police officers for the task?


It is true. All the equipment and manpower was already in place. They simply raised the fines. Can you imagine paying $2,000 for a ticket? That's EXACTLY what happened.


It's not. It's responsible for providing advise and laws for a safe environment (on the road, at work, in hospitals, etc.), that doesn't mean that personal responsibility is rendered obsolete. They provide the structure. How you use it is up to you, if you're an adult, as are the consequences.
If you're a child, however, you get special protection as you cannot take up personal responsibilty for yourself yet.


Right, but then the safety becomes the responsibility of the parents, not the State. If parents shirk that responsibility by neglecting their children then yes, as a society we do step in because parental rights are paired wi th parental responsibility. To shed one is to shed both.


Isn't that what we're arguing here? And how would that violate the already heavily regulated relationship between church and state? You know, with churches being given special status by the state that makes them excempt from taxes, with religions not allowed to harm others even though their religion might dictate it or if it offends the public (think female circumcision, think child marriages, think sky burials, etc).
If you're arguing that allowing the state to pass laws about religion will open the floodgate for total control, I think that would already be wide open then, wouldn't it?

Nah. Not taxing Churches isn't a form of regulation it's a way to avoid regulation. I don't know how it is in your country but here the Government regulates NOTHING churches do beyond things that are already illegal anyway. For example, human sacrifice.

BTW... WTH is 'sky burials???'

Actually that isn't the only reason. Being cicumsized does carry with it a host of practical benefits, son in that sense I'd agree with what you said earlier about possible medical benefits. However, I do see this as covered by parental rights and so specific medical justification isn't necessary.

So you think that parents have the "right" to cut off their children's body parts.

What body parts count and why are those ok while others are not?

Watching the Mickey Mouse Club is not in any way necessary to raise a child and yet nobody would deny a parent's right to decide whether or not to allow it.

Does watching the Mickey Mouse Club constitute cutting off body parts?

I find it disturbing that you'd be comfortable with a level of Government involvement in child raising that woul dput them in a position to regulate something as simple as ear piercings. Like I said before, I wouldn't do it, but it hardly constitutes child abuse.

I find it disturbing that you're comfortable with a level of parental authority that includes cutting off body parts and poking holes in children's bodies just because they feel like it.

The fact is your premise increases Government involvement while mine minimizes it and yet you assert that mine is the perscpetive that gives less freedom.

Actually, what it does is make government involvement standardized, instead of allowing exceptions for things just because they happen to be socially accepted practices.

Cutting off any body part other than the foreskin of your child without a medical basis would be child abuse. Why should the foreskin be different?

And yes, yours is the perspective that minimizes freedom. It gives two people (the parents) more control over a child than any human being should have over another human being. The government is not the only entity that can infringe upon freedom.

That's completely illogical. In general, the level of Governmnet involvement in any issue is inversely proportinal to the level of freedom retained.

By that logic, the fact that the government would get involved if I kidnapped you and kept you in my basement is a loss of freedom.

Never mind that allowing me to do it would be a clear loss of freedom on your part.

When you refer to it as a "body part" you make it sound like a left arm or a kidney.

No, I make it sound like a body part.

Do you deny that a foreskin is a part of the body?

Do adults routinely remove their own fingernails or sever their own earlobes? No. But they do seek circumcision and ear piercing.

And they can make that choice. Just as they can choose to smoke. Just as they can choose to have sex.

Adults routinely seek out tattoos and genital piercings as well. Is it ok for a parent to cover an infant with tattoos or pierce their genitals?

If an adult wanted to remove his fingernails, sever his earlobes, pierce any part of his body, or get a tattoo, that is his choice.

But the fact that adults can choose to do these things to themselves is irrelevant. You are arguing that they should be able to do it to someone else. What is your justification for that?

Of course your use of the "other people do it" argument just proves my earlier point. The only reason you are ok with parents doing these things is that they are socially accepted. If adults did routinely sever their earlobes or remove their fingernails, you'd apparently be perfectly fine with them doing the same to their children.

What about animals? Is it animal cruelty to neuter a pet? What about the surgery routinely performed on larger dogs that anchors their stomach to their ribcage? (My wife could tell you what it's called but the name of the procedure escapes me at the moment.) We do these things because we recognize that there's medical and cultural value in these procedures and thus they don't constitute cruelty. In some species it's also beneficial to bob tails and ears. (And in others it is not)

So children are on a level with pets? Would you be ok with parents routinely neutering their children?

Meanwhile, please point to the medical necessity of ear piercings.

Children aren't property but the level of parental authority is absolute short of abuse and/or neglect.

But cutting off body parts and poking holes in them isn't abuse so long as you're ok with it, right?

Well, some people are ok with beating their child into unconsciousness. Surely that must be ok as well?

You are treating children as property - as animals. I can't agree with that. The level of authority should be only that which can be justified by the responsibility taken on.

Why? because kids are a responsibility. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm mistaken) you haven't got kids yet so on some level you and I are from two different worlds on this. I've got 3 (and in 3 weeks or so I'll have 4) so I am much more aware of what it's like to be responsible for children and the level of authority that's needed.

If you need the authority to poke holes in them and cut off their body parts, I'm sure you can explain to me why you need that authority.

This is how: To support your point of view one must have more Government. To support mine, one must have less. That's what being a Libertarian is about.

(a) Not more government. Just a a different application of the rules we already have.

If I decided to have someone else poke holes in your ears or remove any of your body parts, I could be criminally charged.

If I were a caretaker for an unrelated adult and I unilaterally decided to do so, I could be criminally charged.

Yet you think parents should get a special exception to this rule without providing any justification for that exception - that they should be able to poke holes in someone's ears simply because they are responsible for the care of that someone else.

(b) Being a Libertarian is about personal liberty. Giving any one person authority over another without justification is not Libertarian.

This case is not one of religion killing a child, it is one of a child killed by bad parenting. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should throw yourself of of a cliff because God will catch you. It says that He works for the good of those who love Him. One shouldn't test God, Jesus said that, not with those exact words, of course. He's allowed humanity to discover certain medical procedures and there are other things in place to help people in need without direct intervention.

This case is not one of religion killing a child, it is one of a child killed by bad parenting. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should throw yourself of of a cliff because God will catch you. It says that He works for the good of those who love Him. One shouldn't test God, Jesus said that, not with those exact words, of course. He's allowed humanity to discover certain medical procedures and there are other things in place to help people in need without direct intervention.

Your post illustrates a good point, about what is suppose to happen but how humans are seeing and preaching. Hence a need for an age and an increased level of awareness so people know what is happening and can understand rather than blindly walk off that metaphorical cliff and assume God will catch them because they prayed...

I must say your penchant for distorting arguments grows by leaps and bounds every time we interact. Bravo!

So you think that parents have the "right" to cut off their children's body parts.
What body parts count and why are those ok while others are not?
I find it disturbing that you're comfortable with a level of parental authority that includes cutting off body parts and poking holes in children's bodies just because they feel like it.
No, I make it sound like a body part.
Do you deny that a foreskin is a part of the body?
Cutting off any body part other than the foreskin of your child without a medical basis would be child abuse. Why should the foreskin be different?
But cutting off body parts and poking holes in them isn't abuse so long as you're ok with it, right?
Well, some people are ok with beating their child into unconsciousness. Surely that must be ok as well?
If you need the authority to poke holes in them and cut off their body parts, I'm sure you can explain to me why you need that authority.your
part.
Yet you think parents should get a special exception to this rule without providing any justification for that exception - that they should be able to poke holes in someone's ears simply because they are responsible for the care of that someone else.
If I decided to have someone else poke holes in your ears or remove any of your body parts, I could be criminally charged.


I say 'ear-piercing' you say 'poke holes in their body.' I say 'circumcise' and you say 'severing a body part'.

...which I count you doing 13 times. Did you just use copy and paste to repeat 'poke holes' and 'cut off body parts?'

Melodrama, anyone?


Does watching the Mickey Mouse Club constitute cutting off body parts?


You said ear piercing was bad because it was unnecessary. I said the Mickey Mouse Club was unnecessary. Now, instead of making meaningless strawmen, how about a response to the point?


Actually, what it does is make government involvement standardized, instead of allowing exceptions for things just because they happen to be socially accepted practices.


Oh boy, standardized Government interference. I can't wait.


And yes, yours is the perspective that minimizes freedom. It gives two people (the parents) more control over a child than any human being should have over another human being. The government is not the only entity that can infringe upon freedom.

Interesting. You're saying that parents are denying a child's freedom should they pierce ears or circumcise. Let's tie that in with a related statement you made:

By that logic, the fact that the government would get involved if I kidnapped you and kept you in my basement is a loss of freedom.
Never mind that allowing me to do it would be a clear loss of freedom on

So we'd agree that if you kidnapped me it would be a denial of my freedom, which the Government apropriately enforced laws to prevent or punish.

Now suppose I go out to the store and I bring my son along, even though he doesn't want to. If I compel, even force him to come, have I kidnapped him? Have I unjustly deprived him of his freedom?

Or perhaps there are times when parental authority overrides normal conventions.

A direct answer would be appreciated, please.


And they can make that choice. Just as they can choose to smoke. Just as they can choose to have sex.
Adults routinely seek out tattoos and genital piercings as well. Is it ok for a parent to cover an infant with tattoos or pierce their genitals?
If an adult wanted to remove his fingernails, sever his earlobes, pierce any part of his body, or get a tattoo, that is his choice.
But the fact that adults can choose to do these things to themselves is irrelevant. You are arguing that they should be able to do it to someone else. What is your justification for that?
Of course your use of the "other people do it" argument just proves my earlier point. The only reason you are ok with parents doing these things is that they are socially accepted. If adults did routinely sever their earlobes or remove their fingernails, you'd apparently be perfectly fine with them doing the same to their children.


Are your ears pierced? (Don't dodge or anticipate why I'm asking, just bear with me for a second.)


