NationStates Jolt Archive

Original story at Politico here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21041.html), link to the text of the proposed amendment here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-42).

To sum up, the GOP is looking for a new wedge issue and parental rights seem to fit the bill, especially as just about everyone gets touchy about their kids (I should know, it's amazing the changes that come to you when you're suddenly 'Daddy').

Leaving aside the wedge and culture wars though, what rights do you think parents should have? When should the trump childrens' rights (Or what rights should kids have anyway) and should the whole mess be enshrined into a nation-state's highest document?

The amendment is utter garbage. It is too vague and will lead to a mess in the courts as people sue to stop things like Sex Ed or evolution being taught. the Text doesn't even counter the rights of the child from the UN treaty. all the Text seems to target is making loop holes in educational text.

Maybe we should just repeal SOME the rules that give kids more rights?

What a shoddy excuse for a party the GOP is if they must keep resorting to these gimmicks to try and stay relevant. Let's hope the GOP dies out soon.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.

The whole thing is about preaching to the choir. It will never see the light of day.....

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.

Agreed... I guess I don't have to write anything now.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

:eek: OMG! Children could choose their own religion?!? Oh the Horror!!! :eek:

An impartial (or less partial) article would be better, but it does seem like hot air.

:eek: OMG! Children could choose their own religion?!? Oh the Horror!!! :eek:

Like it is possible to actually to force someone to believe something.

:eek: OMG! Children could choose their own religion?!? Oh the Horror!!! :eek:

That line in the article pissed me off beyond words...

Like it is possible to actually to force someone to believe something.

It is if you spank them enough. Of course the pesky government wants to ban that too! :mad:


;)

Like it is possible to actually to force someone to believe something.

Yeah. That's the elephant in the room. On the other hand, there are legitimate beefs (beeves?) regarding the right to homeschooling and things like that, which haven't been addressed in some states. Unfortunately, you often get religious nuts as advocates for that sort of thing, which helps no one.

It is if you spank them enough. Of course the pesky government wants to ban that too! :mad:


;)

You seemed to have mistaken spanking with water boarding. Which this amendment protects.

Yeah. That's the elephant in the room. On the other hand, there are legitimate beefs (beeves?) regarding the right to homeschooling and things like that, which haven't been addressed in some states. Unfortunately, you often get religious nuts as advocates for that sort of thing, which helps no one.

A national law to make states to home school is do able, just tie it to the educational funds. States can still set the standard, so home schooled kids will still have to know about things like evolution and Sex ed.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.
Quoted for truth -- a truth a lot of people (read: Republicans) seem to forget. But then, those people have always been really big and loud about "responsibility" when they're talking about other people. About themselves, not so much.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.
:eek: OMG! Children could choose their own religion?!? Oh the Horror!!! :eek:
Ah, yes, a dystopian future in which child abuse is more difficult.

I am supressing an urge to hit somebody -- uh, um, I mean something with a baseball bat.

A national law to make states to home school is do able, just tie it to the educational funds. States can still set the standard, so home schooled kids will still have to know about things like evolution and Sex ed.

Oh hell no... just saying that they have to cover evolution and sex ed aint gonna work.

Sex Ed: Sex is the devil!

Evolution: Lies propagated by the evil liberals to take people away from god!

A national law to make states to home school is do able, just tie it to the educational funds. States can still set the standard, so home schooled kids will still have to know about things like evolution and Sex ed.

It's not content. Some people want parents to be credentialed in order to home school their kids (which most homeschool families can't afford, costs ten or more thousand dollars and takes a year or so, not including the three or four spent earning a BA/BS). That just shouldn't happen. School districts' homeschooling programs are terrible, and usually involve unwilling and underpaid staff - parents are far better qualified and far better motivated to provide quality instruction, not to mention library staff who often contribute.

Oh hell no... just saying that they have to cover evolution and sex ed aint gonna work.

Sex Ed: Sex is the devil!

Evolution: Lies propagated by the evil liberals to take people away from god!