So children are on a level with pets? Would you be ok with parents routinely neutering their children?
Meanwhile, please point to the medical necessity of ear piercings.
You are treating children as property - as animals. I can't agree with that. The level of authority should be only that which can be justified by the responsibility taken on.


Actually the point you're dodging is that some forms of what you'd call mutilation have a higher purpose that have nothing to do with cruelty or abuse. Now answer the question, please. Is it cruelty to do these things?


(a) Not more government. Just a a different application of the rules we already have.

Sounds like doublespeak to me.


If I were a caretaker for an unrelated adult and I unilaterally decided to do so, I could be criminally charged.
(b) Being a Libertarian is about personal liberty. Giving any one person authority over another without justification is not Libertarian.

Agreed. Luckily parental authority is perfectly justified.

You can't make beliefs and thoughts illegal. That would just be stupid.

You can't make beliefs and thoughts illegal. That would just be stupid.

Requiring an age of majority for religious conversion would not be makeing thoughts and beliefs illegal.

Requiring an age of majority for religious conversion would not be makeing thoughts and beliefs illegal.

Thank you. Someone who actually understands the difference.

Requiring an age of majority for religious conversion would not be makeing thoughts and beliefs illegal.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

I know it's already been quoted in this thread, but apparantly some people just aren't getting it.

Once you start putting conditions on it is no longer "free excercise". If you don't like it and you live in the US then lobby to change the First Amendment. Good luck with that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

I know it's already been quoted in this thread, but apparantly some people just aren't getting it.

Once you start putting conditions on it is no longer "free excercise". If you don't like it and you live in the US then lobby to change the First Amendment. Good luck with that.

Strange...

As I recall, Rastafarians (a religious groups following some of the ideologies of the Judeo-Christian faith) smoke weed or ganjga is a spiritual act.

Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Genesis 3:18 "... thou shalt eat the herb of the field."
Proverbs 15:17 "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith."
Psalms 104:14 "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man."

Taken from the OT, these are the passages used in their faith to explain the spiritual need for ganja.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarian#Ganja

In 1998, then-Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, though not a judge, opined that Rastafari do not have the religious right to smoke ganja in violation of the United States' drug laws. The position is the same in the United Kingdom, where, in the Court of Appeal case of R. v. Taylor [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 37, it was held that the UK's prohibition on cannabis use did not contravene the right to freedom of religion conferred under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Seems that there are already restrictions in the US regarding religion, thus your argument can't hold water until this is addressed. Oh but wait, it's evil drugs isn't it? :rolleyes:

No, it's not evil drugs, it's a Government that is out of control and has been for several Administrations. You're quite correct that it needs to be addressed. We have been on a slow slide down the path of trashing the Constitution for years.

However, that is not the topic.

No, it's not evil drugs, it's a Government that is out of control and has been for several Administrations. You're quite correct that it needs to be addressed. We have been on a slow slide down the path of trashing the Constitution for years.

However, that is not the topic.

The topic is the need for an age of consent and the right of young children to not be forcefully subject to religion, indoctrinated and expected to follow. The age of consent is when they are permitted to actively join after being made aware of their choices and given the chance to think for themselves.

Consider for a moment the following, corporations have ad campaigns for products, and those products are for children. There are however people out there saying that ads should not be geared towards children because they can't understand and it takes advantage of them and their ignorance of how stuff works.

Emotional, mental and physical maturity is used for everything else, yet that emotional and mental maturity bit is tossed out when it comes to religion, as if to say there is a double standard.

Except by citing the case you did your arguement boils down to "Well the Government is already stepping all over the Constitution so let's just join the fun!"

Except by citing the case you did your arguement boils down to "Well the Government is already stepping all over the Constitution so let's just join the fun!"

I'm pointing out that those obsessed with the notion of "think of the children" are the last ones to include religion despite that it is targeted against young children to get members for a life time.

Hence, if we slap an age on everything else because children are seemingly unable to comprehend what is involved because of a lack of mental and emotional maturity, why not include something that can have a profound effect on their outlook on life?

Let's use everyone's favourite scapegoat: MEDIA! As an example.

We have age use on them, and stores often enforce it, some are more heavy handed than others.

Attendance at movies is based on age and if you look young, you won't get into certain ones. Theatres are harsh with their enforcement of the MPAA ratings.

There are parental controls on TVs...

And all because children aren't "old enough". Yet most of what is presented is complete fiction. It assumes children can't be taught to, or won't understand the difference between fact and fiction, yet they (can be)/are taught that religion is fact.

None of the other things you cite (advertising, being a certain age to watch certain media or buy certain things) are specifically protected by the Constitution. You are comparing apples to bannanas either mistakenly or as a red herring.

Note that I am also not advocating or discouraging religion. This is about protected rights. Your previous arguement that it's been done before doesn't validate the concept.

It's a moot arguement though because barring an amendment that supercedes the First Amendment it will never happen.

None of the other things you cite (advertising, being a certain age to watch certain media or buy certain things) are specifically protected by the Constitution. You are comparing apples to bannanas either mistakenly or as a red herring.

Note that I am also not advocating or discouraging religion. This is about protected rights. Your previous arguement that it's been done before doesn't validate the concept.

It's a moot arguement though because barring an amendment that supercedes the First Amendment it will never happen.

If we follow that logic then many ways in which children are "protected" need to be lift because it impedes on their ability to participate in society. In fact, many aren't even law yet many places act as though it were engraved in stone.

There is no proof it reduces any violence or anything. But it is given as a reason for blocking young people from accessing the material.

Religion isn't given a rating. Yet if it was rated using the MPAA's guidelines, it would receive at least an R for the content of the holy scripture (violence, incest, rape, sexual discrimination, hatred... for example) and other elements involved in the practice (ie: wine, circumcision...). Most would be R or NC17, with very few as PG13 or less, yet it gets unfiltered access to the young impressionable minds.

Not at all. None of the other things you cite are specifically protected. Again, I'm not arguing for against any religion. It's a matter of the Constitution and it's literal meaning. Your arguements fail the logic test because you, as are many others in this thread, are comparing apples to oranges.

I must say your penchant for distorting arguments grows by leaps and bounds every time we interact. Bravo!

Distorting what, exactly?

I say 'ear-piercing' you say 'poke holes in their body.' I say 'circumcise' and you say 'severing a body part'.

Do you deny that piercing involves poking a hole in a body part or that circumcision involves cutting a piece of it off?

You said ear piercing was bad because it was unnecessary. I said the Mickey Mouse Club was unnecessary. Now, instead of making meaningless strawmen, how about a response to the point?

You're the one with the strawman, my dear. I didn't suggest that anything unnecessary was a problem.

I suggested that unnecessary bodily modifications was a problem.

Interesting. You're saying that parents are denying a child's freedom should they pierce ears or circumcise. Let's tie that in with a related statement you made:

So we'd agree that if you kidnapped me it would be a denial of my freedom, which the Government apropriately enforced laws to prevent or punish.

Now suppose I go out to the store and I bring my son along, even though he doesn't want to. If I compel, even force him to come, have I kidnapped him? Have I unjustly deprived him of his freedom?

Or perhaps there are times when parental authority overrides normal conventions.

A direct answer would be appreciated, please.

Of course there are times when parental authority overrides normal conventions. I've already stated that.

But it happens when there is a justification for that authority. Parents are responsible for the care of their children. They are required to provide adequate supervision for those children. As such, they need the authority to decide where that child goes.

Now, it's your turn. Provide an adequate justification for why a parent needs the authority to make unnecessary bodily modifications.

Are your ears pierced? (Don't dodge or anticipate why I'm asking, just bear with me for a second.)

Yes. Twice. The cartilage of one was pierced, but I let that heal. And my navel is pierced.

Actually the point you're dodging is that some forms of what you'd call mutilation have a higher purpose that have nothing to do with cruelty or abuse.

I'm waiting for the "higher purpose" that justifies a parent making unnecessary bodily modifications.

Is a child going to die or have uncared for offspring if you don't pierce them?

Now answer the question, please. Is it cruelty to do these things?

No.

Now you answer my question. Would it be cruel to routinely neuter children?

Agreed. Luckily parental authority is perfectly justified.

Not the type of absolute authority you're advocating. Parents authority that is necessary to the parental responsibility as a caretaker for the child is justified. Extra authority just for the hell of it is not.

I have asked you repeatedly to justify the need for a parent to be able to make unnecessary bodily modifications to their children.

Are you ever going to provide such a justification?

Not at all. None of the other things you cite are specifically protected. Again, I'm not arguing for against any religion. It's a matter of the Constitution and it's literal meaning. Your arguements fail the logic test because you, as are many others in this thread, are comparing apples to oranges.

...and if you check my location, the 1st Amendment means nothing to me as a Canadian or to my argument. We don't have the same protection for religion that exists in the US. Hence, I argue from that perspective. I only addressed the first amendment because someone brought it up, and then others started as well. I could have ignored it...as if this was meant to apply in the US, then the amendment might mean something.

Of course there are other countries, and just as you are arguing from the frame of reference of your countries laws so am I. I never said there were no other countries, so your veiled insult really is not relevant. In fact, if you look at my posts in this thread I said at one point something to the effect of 'if you are in the US the course of action is thus'.

I honestly do not care what other countries do or decide to regulate as long as it doesn't affect me and mine. I think you may have made the mistaken assumption that I was being jingoistic or nationalistic.

The topic is the need for an age of consent and the right of young children to not be forcefully subject to religion, indoctrinated and expected to follow.

I fail to see how you can achieve this. I'm sure you can put an age where one can partake in the rituals (such as getting confirmed or having a bat mitzvah), purchase the holy text (such as the Bible or the Qu'ran) and even when they can attend religious-based schools, but preventing "indoctrination" is impossible. Much of it can (and probably does) occur in the home, and since it involves the spreading of opinions and traditions there's very little that can (or even should) be done about it.

I mean, I like your idea in principle but I fail to see how it can put into practice.

[setting: A family is sitting at the table. Father just gave thanks to God for the food before they eat in a ritual known as 'saying grace']

[there is a knock on the door...Dad goes to answer and there are two police officers and a social worker standing there]

Police1: Mr Smith?

Dad: Yes? [he looks nervous] W-what can I do for you?

Social worker: We understand that you have been teaching your children religious rituals.

Police1: We have a warrant to come in Sir, please step aside [hands a document to Dad]

Dad: [takes a few steps back into the house] B-but all we did was say grace, and then before bed ask for blessings!

[Mom comes into view]

Mom: John? What's going on?

[the Police and Social Worker enter the home]

Social Worker [to Dad]: So you admit teaching religion to children under the age of 13? [she has a very disapproving look on her face while Mom's eyes get wide and scared]

Dad: I...it wasn't like that, really, we just, I mean it's our religion...and family tradition. It's not like we took them to Church!

Police2: What's this? [he lifts from the coffee table a copy of the Bible]

Social Worker [to parents, after seeing the Bible]: You leave that out where your children can read it? You should be ashamed. [looking at the police now] Officers, please go escort the children out to the car.

Dad and Mom: NO! [Mom is crying now]

Social Worker [to parents]: You leave me with no choice. Under section 3 of the Freedom from Religion Act and the 28th Amendment, the teaching of religion or any such indoctrination to minors prior to the age of 13 is illegal. In the best interests of your children they will be placed in foster care pending your trial.

[Officer 2 approaches the parents]: You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to, anything you say can and will...

[fade to black]

I fail to see how you can achieve this. I'm sure you can put an age where one can partake in the rituals (such as getting confirmed or having a bat mitzvah), purchase the holy text (such as the Bible or the Qu'ran) and even when they can attend religious-based schools, but preventing "indoctrination" is impossible. Much of it can (and probably does) occur in the home, and since it involves the spreading of opinions and traditions there's very little that can (or even should) be done about it.

I mean, I like your idea in principle but I fail to see how it can put into practice.

There are several ways if we follow a model similar to the one used to prevent people from smoking in their cars if there are children under the age of 16 present in the vehicle (no, I'm not bluffing, this is a law in Nova Scotia and now Ontario. Also, there is no way to know if people are smoking in the car and if the child is indeed under 16):

- education programmes, that teach children from a young age as soon as they are in school.

- tax incentives to religious institutions to follow along with the spirit of the law

- awareness campaigns



And for the example using grace, I have this to say, you're sending the wrong message because God didn't put the food on your table. Whoever cooked, bought it, earned the money to buy it and the person who got the seeds and turned into the food in front of you did (or whoever manufactured it)... You wouldn't be teaching your child to say thank you the right way to the person who brought/gave them the food.

Once again you missed the point entirely. That's becoming a pattern. This is not about whether religion is true or saying grace is the right thing to do. It is about RIGHTS.

EDIT: By the way, you can't have it both ways. If God can't provide food, then Christianity can't kill a 15 year old. The parents did that themselves and are rightly being prosecuted for it.

Once again you missed the point entirely. That's becoming a pattern. This is not about whether religion is true or saying grace is the right thing to do. It is about RIGHTS.

EDIT: By the way, you can't have it both ways. If God can't provide food, then Christianity can't kill a 15 year old. The parents did that themselves and are rightly being prosecuted for it.

So you want the right to make children into little ignorant versions of yourself and perpetuate a cycle of ignorance which is leading to intolerance and discrimination because of ancient beliefs which are not flexible enough to have a real place in today's ever-evolving society?

Even if God can't provide food, Christianity can still kill...

No, I want the Constitution to be upheld in my country.

I made it clear on more than one occaision that I was neither advocating nor denouncing religion, yet you keep seeming to miss the entire point.

And Christianity doesn't kill people nor does Islam or any other religion. To wax cliche, people kill people. Sometimes they do it in the name of religion, other times they do it out of stupidity or greed or just plain being evil.

The fact of the matter is that you've avoided my core arguements over and over and are either being deliberately obtuse or just do not get the point.

I get it. You hate religion. That's a separate debate though. Now, while it's been interesting 'debating' with you (it's hard to debate when your opponent misses your clearly made point over and over), I am done. I do not know you, so it could be you really don't get it, or you could be trolling. I don't really care because I made my point and you've failed in making yours.

Peace be with you.

[setting: A family is sitting at the table. Father just gave thanks to God for the food before they eat in a ritual known as 'saying grace']

[there is a knock on the door...Dad goes to answer and there are two police officers and a social worker standing there]

Police1: Mr Smith?

Dad: Yes? [he looks nervous] W-what can I do for you?

Social worker: We understand that you have been teaching your children religious rituals.

Police1: We have a warrant to come in Sir, please step aside [hands a document to Dad]

Dad: [takes a few steps back into the house] B-but all we did was say grace, and then before bed ask for blessings!

[Mom comes into view]

Mom: John? What's going on?

[the Police and Social Worker enter the home]

Social Worker [to Dad]: So you admit teaching religion to children under the age of 13? [she has a very disapproving look on her face while Mom's eyes get wide and scared]

Dad: I...it wasn't like that, really, we just, I mean it's our religion...and family tradition. It's not like we took them to Church!

Police2: What's this? [he lifts from the coffee table a copy of the Bible]

Social Worker [to parents, after seeing the Bible]: You leave that out where your children can read it? You should be ashamed. [looking at the police now] Officers, please go escort the children out to the car.

Dad and Mom: NO! [Mom is crying now]

Social Worker [to parents]: You leave me with no choice. Under section 3 of the Freedom from Religion Act and the 28th Amendment, the teaching of religion or any such indoctrination to minors prior to the age of 13 is illegal. In the best interests of your children they will be placed in foster care pending your trial.

[Officer 2 approaches the parents]: You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to, anything you say can and will...

[fade to black]

LOL

Yes, 9000 years of age. Once you are OVER 9000 years of age, you are responsible enough to practice a religion.

There are several ways if we follow a model similar to the one used to prevent people from smoking in their cars if there are children under the age of 16 present in the vehicle (no, I'm not bluffing, this is a law in Nova Scotia and now Ontario. Also, there is no way to know if people are smoking in the car and if the child is indeed under 16):

Well, you *can* see someone smoking in their cars with children- might take a bit of chance that there's someone there looking but it's not like cigarettes and smoke are so small that only the eagle-eyed can catch it from close range or the car windows (most of them anyway) so tinted you can't see through them, even from your own car.

Besides, it's a bit different regulating smoking and religion. I personally don't believe in smoking laws (except requiring proper ventilation to guard against second-hand smoke) because it's a personal choice (plus we're hypocrites if we allow some recreational drugs but not all of them). Regardless, smoking is a clear act with clear consequences (you light the cigarette, you put in your mouth, inhale/exhale and whatever smoke that comes out of it is harmful second-hand smoke), whereas religion is not. Religion involves more than just the rituals, the holy book and (most likely) attendance at a holy building/site (which are regulatable) but also beliefs and customs, which are nothing more than opinions on a way of life. Not only is that impossible to regulate (unless you're actually inside the home or tapping their phone/computer lines, a massive invasion of privacy), telling people what beliefs they can and cannot express is tantamount to regulating opinions, and I really don't want to go down that road. Parents ought to be able to raise their children in a certain way (provided they take care of their children and aren't telling them to act in hateful ways), including religiously (which isn't the same thing as "spreading hate").

- education programmes, that teach children from a young age as soon as they are in school.

- tax incentives to religious institutions to follow along with the spirit of the law

- awareness campaigns

Those are tools to combat it but they won't prevent it. All those public awarness campaigns haven't stopped people from smoking have they?

I also doubt such a campaign would fly. Try starting a campaign to combat "conservative indoctrination" (or any other political ideological indoctrination) and see how far that would go. This is really bordering on state-sponsored atheism. Aside from preaching respect and against misinformation (which is already done), there's not much you can do without meeting heavy (and not undeserved) resistance.

So you want the right to make children into little ignorant versions of yourself and perpetuate a cycle of ignorance which is leading to intolerance and discrimination because of ancient beliefs which are not flexible enough to have a real place in today's ever-evolving society?

Even if God can't provide food, Christianity can still kill...

Seems to me like you're confusing "Christians" with the Fred Phelps types who throw every homosexual or Muslim they see under the bus and any self-respecting Christian (myself included) would tell you that won't describe the majority of them (or even the members of other religions at all). I do agree that intolerance, ignorance and outdated belief systems are a major problems at the religious institutions (which is why I don't affiliate myself with any of them), but the culprits are not the religions themselves but the people who interpret them in those manners. Besides, we already have laws that deal with hateful actions- we have hate laws and laws against spreading "false information". The type of regulation you are calling for is really meaningless.

I must admit, for all the tolerance and respect you are seeking, you- frankly- seem to be just as ignorant as the religious types you rail against. Yes, there are Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. who are disrespectful if not outright hateful, but they describe but a fraction of the total adherents. You seem to take the media characterizations of oddball lunatics and applying them to the rest of the adherents and you should know this is just as wrong as Phelps is. I fully agree we've got to do something about intolerance and hate- maybe even to the point of slapping a minimum age for attending service and reading the official holy books- but villifying religion as a whole is not the way to do it.

Abortion kills thousands of children. Maybe we should have an age of majority on that, too.

There could be an age when each person evaluates their religion, but I don't think that religion should be withheld until that time.

This isn't a really workable situation in any situation that I can see.

Abortion kills thousands of children. Maybe we should have an age of majority on that, too.

It's a subject for a different thread, but considering that the earliest most women can get pregnant is when they're 13-14 (because that's when the men hit puberty) I don't really think one is necessary (and some jurisdictions already have one anyway).

Abortion kills thousands of children. Maybe we should have an age of majority on that, too.