No need to propagate the "homeschool parents are religious fanatics" stereotype now. It's funny, but it's also insulting to actual participants.

I am supressing an urge to hit somebody -- uh, um, I mean something with a baseball bat.

Allow me to be more specific.

***Bankai: Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou***

I am supressing an urge to hit Michael Farris with a baseball bat. Repeatedly. On the face. Disfiguring him with one well-poised hit that crushes an eye. Making him unable to speak with another hit to the area of his brain that governs language. And THEN breaking his spine with the baseball bat. And leaving him for dead. With the bat up his ass.

Lesson learned: Suppressing an urge doesn't mean you can't talk about it at length. ;)

Oh hell no... just saying that they have to cover evolution and sex ed aint gonna work.

Sex Ed: Sex is the devil!

Evolution: Lies propagated by the evil liberals to take people away from god!

"Why can't Tommy get into a good college? I taught him the best I knew how!"

"You just answered your own question."

Oh hell no... just saying that they have to cover evolution and sex ed aint gonna work.

Sex Ed: Sex is the devil!

Evolution: Lies propagated by the evil liberals to take people away from god!

Don't just say test on it.
Besides it is all to easy to know the principles of Evolution and not believe them.

No need to propagate the "homeschool parents are religious fanatics" stereotype now. It's funny, but it's also insulting to actual participants.

Its not an insult to home schoolers, its an insult to the kind of people that would argue teaching their own curriculum based around religious and political beliefs, the kind of shit this bill is all about.

"Why can't Tommy get into a good college? I taught him the best I knew how!"

"You just answered your own question."

Not to be a killjoy, but you'd have weekly or quarterly indications that your teaching was substandard when your kid failed his/her exams. There's accountability built into every system I've read about/participated in.

It's not content. Some people want parents to be credentialed in order to home school their kids (which most homeschool families can't afford, costs ten or more thousand dollars and takes a year or so, not including the three or four spent earning a BA/BS). That just shouldn't happen. School districts' homeschooling programs are terrible, and usually involve unwilling and underpaid staff - parents are far better qualified and far better motivated to provide quality instruction, not to mention library staff who often contribute.

My view is this. teaching other peoples kids you need credentials, Teaching your own kids they are not needed.

No need to propagate the "homeschool parents are religious fanatics" stereotype now. It's funny, but it's also insulting to actual participants.

SOme are religious fanatics. SOme are dumbasses with no idea how to educate a child. Some are conscientious parents who don't feel that the public school system won't challenge their children properly(Smunkeeville for example). There are many reasons why people homeschool their children and they aren't all bad ones. That doesn't automatically make the parents competent teachers however.

SOme are religious fanatics. SOme are dumbasses with no idea how to educate a child. Some are conscientious parents who don't feel that the public school system won't challenge their children properly(Smunkeeville for example). There are many reasons why people homeschool their children and they aren't all bad ones. That doesn't automatically make the parents competent teachers however.

On average though home school kids out perform students in public schools and even private prep schools.

Not to be a killjoy, but you'd have weekly or quarterly indications that your teaching was substandard when your kid failed his/her exams. There's accountability built into every system I've read about/participated in.

But that accountability isn't universal. I recall Smunkee telling a horror story about a homeschooling parent teaching her son the rigorous task of cup stacking. :tongue:

SOme are religious fanatics. SOme are dumbasses with no idea how to educate a child. Some are conscientious parents who don't feel that the public school system won't challenge their children properly(Smunkeeville for example). There are many reasons why people homeschool their children and they aren't all bad ones. That doesn't automatically make the parents competent teachers however.

It's a statistically significant group, I don't disagree. But they give a bad name to an important institution. That's all I meant.

On average though home school kids out perform students in public schools and even private prep schools.

Fortunately, you rarely meet an ignorant AND motivated parent. But they do exist. :p

But that accountability isn't universal. I recall Smunkee telling a horror story about a homeschooling parent teaching her son the rigorous task of cup stacking. :tongue:

And i watched a 60 minutes episode where a hidden Camera had a teacher having their kids play monopoly for a class on economics.