A: Wrong thread for the topic of abortion.

B: I've never heard of ANY child killed by an abortion. Are thousands of children somewhere having abortions and dieing of some resulting infection? If so, why are the children pregnant in the first place and why isn't this infection killing grown women as well?

Distorting what, exactly?
Do you deny that piercing involves poking a hole in a body part or that circumcision involves cutting a piece of it off?
Yes. Twice. The cartilage of one was pierced, but I let that heal. And my navel is pierced.

When you tell people that you've got a navel or ear piercings, (or if you were going to) Would you say:

"Yeah I've got a navel piercing and my ear is too."

Or would you say

"I've poked holes in my navel and my ear."

Humor me.


You're the one with the strawman, my dear. I didn't suggest that anything unnecessary was a problem.
I suggested that unnecessary bodily modifications was a problem.


Then make the connection. You said things like circumcision are (hypothetically, as we both agree there are likely medical benefits) uneccessary as if that alone qualified them as a problem. Since now you're saying it doesn't, then what makes them a problem, beyond simply being "severing a body part" as you like to put it.


Of course there are times when parental authority overrides normal conventions. I've already stated that.
But it happens when there is a justification for that authority. Parents are responsible for the care of their children. They are required to provide adequate supervision for those children. As such, they need the authority to decide where that child goes.
Now, it's your turn. Provide an adequate justification for why a parent needs the authority to make unnecessary bodily modifications.


Sure thing. Health benefits are one justification for circumcision. (In fact, it is my opinion that this is a major factor for why the practice was introduced in the first place in ancient times, but that's a topic for another discussion). To many (I know, not to you) religion is justifcation enough, although that's the crux of the discussion here.

Taking the question more generally, if a body modification WERE medically or culturally desireable, then the parents absolutely should have exclusive authority (NOT the state) to make that call.

You call it 'unneccessary' but that's a matter of opinion. To many people in the world, circumcision is quite necessary. (And not just Jewish people, and not just for religious reasons.)


I'm waiting for the "higher purpose" that justifies a parent making unnecessary bodily modifications.
Is a child going to die or have uncared for offspring if you don't pierce them?
No.

Ok good. Humor me again, please. Why isn't it cruel?


Now you answer my question. Would it be cruel to routinely neuter children?

Yep, but that's beside the point I'm making.


Not the type of absolute authority you're advocating. Parents authority that is necessary to the parental responsibility as a caretaker for the child is justified. Extra authority just for the hell of it is not.


But where do you draw the line? You've just agreed that childrens' rights are NOT the same as those of an adult. (The example of being taken places you don't want to go is but one.) So what makes ear piercing a rights violation and not being forced to go to the store? Or attend a particular school? Or learn a particular language? Or observe a particular culture? Are you arbitrarily drawing the line at something that affects the body? Why? Be clear. Don't just say 'becaue it's a body change' as if the rationale were self-evident. Explain your reasoning (if you please as though you were writing it for a teacher.(Not that I'm presuming authority over you, I'm just asking for that level of clarity for the sake of communication.))


I have asked you repeatedly to justify the need for a parent to be able to make unnecessary bodily modifications to their children.

Are you ever going to provide such a justification?

I know you have, and I've been working toward the point. See above.

An "age of majority for religious practice" sounds like a good idea to me, although somewhat utopic.
Children usually get brainwashed at a tender age, when they don't even stand a chance to freely chose what to believe, so they usually get indoctrinated with their parents' beliefs.
If one could manage to keep religion away from children until they'd actually be able to think for themselves, I think there might be quite a few less whackos around.

Abortion kills thousands of children. Maybe we should have an age of majority on that, too.

abortion dose not kill children it kill portental children but so dose masturbation

Abortion kills thousands of children. Maybe we should have an age of majority on that, too.

You mean, forcing children who get pregnant to abort? Only allowing pregnancies above a certain age? Wow, that's a tough stance...

You mean, forcing children who get pregnant to abort? Only allowing pregnancies above a certain age? Wow, that's a tough stance...

Oakondra's ideas are quite drastic, eh?;)

When you tell people that you've got a navel or ear piercings, (or if you were going to) Would you say:

"Yeah I've got a navel piercing and my ear is too."

Or would you say

"I've poked holes in my navel and my ear."

Humor me.

I'd say I have piercings.

But that wouldn't change the fact that what I've actually done is allowed people to poke holes in my body and put metal in them. The one describes the other.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you are making an arbitrary distinction here. Piercing your child is ok (although you never did answer my question about the more exotic piercings), but (presumably) other instances where a parent might poke holes in a child are not.

You have refused to provide any justification for this other than, "Other people do it."

Then make the connection. You said things like circumcision are (hypothetically, as we both agree there are likely medical benefits) uneccessary as if that alone qualified them as a problem.

Actually, I said that I am not convinced that there are medical benefits that warrant the procedure.

However, I definitely never said that the possible medical benefits qualified circumcision as a problem. I made it clear that, because there are possible medical benefits, I do think that parents have the authority to make that decision. Why? Because they are responsible for the medical care of their children.

Outside of possible medical benefits, I do not think parents have the authority to circumcise their children. Why? Because I don't think parental authority includes cutting off random bits of a child's anatomy.

Since now you're saying it doesn't, then what makes them a problem, beyond simply being "severing a body part" as you like to put it.

That isn't enough? Thinking that parents don't have the authority to cut off parts of their child's body on a whim isn't enough?

Sure thing. Health benefits are one justification for circumcision. (In fact, it is my opinion that this is a major factor for why the practice was introduced in the first place in ancient times, but that's a topic for another discussion).

And I have already agreed. As long as the decision to circumcise or not to circumcise is a medical decision, I agree that parents have the authority to make it.

I still think they shouldn't, given that I am not convinced that the medical benefits are relevant in current Western society, but it is not my decision to make.

To many (I know, not to you) religion is justifcation enough, although that's the crux of the discussion here.

If I can't cut body parts off of another adult because of my religion, I shouldn't be able to do it to my children because of my religion. When they are old enough to express their own religious beliefs and to ask for the procedure, that is another story.

Taking the question more generally, if a body modification WERE medically or culturally desireable, then the parents absolutely should have exclusive authority (NOT the state) to make that call.

Medically desirable, yes.

Culturally desirable, no.

You call it 'unneccessary' but that's a matter of opinion.

What is the necessity for ear piercings?

If there were no medical benefits, what would the necessity for circumcision be?

Again, if you're going to claim that parents need this authority, I'm certain you can back it up.

Ok good. Humor me again, please. Why isn't it cruel?

Because it is your responsibility to take care of your pets. The stomach thing, for instance, prevents a very painful and deadly problem known as bloat.

For comparison, though, I am adamantly opposed to tail docking and ear clipping and I applaud jurisdictions in which such cruelty has been made illegal. Why? Because the only reason that people put their dogs through such procedures (again, cutting off body parts and/or cutting body parts to form scar tissue) is so the dog will "look right".

But where do you draw the line? You've just agreed that childrens' rights are NOT the same as those of an adult. (The example of being taken places you don't want to go is but one.) So what makes ear piercing a rights violation and not being forced to go to the store?

As I've already stated, being forced to go to the store has a direct justification in one of the responsibilities of parents - providing adequate supervision for the child.

What parental responsibility would require parents to pierce their children?

I'd say I have piercings.

But that wouldn't change the fact that what I've actually done is allowed people to poke holes in my body and put metal in them. The one describes the other.

The point I'm trying to make here is that you are making an arbitrary distinction here. Piercing your child is ok (although you never did answer my question about the more exotic piercings), but (presumably) other instances where a parent might poke holes in a child are not.

You have refused to provide any justification for this other than, "Other people do it."


And the point I'm making is that you're using hyperbole, and that's not helping the discussion. The fact that a piercing involves a hole poking is pedantic and obvious, but then so does a sword thrust or a gunshot wound. Your focus on calling that as opposed to the more precise term- 'piercing ' -is an appeal to emotion.

What do you want me to say about exotic piercings? There are cultures in the world where such things are absolutely normal. Your'e applying a Western mentality to a question that can be viewed from drastically different angles.

As for justification, I've never said 'because other people do it.' In fact, I've made the effort to steer clear of justifcations because I don't happen to think that for things like that a justification is required if there are cultural or religious factors at work. Your'e trying to cast those factors as if they're meaningless but they aren't.


Actually, I said that I am not convinced that there are medical benefits that warrant the procedure.

However, I definitely never said that the possible medical benefits qualified circumcision as a problem. I made it clear that, because there are possible medical benefits, I do think that parents have the authority to make that decision. Why? Because they are responsible for the medical care of their children.
Outside of possible medical benefits, I do not think parents have the authority to circumcise their children. Why? Because I don't think parental authority includes cutting off random bits of a child's anatomy.


Thank you.

And that's the point I've been making from the beginning before we got on this tangent involving piercings and circumcision. It is the PARENTS who are responsible, not the Government, for the medical care of their children.


That isn't enough? Thinking that parents don't have the authority to cut off parts of their child's body on a whim isn't enough?


I know you're smarter than this. This kind of hyperbole isn't advancingy our argument in the slightest. cut off body parts... a whim? Do you even understand what circumcision is about? Beyond a simple biblical reference?


And I have already agreed. As long as the decision to circumcise or not to circumcise is a medical decision, I agree that parents have the authority to make it.
I still think they shouldn't, given that I am not convinced that the medical benefits are relevant in current Western society, but it is not my decision to make.

But who gets to decide the motivations of the parents? Will you have the parents of a newborn boy submit to questioning by a representative of the Government to determine whether their motives are acceptable before the procedure is completed?

Something like that would fit nicely as a subplot to an Orwell novel.


If I can't cut body parts off of another adult because of my religion, I shouldn't be able to do it to my children because of my religion. When they are old enough to express their own religious beliefs and to ask for the procedure, that is another story.


Again, where is the line drawn? I can drag my kid to the store, make him or her go to a particular school, forbid medical procedures (remember, by law before anybody can even so much as give your kid an aspirin they need your permission.) Never would I have that authority over a healthy adult and yet as a society we acknowledge that parents have a right to have such control.


Medically desirable, yes.

Culturally desirable, no.


In your Western opinion.


What is the necessity for ear piercings?

If there were no medical benefits, what would the necessity for circumcision be?

Again, if you're going to claim that parents need this authority, I'm certain you can back it up.


I don't happen to think it IS necessary... But I also understand that it is only my opinion. In other cultures and places it may be culturally or religiously (heck, even medically) considered perfectly justified to pierce ears, noses, lips, and god only knows what else and while I may find that disturbing, as a reasonable adult I also acknowledge that this is a difference of opinion, not an absolute right or wrong.


Because it is your responsibility to take care of your pets. The stomach thing, for instance, prevents a very painful and deadly problem known as bloat.

For comparison, though, I am adamantly opposed to tail docking and ear clipping and I applaud jurisdictions in which such cruelty has been made illegal. Why? Because the only reason that people put their dogs through such procedures (again, cutting off body parts and/or cutting body parts to form scar tissue) is so the dog will "look right".


And yet the pet doens't get a say in the procedure whether it's a neuter or a docking, but like you said, the owner has the righ to decide -or not- to get that procedure done. Why is this important? Because there are those who believe that anmals ought to have the same rights as people and yet they generally do NOT oppose some procedures that I'd be willing to bet the pet would decline if they could... *snip*


As I've already stated, being forced to go to the store has a direct justification in one of the responsibilities of parents - providing adequate supervision for the child.

What parental responsibility would require parents to pierce their children?

None in our culture, but then not every decision has to be one of responsibility or justification.

And the point I'm making is that you're using hyperbole, and that's not helping the discussion. The fact that a piercing involves a hole poking is pedantic and obvious, but then so does a sword thrust or a gunshot wound. Your focus on calling that as opposed to the more precise term- 'piercing ' -is an appeal to emotion.

Not really. It's pointing out what we're actually talking about outside of arbitrary distinctions. If a parent has the authority to pierce their child on a whim, they have the authority to poke holes of that size, etc. in a child's body on a whim. It doesn't matter how common the particular hole in question is.

You keep accusing me of some sort of cultural bias here, but it is really you who are applying a bias. Piercing, circumcision, etc. is ok because it's common. But removal of the earlobes? Something that wouldn't cause any more harm than, say, circumcision? That's simply not done!

What do you want me to say about exotic piercings? There are cultures in the world where such things are absolutely normal. Your'e applying a Western mentality to a question that can be viewed from drastically different angles.

So you would be fine with a parent performing a Prince Albert on an infant? Or putting in rings on the child's back and lacing them up? How about performing subincision?

I'm not "applying a Western mentality" here. There are some pretty crazy bodily modifications that we see in theworld. Are all of them ok for a parent to perform on an infant? Why or why not?

I'm not asking if piercings are normal. I'm asking if parents should have the authority to make unnecessary bodily modifications to a child. It doesn't matter to me what culture we're looking at, although I only actually have any power at all over the laws in my own country. What matters to me is the rights of the child and how far we let parents go in controlling them.

As for justification, I've never said 'because other people do it.'

Yes, you did. When I brought up other possible bodily modifications, your response was to state that those are not common in our society, while ear piercing is.

In fact, I've made the effort to steer clear of justifcations because I don't happen to think that for things like that a justification is required if there are cultural or religious factors at work. Your'e trying to cast those factors as if they're meaningless but they aren't. [/qutoe]

They have meaning only if they come from the person receiving the bodily modifications.

I'm not asking you for justifications for any particular bodily modification. I'm asking you for justification for the parents to have the authority to perform them or have them performed on a child's body.

The justification for parental authority to approve medically necessary procedures is obvious. What is the justification for parental authority to approve unnecessary bodily modifications - particularly on an infant who can have absolutely no say in the matter?

[quote]Thank you.

And that's the point I've been making from the beginning before we got on this tangent involving piercings and circumcision. It is the PARENTS who are responsible, not the Government, for the medical care of their children.

I never said otherwise. In fact, that's why I made it absolutely clear that I believe parents who do not seek necessary medical attention for their children are committing neglect and should have their children removed from their custody.

But the parents being responsible for medical decisions does not extent to non-medical bodily modifications.

I know you're smarter than this. This kind of hyperbole isn't advancingy our argument in the slightest. cut off body parts... a whim? Do you even understand what circumcision is about? Beyond a simple biblical reference?

I know lots of reasons that have been brought forth for circumcision, from pure aesthetics to medical. The only one that gives parents authority to have the procedure performed is the medical one. All of the others can be decided by the person with the penis when he is old enough.

But who gets to decide the motivations of the parents? Will you have the parents of a newborn boy submit to questioning by a representative of the Government to determine whether their motives are acceptable before the procedure is completed?

No. As I already pointed out, as long as circumcision is legal because of the possible medical benefits, parents who are doing it for other reasons will be able to do it.

Again, where is the line drawn? I can drag my kid to the store, make him or her go to a particular school, forbid medical procedures (remember, by law before anybody can even so much as give your kid an aspirin they need your permission.) Never would I have that authority over a healthy adult and yet as a society we acknowledge that parents have a right to have such control.

I've already told you where the line is drawn - at the point in which a justification can be based in the responsibilities of the parent.

We recognize that parents have to have certain authority over their children as a product of the responsibility they have to care for those children. I see no reason for that authority to stretch beyond the justifications that can be made by the responsibility.

In a similar fashion, adults sometimes have this same authority over other adults - because those adults require caretakers and the responsibilities of those caretakers warrant certain authority.

In your Western opinion.

It has nothing to do with any particular culture, any more than it has to do with any particular religion.

I'm saying that the child has her own rights - human rights - and that parental authority over a child must be justified by parental responsibility. Human rights are not culture specific.

I don't happen to think it IS necessary...

Really? Earlier, you told me you NEED that authority as a parent. Have you changed your mind?

But I also understand that it is only my opinion. In other cultures and places it may be culturally or religiously (heck, even medically) considered perfectly justified to pierce ears, noses, lips, and god only knows what else and while I may find that disturbing, as a reasonable adult I also acknowledge that this is a difference of opinion, not an absolute right or wrong.

Medical necessity is not a cultural thing. It is a matter of medical science.

Let me ask you this, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for a parent to cut off his daughter's clitoris and labia and then sew her genitals shut? What about foot binding? Is it ok for parents to cut off one or more of a child's digits if their culture or religion requires it? Limbs?

If I cannot do this to another adult, why should I be able to do it to a child? What is it about parental status that justifies that particular authority?

And yet the pet doens't get a say in the procedure whether it's a neuter or a docking, but like you said, the owner has the righ to decide -or not- to get that procedure done. Why is this important? Because there are those who believe that anmals ought to have the same rights as people and yet they generally do NOT oppose some procedures that I'd be willing to bet the pet would decline if they could... *snip*

And this is relevant to making non-medical decisions to alter a child's body........how?

Also, I said that I do not believe the owner has any right to dock an animal's tail, so you clearly misunderstood that.

None in our culture, but then not every decision has to be one of responsibility or justification.

It does when you're talking about making bodily modifications to someone else.

Again, children are HUMAN BEINGS. They are not property. Barring extraordinary circumstances, they will be responsible for their own lives in a relatively short period of time. Out of necessity, we have to give parents more authority over them than other human beings. But that authority should only be what can be justified as part of their responsibility. Any more than that is infringing on the rights of the child (yes, believe it or not, children do have human rights).

Not really. It's pointing out what we're actually talking about outside of arbitrary distinctions. If a parent has the authority to pierce their child on a whim, they have the authority to poke holes of that size, etc. in a child's body on a whim. It doesn't matter how common the particular hole in question is.

How do you figure? You're saying that support for a parent's right to pierce a child's ears equates to parental right to impale them on a pole.


You keep accusing me of some sort of cultural bias here, but it is really you who are applying a bias. Piercing, circumcision, etc. is ok because it's common. But removal of the earlobes? Something that wouldn't cause any more harm than, say, circumcision? That's simply not done!


Right. It's not done... so why do you bring it up?

What bias am I applying? What you need to understand is that I am neither advocating ear piercings nor condeming the practice. I'm specifically taking a 'hands off' approach. You're applying a false dichotomy to the issue.


So you would be fine with a parent performing a Prince Albert on an infant? Or putting in rings on the child's back and lacing them up? How about performing subincision?


What about them? Are you trying to win points by going for the most outnaldish possible examples? Show me a culture in the world that performs these procedures on a regular basis and this will be a valid point.


I'm not "applying a Western mentality" here. There are some pretty crazy bodily modifications that we see in theworld. Are all of them ok for a parent to perform on an infant? Why or why not?


None of which are included in the above list.


I'm not asking if piercings are normal. I'm asking if parents should have the authority to make unnecessary bodily modifications to a child. It doesn't matter to me what culture we're looking at, although I only actually have any power at all over the laws in my own country. What matters to me is the rights of the child and how far we let parents go in controlling them.
It has nothing to do with any particular culture, any more than it has to do with any particular religion.


Of course it matters what culture you're looking at. Your whole perspective on this issue is shaped by the culture in which you live and the mentality of the people you interact with. For some reason you're holding your perspective above that of people in other cultures that might disagree, to the point of supporting legislation that would impose your opinions on others. You said yourself if circumcision were demonstrably shown to have no medical benefit you'd support legislation to ban it.

Interesting. Usually I'm the conservative and you're the liberal. Strange thatwe've swapped places.


Yes, you did. When I brought up other possible bodily modifications, your response was to state that those are not common in our society, while ear piercing is.


Then you misread my point.


They have meaning only if they come from the person receiving the bodily modifications.