And i watched a 60 minutes episode where a hidden Camera had a teacher having their kids play monopoly for a class on economics.

One day, or every day?

One day, or every day?

Was cup stacking a daily activity for the kid's lessons ?

On average though home school kids out perform students in public schools and even private prep schools.
Yes and no. They do better on some of the standardized tests, however, and rather tellingly, there has been no real difference in performance when it comes to their freshman year in college.

Was cup stacking a daily activity for the kid's lessons ?

You'd have to ask Smunkee, but I think the kid was training to go semi-pro. :p

And i watched a 60 minutes episode where a hidden Camera had a teacher having their kids play monopoly for a class on economics.
And? Depending upon how that was set up, that could work out well.

And? Depending upon how that was set up, that could work out well.

just groups of highschoolers playing the game and teacher reading the news paper.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.

Smunkee is a prophet, and truth drips from her lips like jewels.

just groups of highschoolers playing the game and teacher reading the news paper.

Chotto taihen, ne, NERVUN?

What a shoddy excuse for a party the GOP is if they must keep resorting to these gimmicks to try and stay relevant. Let's hope the GOP dies out immediately.

Fixed. :)

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.

What constitutes "abuse?" A light spanking? A beating? Yelling at the kid too loudly?

Chotto taihen, ne, NERVUN?
Tabun...

I didn't see it and I didn't read the lesson plan so I don't know what rules would be in effect.

If it WAS just, "Here, play this to learn about economics", yeah, that would be bad.

But if you were setting up the game with other rules and had a goal, plus student time at the end to report on what happened, that could be awsome.

What constitutes "abuse?" A light spanking? A beating? Yelling at the kid too loudly?
I'm not the best person to answer that person. I'm pretty extreme. You shouldn't hit your children. You shouldn't verbally abuse your children.

I'm not the best person to answer that person. I'm pretty extreme. You shouldn't hit your children. You shouldn't verbally abuse your children.

I was raised on: this is what you have done wrong and this is what you will do as punishment upon rectifying the wrong you have done. Occasionally if I did something very wrong I was yelled at but no punishment was dealt until calm heads ruled.

SOme are religious fanatics. SOme are dumbasses with no idea how to educate a child. Some are conscientious parents who don't feel that the public school system won't challenge their children properly(Smunkeeville for example). There are many reasons why people homeschool their children and they aren't all bad ones. That doesn't automatically make the parents competent teachers however.
This I agree with perfectly!
I guess it would be a different story if one of the parents had a valid teaching license. Although there are more than a few public school teachers who...oh nevermind, I do not want to rant nor threadjack.

Concerning the admendment...um, okaaaayyy:confused: Parents have responsibilities: to provide for their children's material well being. to instruct them in the parents' faith(s). to teach the children the skills and attitudes needed to survive in society. et al

This I agree with perfectly!
I guess it would be a different story if one of the parents had a valid teaching license. Although there are more than a few public school teachers who...oh nevermind, I do not want to rant nor threadjack.

Concerning the admendment...um, okaaaayyy:confused: Parents have responsibilities: to provide for their children's material well being. to instruct them in the parents' faith(s). to teach the children the skills and attitudes needed to survive in society. et al

Instructing children about their religion is not a responsibility. The responsible thing is to let them make their own decision. I do understand that by most faiths every other faith is wrong and all that and they may conceive it to be a responsibility but it isn't one and if it is true that only one religion makes it to heaven the god can go fuck its metaphysical self.

Instructing children about their religion is not a responsibility. The responsible thing is to let them make their own decision. I do understand that by most faiths every other faith is wrong and all that and they may conceive it to be a responsibility but it isn't one and if it is true that only one religion makes it to heaven the god can go fuck its metaphysical self.

You are entitled to your opinion; I hope you respect my right to express mine. For me it is a moral imperative to instruct any children I may have in the Christian faith, if, as adults, they choose to leave the faith, that is their prerogative. However I would be kinda sad that they rejected the community, no, family that I grew up in:( I would pray for their happiness and spiritual fulfillment.