I'm not asking you for justifications for any particular bodily modification. I'm asking you for justification for the parents to have the authority to perform them or have them performed on a child's body.
The justification for parental authority to approve medically necessary procedures is obvious. What is the justification for parental authority to approve unnecessary bodily modifications - particularly on an infant who can have absolutely no say in the matter?


And my point is that one needs no justification to exercise their rights.


I never said otherwise. In fact, that's why I made it absolutely clear that I believe parents who do not seek necessary medical attention for their children are committing neglect and should have their children removed from their custody.

But the parents being responsible for medical decisions does not extent to non-medical bodily modifications.


However, you did state previously that you support Government involvement in the process, to the point of 'helping' parents in choosing the best course of treatment.


I know lots of reasons that have been brought forth for circumcision, from pure aesthetics to medical. The only one that gives parents authority to have the procedure performed is the medical one. All of the others can be decided by the person with the penis when he is old enough.


Which is your opinion.


No. As I already pointed out, as long as circumcision is legal because of the possible medical benefits, parents who are doing it for other reasons will be able to do it.


I wonder how many laws are based on 'possible' benefits.


I've already told you where the line is drawn - at the point in which a justification can be based in the responsibilities of the parent.

We recognize that parents have to have certain authority over their children as a product of the responsibility they have to care for those children. I see no reason for that authority to stretch beyond the justifications that can be made by the responsibility.

In a similar fashion, adults sometimes have this same authority over other adults - because those adults require caretakers and the responsibilities of those caretakers warrant certain authority.


Including certain medical procedures of dubious benefit, or of no benefit whatsoever.


I'm saying that the child has her own rights - human rights - and that parental authority over a child must be justified by parental responsibility. Human rights are not culture specific.


But defining what falls under that category is.


Really? Earlier, you told me you NEED that authority as a parent. Have you changed your mind?


No, you misunderstood. 'It' refers to the procedure of ear-piercing, which I hold as unecessary.


Medical necessity is not a cultural thing. It is a matter of medical science.


But it's not always about medical necessity. I've never argued that, say, ear piercing was medically necessary. For that matter, neither is circumcision.


Let me ask you this, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for a parent to cut off his daughter's clitoris and labia and then sew her genitals shut? What about foot binding? Is it ok for parents to cut off one or more of a child's digits if their culture or religion requires it? Limbs?


You started off strong here by citing real-life examples but then blew the advantage by going into ridiculous extremes. I will respond to the real-life examples though.

I find those acts repugnant, certainly. On the other hand, I'm an American, a Christian(Mormon) and male. My cultural background isn't the same as that of someone who sees foot binding as the height of female attractiveness in China. (Do they even still do that? I believe the practice was discontinued some time ago.)

As for female circumcision, I don't believe that's a religious practice. My understanding is that it's carried out in tribal areas of Africa and is dying out.


If I cannot do this to another adult, why should I be able to do it to a child? What is it about parental status that justifies that particular authority?


I keep asking you to tell me where you draw the line but your replies are very non-specific. You give examples of what falls on either side of that line but not precisely where the line is. If I choose to push my child to, say, play a sport like Soccer, would you consider that to be within the necessary powers a parent posesses? It's not necessary for a child to play Soccer to be well cared for, and yet few would question a parent's right to push them to play.



And this is relevant to making non-medical decisions to alter a child's body........how?

Also, I said that I do not believe the owner has any right to dock an animal's tail, so you clearly misunderstood that.


I understood you fine. I'm wasn't talking about docking tails I was talking about castration. (Please, slow down a bit in reading my posts.)

It applies because the body in general is not considered sacrosanct in all cases when it comes to the rights of those in authority. There are similar laws in place protecting both children and animals, and yet the law does recognize that with authority come certain rights.


It does when you're talking about making bodily modifications to someone else.

Again, children are HUMAN BEINGS. They are not property. Barring extraordinary circumstances, they will be responsible for their own lives in a relatively short period of time. Out of necessity, we have to give parents more authority over them than other human beings. But that authority should only be what can be justified as part of their responsibility. Any more than that is infringing on the rights of the child (yes, believe it or not, children do have human rights).

Why must you equate parental authority with property? It's almost as if you'd like to see parents treat their children more like roomates than subordinates, with little or no decision-making power.

I think the biggest difference in your perspective and mine is that you see parental authority as being granted by the Government in as limited an amount as possible, where I see parental authority as absolute within obvious limits imposed by as little Government intervention as possible.

In short you hold the Government as a higher authority than the parents, and I see it as the reverse.

How do you figure? You're saying that support for a parent's right to pierce a child's ears equates to parental right to impale them on a pole.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying it equates to a "right" for a parent to do any kind of similar procedure, no matter how common.

Parental authority is not a matter of commonality. It is a matter of necessity.

Right. It's not done... so why do you bring it up?

To show your bias towards "what's common" somehow being more ok than things that are not.

What bias am I applying? What you need to understand is that I am neither advocating ear piercings nor condeming the practice. I'm specifically taking a 'hands off' approach. You're applying a false dichotomy to the issue.

You aren't taking a "hands off" approach, though. You are arguing that one group of people (parents) have the right to do these things to another group of people (children).

You are giving some human beings "rights" over other human beings without any justification for those "rights".

What about them? Are you trying to win points by going for the most outnaldish possible examples? Show me a culture in the world that performs these procedures on a regular basis and this will be a valid point.

And there you go with the "it's common" argument again. These are all things that people in our own culture do. They may not be as common as ear piercings, but they are all done. What sets ear piercings aside?

If you believe that a parent has the authority to pierce a child's ears, why not that child's genitalia or back? If a parent can circumcise a child, why can that parent not perform subincision on that child?

None of which are included in the above list.

Not sure what you mean here. We certainly do see all of the things I mentioned done in the world.

Of course it matters what culture you're looking at. Your whole perspective on this issue is shaped by the culture in which you live and the mentality of the people you interact with. For some reason you're holding your perspective above that of people in other cultures that might disagree, to the point of supporting legislation that would impose your opinions on others. You said yourself if circumcision were demonstrably shown to have no medical benefit you'd support legislation to ban it.

Not quite. I said that if circumcision were demonstrably shown to have no medical benefit, I would support legislation to keep parents from deciding to circumcise their children.

I never said anything about a human being deciding for himself.

It doesn't matter what culture you're looking at, no human being has rights to another human being's body. Some governments and cultures violate those rights, but that just makes those governments and cultures unjust. Authority over another human being may be granted in circumstances that warrant it - ie. circumstances which are justified - without infringing upon those rights.

Interesting. Usually I'm the conservative and you're the liberal. Strange that we've swapped places.

Many "liberal" ideas are actually rather conservative in nature when you look at them closely. The problem is that "conservative", in many cases, has been attached to authoritarian principles.

By today's lexicon, the term "liberal" is not inconsistent with arguing in favor of a person having control over her own body.

And my point is that one needs no justification to exercise their rights.

No, they don't.

But no one has rights over another person's body, either.

However, you did state previously that you support Government involvement in the process, to the point of 'helping' parents in choosing the best course of treatment.

No, I didn't. You're confusing me with someone else (I don't remember who, now).

Which is your opinion.

Any discussion of rights will be one of opinion. We cannot objectively demonstrate rights.

But as long as children have human rights, they have the right to bodily integrity.

But defining what falls under that category is.

No, it isn't. Human rights are human rights, no matter where the human happens to be born or reside.

There are certainly entities that infringe upon those rights and arguments over what those rights may be. But any discussion of human rights is a discussion of something that is universal.

No, you misunderstood. 'It' refers to the procedure of ear-piercing, which I hold as unecessary.

So you don't think you need the authority to pierce your children's ears.

Good.

You started off strong here by citing real-life examples but then blew the advantage by going into ridiculous extremes. I will respond to the real-life examples though.

I was asking you to draw a line. I didn't know where that line would be.

I would argue, however, that removing a finger or toe would be less harmful than extreme forms of FGM.

I find those acts repugnant, certainly. On the other hand, I'm an American, a Christian(Mormon) and male. My cultural background isn't the same as that of someone who sees foot binding as the height of female attractiveness in China. (Do they even still do that? I believe the practice was discontinued some time ago.)

As for female circumcision, I don't believe that's a religious practice. My understanding is that it's carried out in tribal areas of Africa and is dying out.

You didn't answer the question.

I asked you if you think parents have the authority to do these things to their children. Or, to use your words, do they have the "right" to do so?

I keep asking you to tell me where you draw the line but your replies are very non-specific. You give examples of what falls on either side of that line but not precisely where the line is. If I choose to push my child to, say, play a sport like Soccer, would you consider that to be within the necessary powers a parent posesses? It's not necessary for a child to play Soccer to be well cared for, and yet few would question a parent's right to push them to play.

My replies are "non-specific" because we're talking about a rule that applies to any parental authority.

Is the authority justified by the responsibility a parent has? Let's see:

Physical activity is necessary to keep a child healthy. Parents are responsible for the health of their children. Therefore, parents have the authority to push their children to participate in physical activities.

You could also go with a socialization argument - that socialization is necessary to a child's development and well-being and that parents thus have the authority to push a child into activities that provide socialization.

Your turn. Do the same for unnecessary bodily modification.

I understood you fine. I'm wasn't talking about docking tails I was talking about castration. (Please, slow down a bit in reading my posts.)

To quote your post:
And yet the pet doens't get a say in the procedure whether it's a neuter or a docking, but like you said, the owner has the righ to decide -or not- to get that procedure done.

Bold mine.

It applies because the body in general is not considered sacrosanct in all cases when it comes to the rights of those in authority.

No, it isn't. It is not considered to be such when there is justification for the authority being exercised.

There are similar laws in place protecting both children and animals, and yet the law does recognize that with authority come certain rights.

I'd say that with responsibility comes certain authority. It can be "rights" when we're talking about pets, who are seen as property, but not when we are talking about human beings over whom authority is granted. It's a semantic difference, but an important one.

Why must you equate parental authority with property?

I don't. I equate unjustified parental authority with property.

The type of "absolute, with few exceptions..." authority you are talking about is the type of authority someone has over a possession - over property.

It's almost as if you'd like to see parents treat their children more like roomates than subordinates, with little or no decision-making power.

Wow, that's a cute strawman.

I think the biggest difference in your perspective and mine is that you see parental authority as being granted by the Government in as limited an amount as possible, where I see parental authority as absolute within obvious limits imposed by as little Government intervention as possible.

Not quite. I don't see the government as granting parental authority any more than I see the government as granting human rights. I see it as an enforcer. The government doesn't really grant parental authority. It recognizes the fact that it is necessary.

I do not believe that any human being has authority over another human being unless that authority is justified by some circumstances. The idea of any human being having "absolute, with few exceptions...." authority over another is outrageous to me. And calling it a "right" is even more ridiculous.

One person can gain authority over another - where that authority is necessary.

In short you hold the Government as a higher authority than the parents, and I see it as the reverse.

Incorrect. I see the child's rights as being more important than the parent's wants. And I see part of the government's job as being the protection of everyone's rights - even those of children.

To put it a little more succinctly:

Parental authority is not a standard of its own. It is an exception to the rule.

The rule is that every individual has rights. Those rights include control of his body (which covers medical decisions, aesthetic changes, diet, etc.).

In certain circumstances, however, an individual may be incapable of exercising those rights for himself - generally because he lacks the mental capacity to do so. In those circumstances, the government recognizes the authority of someone else over that person, but only authority that is necessary.

One of those circumstances is childhood. A child is not yet capable of making all of her decisions for herself. She isn't capable of raising herself and seeing to her own needs. Thus, the government recognizes authority of parents over their children - out of necessity. The right that parents have is the right to be the defaults upon whom the responsibility of caring for a child falls. The authority itself, however, only exists within the justification of the necessity for that authority.

To put it a little more succinctly:

Parental authority is not a standard of its own. It is an exception to the rule.

The rule is that every individual has rights. Those rights include control of his body (which covers medical decisions, aesthetic changes, diet, etc.).

In certain circumstances, however, an individual may be incapable of exercising those rights for himself - generally because he lacks the mental capacity to do so. In those circumstances, the government recognizes the authority of someone else over that person, but only authority that is necessary.

One of those circumstances is childhood. A child is not yet capable of making all of her decisions for herself. She isn't capable of raising herself and seeing to her own needs. Thus, the government recognizes authority of parents over their children - out of necessity. The right that parents have is the right to be the defaults upon whom the responsibility of caring for a child falls. The authority itself, however, only exists within the justification of the necessity for that authority.

Very well put Dem.

My first reaction was "What a good idea!"

20 seconds later, it's not such a good idea...

It just wouldn't work.

Very well put Dem.

Thanks. My "succinct" post still ended up being rather wordy, but that's normal for me so.... =)

Thanks. My "succinct" post still ended up being rather wordy, but that's normal for me so.... =)

It was shorter than the others, so yes succinct. ;)

No, I'm not.
I'm saying it equates to a "right" for a parent to do any kind of similar procedure, no matter how common.
Parental authority is not a matter of commonality. It is a matter of necessity.
To show your bias towards "what's common" somehow being more ok than things that are not.
And there you go with the "it's common" argument again. These are all things that people in our own culture do. They may not be as common as ear piercings, but they are all done. What sets ear piercings aside?
If you believe that a parent has the authority to pierce a child's ears, why not that child's genitalia or back? If a parent can circumcise a child, why can that parent not perform subincision on that child?


No, that's your (mis)interpretation of what I'm saying.

I mean seriously, are you actually trying to communicate here or is this just some sort of 'gotcha' game? 'cause If you're not interested in understanding my point just LMK. I've been giving you the courtesy of making an effort to understand your point of view. Are you unwilling to extend that courtesy to me out of a greater interest in 'being right' than in establishing common ground?

because ultimately, as you've acknowledged, a lot of this is a matter of opinion. if you're not interested in my opinion that's perfcetly alright, but I do ask that you stop distorting it in order to claim the moral highground.


You aren't taking a "hands off" approach, though. You are arguing that one group of people (parents) have the right to do these things to another group of people (children).

You are giving some human beings "rights" over other human beings without any justification for those "rights".


Why do you insist on justification of rights? You said yourself parents have a level of authority that enables them to make decisions regarding their children. One minute you adamantly insist that parents have absolutely no right to make decisions affecting their children's bodies and yet you readily admit that they need such authority to make medical decisions. You draw the line at what you consider to be 'medically necessary' but what you might consider necessary and what someone else may consider necessary is completely arbitrary. Medicine alone isn't the only possible rationale for parental decision-making and while we may both agree that ear-piercing is frivolous and unnecessary, I'm simply not comfortable withoutlawing the practice because it does NOT constitute abuse (common or not, pierced ears is considered a normal state.)

Again, your perspective appears to be that parents rights are enumerated while I believe they're limited only when absolutely necessary.


Not sure what you mean here. We certainly do see all of the things I mentioned done in the world.


Show me the culture in which it's normal to sew up a child's back with piercings.


Not quite. I said that if circumcision were demonstrably shown to have no medical benefit, I would support legislation to keep parents from deciding to circumcise their children.

I never said anything about a human being deciding for himself.


Yes, that's exactly what I have a problem with and what I am talking about having been 'banned' as that is the context of this discussion. Please, the 'gotcha' game is not working.

Again, if you don't have time to read carefully then I'm perfeclty happy to wait on your replies until you do.


It doesn't matter what culture you're looking at, no human being has rights to another human being's body. Some governments and cultures violate those rights, but that just makes those governments and cultures unjust. Authority over another human being may be granted in circumstances that warrant it - ie. circumstances which are justified - without infringing upon those rights.


Again, who decides what's justified and what isn't? You?


Many "liberal" ideas are actually rather conservative in nature when you look at them closely. The problem is that "conservative", in many cases, has been attached to authoritarian principles.

By today's lexicon, the term "liberal" is not inconsistent with arguing in favor of a person having control over her own body.


That's a separate issue and I ain't touching it in this thread.


No, they don't.

But no one has rights over another person's body, either.


And yet parents have rights to decide on medical procedures for children. That would appear to run counter to your assertion.

...but then again, you're in favor of Government involvement.


No, I didn't. You're confusing me with someone else (I don't remember who, now).


Possibly. It may have been Cabra. I'll check later when I have time.


Any discussion of rights will be one of opinion. We cannot objectively demonstrate rights.
But as long as children have human rights, they have the right to bodily integrity.


So you agree it's a matter of opinion and then reference them as if it's not.


No, it isn't. Human rights are human rights, no matter where the human happens to be born or reside.
There are certainly entities that infringe upon those rights and arguments over what those rights may be. But any discussion of human rights is a discussion of something that is universal.


But not everything is a matter of human rights.


So you don't think you need the authority to pierce your children's ears.
Good.


Are you misrepresenting what I said on purpose, or are you just that unwilling to read my posts carefully?


I was asking you to draw a line. I didn't know where that line would be.
I would argue, however, that removing a finger or toe would be less harmful than extreme forms of FGM.


What's FGM?


You didn't answer the question.

I asked you if you think parents have the authority to do these things to their children. Or, to use your words, do they have the "right" to do so?


I did answer. But (and I don't mean this as a personal attack.) you seem to be missing my point a lot over the last couple of posts. It seems entirely possible to me that you've missed this one as well.


My replies are "non-specific" because we're talking about a rule that applies to any parental authority.


Not good enough. You're demanding specifics from me. Quid pro quo.


Is the authority justified by the responsibility a parent has? Let's see:

Physical activity is necessary to keep a child healthy. Parents are responsible for the health of their children. Therefore, parents have the authority to push their children to participate in physical activities.

You could also go with a socialization argument - that socialization is necessary to a child's development and well-being and that parents thus have the authority to push a child into activities that provide socialization.

Your turn. Do the same for unnecessary bodily modification.


Not so fast. Are you suggesting that as long as a case can be made that a decision is made for the welfare of the child then the child's rights are trumped? You just used a very easy rationalization for forching a child to play soccer. It's easy to rationalize practically anything.


To quote your post:
Bold mine.


If you go back to my original response you'll see that I zeroed in on neutering.


No, it isn't. It is not considered to be such when there is justification for the authority being exercised.


'Justification.' Your buzzwords appear in cycles.

Rights do not require justification.


I'd say that with responsibility comes certain authority. It can be "rights" when we're talking about pets, who are seen as property, but not when we are talking about human beings over whom authority is granted. It's a semantic difference, but an important one.


At the same time pets are not merely considered property. If I have a plush toy cat and wish to destroy it by ripping it to shreds, I can do so with absolutely no legal rammifications whatsoever. Yet, if I get mad at my real cat...


I don't. I equate unjustified parental authority with property.


Fine, but you realize that is a matter of your own personal view.


The type of "absolute, with few exceptions..." authority you are talking about is the type of authority someone has over a possession - over property.


I disagree, but then, that's the argument.


Wow, that's a cute strawman.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Actually it's not a strawman. if you feel I've misinterpreted your point then please correct me.


Not quite. I don't see the government as granting parental authority any more than I see the government as granting human rights. I see it as an enforcer. The government doesn't really grant parental authority. It recognizes the fact that it is necessary.

I do not believe that any human being has authority over another human being unless that authority is justified by some circumstances.

(like parenting?)

The idea of any human being having "absolute, with few exceptions...." authority over another is outrageous to me. And calling it a "right" is even more ridiculous.


So parents don't have rights?


One person can gain authority over another - where that authority is necessary.


Like Parenting.


Incorrect. I see the child's rights as being more important than the parent's wants. And I see part of the government's job as being the protection of everyone's rights - even those of children.

Way to minimize the parents' perspective.

Again, I don't really blame you for having the point of view you do but someday when you have kids of your own you'll be surprised at how it changes your perspective. It isn't about parents' 'wants' however much you might find it convenient to trivialize the reasoning. Parents make tens of thousands of major decisions over the course of their child's life with them and what a parent WANTS to do is almost never the deciding factor.

I've got 3 kids. (#4 is scheduled to arrive 2 weeks from today) How often do you think I choose what I WANT over what's best? We make tough choices. we sacrifice. We do what we think is best for our kids even when it's not the knee jerk answer or what we might want to deal with ourselves.

No, that's your (mis)interpretation of what I'm saying.

What is? You quoted quite a bit there.

Why do you insist on justification of rights?

I don't. I insist on justification of authority over another human being.

You said yourself parents have a level of authority that enables them to make decisions regarding their children.

Indeed, when that authority is justified by necessity.

One minute you adamantly insist that parents have absolutely no right to make decisions affecting their children's bodies and yet you readily admit that they need such authority to make medical decisions.

They have no right to do so. They do have certain authority over the child, as necessitated by the fact that the child is not competent to take care of himself.

The right that a parent has is to be the default to whom that authority falls.

Show me the culture in which it's normal to sew up a child's back with piercings.

Irrelevant. I'm asking if parents have the authority to do this, not whether it is common.

Once upon a time, it was normal for a parent to sell his daughter off to the highest bidder as if she was property. In Biblical times, he could even sell her as a slave, rather than a wife. Was that proper parental authority because it was common?

That's a separate issue and I ain't touching it in this thread.

No, it isn't. That is the central issue here. A child has the right to bodily integrity, just as every other human being does.

Because a child does not have the mental capacity to make medical decisions for himself, a parent has that authority until the child matures enough to do so. But the child still has those rights, just as an adult who is temporarily incapacitated and has their medical decisions made by another does.

And yet parents have rights to decide on medical procedures for children. That would appear to run counter to your assertion.

....authority, not rights.

And no, it doesn't. As I have stated more than once, there are instances in which we have exceptions to the rule - in which one person has the authority to make decisions for another.

Medical decisions in the case where one person does not have the mental competence to make those decisions for herself is one of those instances.

But not everything is a matter of human rights.

Bodily integrity is.

Are you misrepresenting what I said on purpose, or are you just that unwilling to read my posts carefully?

What have I misrepresented?

Answer the question here: Do you need the authority to pierce your child's ears? If so, why?

What's FGM?

Female Genital Mutilation.

I did answer. But (and I don't mean this as a personal attack.) you seem to be missing my point a lot over the last couple of posts. It seems entirely possible to me that you've missed this one as well.

No, you didn't. Nothing in either of those paragraphs answered the very simple question: Do you believe that parents have the authority to do these things?

You told me that you think they are repugnant. You talked about where they are/were done. You talked about how prevalent they are/were and whether or not they they are related to religion. You never answered my very simple question.

Not good enough. You're demanding specifics from me. Quid pro quo.

You're the one specifying certain unjustified things that parents can do and certain unjustified things that parents cannot do.

I'm providing a general rule that I believe should be applied to any and all of those actions.

Not so fast. Are you suggesting that as long as a case can be made that a decision is made for the welfare of the child then the child's rights are trumped? You just used a very easy rationalization for forching a child to play soccer. It's easy to rationalize practically anything.

It is easy to rationalize just about anything, if you don't worry about that rationalization making sense.

I'm saying that the authority to make a decision must be necessary to the responsibilities placed upon a parent. Once that authority is recognized, the actual decision to be made is near completely up to the parent.

Parents have the responsibility of keeping their children healthy. Physical activity is a requirement for health. Given that, they have the authority to decide that their children will engage in physical activity.

The fact that you specifically choose soccer while another parent might choose dodgeball is a matter of exercising that authority.

Rights do not require justification.

No, but authority over the rights of others does.

Unless you are going to argue that children do not have rights of their own, any authority you exercise over them requires justification.

I disagree, but then, that's the argument.

You disagree that you have absolute authority over your property, with few exceptions? The exceptions certainly vary depending on the type of property, but the general principle is that you have absolute authority over it unless the government can justify restricting it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Actually it's not a strawman. if you feel I've misinterpreted your point then please correct me.

Yes, it is. I have never once suggested that parents should have "little or no decision-making power." In fact, I have been quite clear on the fact that their responsibilities necessitate more authority over another than we see in any other circumstance that I am aware of.

I have simply argued that their authority is not absolute - that children have their own rights and that any authority their parents have over them must be justified.

So parents don't have rights?

Of course they do.

They simply don't have the right to unjustified authority over another. Any authority they wield over another human being must be justified by necessity.

Parents are super-humans and children aren't sub-humans. In any circumstance, the authority one human being has to wield over another must be justified by the circumstances.

Way to minimize the parents' perspective.

Again, I don't really blame you for having the point of view you do but someday when you have kids of your own you'll be surprised at how it changes your perspective. It isn't about parents' 'wants' however much you might find it convenient to trivialize the reasoning. Parents make tens of thousands of major decisions over the course of their child's life with them and what a parent WANTS to do is almost never the deciding factor.

What the parent wants is the deciding factor in, say, piercing a child's ears.

When circumcision is carried out for aesthetic or religious reasons, what the parent wants is the deciding factor.

I recognize the fact that parenting is a huge responsibility and that there are many important decisions that they must make for their children, as those children are not able to do so for themselves. I have never denied that or implied that it isn't true.

And I have not denied that parents need the authority to make these decisions. But near absolute authority is not necessary here any more than it is with any instance in which one person is responsible for the care of another.

I've got 3 kids. (#4 is scheduled to arrive 2 weeks from today) How often do you think I choose what I WANT over what's best? We make tough choices. we sacrifice. We do what we think is best for our kids even when it's not the knee jerk answer or what we might want to deal with ourselves.

Good, but that's not what we're discussing here.

You aren't just saying that you should have the authority to see to the well-being of your children. You are saying that you should have essentially absolute authority over your children, which would include decisions that would be made based on what you want.


If my husband were to have a terrible accident and be incapacitated, I would have the authority to make his medical decisions for him until such time as he was able to make them for himself. But I would not have the authority to pierce or tattoo him. Why? Because I would not need that authority to fulfill my responsibility in taking care of a spouse who could not take care of himself.

The authority a parent has over a child runs in much the same vein. They have it because it is necessary - because their children are not capable of making these decisions for themselves and must have someone else to do it for them. But that doesn't extend to absolute power any more than I would have absolute power over my husband if he were incapacitated. I would have the amount of power I needed to fulfill my responsibilities. Parents should be no different.

Ok Dem, now with your last post I think we've got the issue and our respective positions more clearly defined.

I'll sum up, correct me if I misrepresent your stance.

You feel that parental authority is limited only to that which is necessary to raise their children, especially in matters of medical care. The Government has the power to decide whether those needs are being met.

My perspective is that parents have an absolute right to make decisions regarding their children short of universally agreed upon acts such as abuse and neglect. (To be defined by the culture in which they live)

Does that sound like an accurate representation of your perspective?

Ok Dem, now with your last post I think we've got the issue and our respective positions more clearly defined.

I'll sum up, correct me if I misrepresent your stance.

You feel that parental authority is limited only to that which is necessary to raise their children, especially in matters of medical care. The Government has the power to decide whether those needs are being met.

My perspective is that parents have an absolute right to make decisions regarding their children short of universally agreed upon acts such as abuse and neglect. (To be defined by the culture in which they live)

Does that sound like an accurate representation of your perspective?

Essentially. I'm not sure why "especially in matters of medical care" was included, but my position is definitely that parental authority should be limited to that which is necessary to raise children.

Obviously, this will mean that they have a great deal of authority in some matters (like medical care) and very little in others.

Your perspective seems, to me, to relegate children to subhuman status. You afford them no more protection than a pet - a creature over which someone has absolute rights to make decisions, short of universally agreed upon acts of abuse or neglect. In my view, human beings - of any age - have more rights than that.

Essentially. I'm not sure why "especially in matters of medical care" was included, but my position is definitely that parental authority should be limited to that which is necessary to raise children.

Obviously, this will mean that they have a great deal of authority in some matters (like medical care) and very little in others.

Your perspective seems, to me, to relegate children to subhuman status. You afford them no more protection than a pet - a creature over which someone has absolute rights to make decisions, short of universally agreed upon acts of abuse or neglect. In my view, human beings - of any age - have more rights than that.

Ok then it seems to me that if I've accurately understood your point then we've boiled it down to a difference of opinion which, is the time to call it an 'agree to disagree.'

I can see why it looks to you like relegating children to subhuman status. I don't see it that way, obviously, but the devil is in the details. Suffice it to say that to me, a parent has an absolute responsibility for his or her child. That means safety, education, nutrition, etc. It's NOBODY's responsibility but the parents'. We have systems like public education in place that make it a little easier, but at the end of the day if a child isn't properly educated then the parent has failed as much as anyone, IMHO.

But since they have that level of supreme responsibility, then I'd expect Government to stay the hell out of the way unless the parent is obviously ignoring that responsibility. (Which would be obvious in cases where there's abuse and/or neglect.)

So yah. That's where it derives from.

As a side note: I can almost guarantee your position will modify at least a little once you have the joy of becoming a parent (Should you choose to do so.) It is a staggering responsibility but I love it and I'd have it no other way. My oldest is 15 and I've raised him to be independent and as self sufficient as possible and sometimes I get choked up when I see him in action, building his own computers or making those decisions about his future that he's now in a position to start making. He's talking about college, going on a mission, even starting a business career NOW on the side. I've agreed to set up an eBay account for him should he choose to start the online business he wants to run.

And my youngest will be born on the 16th (scheduled). She, I predict, will be just as awesome in whatever she decides to do, just as her older brothers and sister are well on their way to becoming.