Instructing children about their religion is not a responsibility. The responsible thing is to let them make their own decision. I do understand that by most faiths every other faith is wrong and all that and they may conceive it to be a responsibility but it isn't one and if it is true that only one religion makes it to heaven the god can go fuck its metaphysical self.

The problem with this is that children, of an early age, do not know how to make their own decisions. To begrudge a child the idea of God is a bit cruel. The key is that children are still innocent, they are still ok and not assholes, not like we turn out to be after life has played it's dirty tricks on us. Yes, as much as possible, we should just guide them so they learn to decide, but thrust them right in the middle of something and expect them to make the ''right'' decision is a bit too much. They're still kids.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

Who get's to define "reasonable spanking"? Oh that's right...the parents, how stupid of me. :rolleyes:

I'm sure every six year old that gets sent to their room is going to contact a lawyer to "seek government review"

Children choosing their own religion instead of being force-fed beliefs from birth? Smells like freedom to me.

The problem with this is that children, of an early age, do not know how to make their own decisions. To begrudge a child the idea of God is a bit cruel. The key is that children are still innocent, they are still ok and not assholes, not like we turn out to be after life has played it's dirty tricks on us. Yes, as much as possible, we should just guide them so they learn to decide, but thrust them right in the middle of something and expect them to make the ''right'' decision is a bit too much. They're still kids.

Are you suggesting that parents should teach their child about a particular religion because otherwise they won't believe in God on their own and will lose out on any hypothetical happiness they might get by doing so?

The problem with this is that children, of an early age, do not know how to make their own decisions. To begrudge a child the idea of God is a bit cruel.

Except that, for most people, what you learn in childhood sticks with you.

Very small children accept religion as an absolut truth, because they are given the world in short sentences by their parents. That means they can't discern what is real or not, what conflicts, what they can take from the message as useful and what to elave behind - instead, their brain adapts to accomodate.

Teaching a child religion, is programming them

How is the convention eroding Parent's rights to an unacceptable degree?

Like this article:

Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

The objections and arguments of Michael Farris are just silly.

I agree with smunkee - parents have responsibilities, not rights. As for childrens rights, the entire concept is outdated. the concept being 'children' as a homogenous unit doesn't, and cannot work. of course children of six months old shouldn't be extended full human rights and responsibilities. But what about children of 8, or 12, or 16. Is there no huge amount of difference here? Growing up is an incremental process but we have one single barrier between 'complete incompetant, property of parents' children as they often stand, and 'fully adult and responsible for themselves'. It isn't remotely logical.

I remember a poster saying something to the effect that even choosing to not teach religion to one's children is tantamount to "programming them," as it makes the children believe that religion is not important and take no stock in it, even if it is atheism. However religion, be it atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, is important. It shapes the social interactions in society and creates norms from which one can reason effectively. Without these norms or shaping influences, a child is not as able to make rational decisions. Whatever you choose to teach or not teach a child, you are effectively programming them regardless of what you say or do.

I agree Jordaxia, it should be drawn out, with increasing rights at various developmental stages. Some may reach those stages earlier than others, and some may never reach them, and rights and responsibilities should granted accordingly.

I agree with smunkee - parents have responsibilities, not rights. As for childrens rights, the entire concept is outdated. the concept being 'children' as a homogenous unit doesn't, and cannot work.
Why not? Is it that different from 'human rights', for example?

of course children of six months old shouldn't be extended full human rights and responsibilities.
Like... what human rights should children not be granted?

But what about children of 8, or 12, or 16. Is there no huge amount of difference here? Growing up is an incremental process but we have one single barrier between 'complete incompetant, property of parents' children as they often stand, and 'fully adult and responsible for themselves'. It isn't remotely logical.

Is the idea of an incremental process contrary to the way the Convention of the rights of the child is set up?

Republicans are looking for a new wedge issue? Maybe they see which way the wind is blowing on the whole gay thing.:D

How about a new slogan for the GOP:

"Republicans: proudly joining hands with Somalia against the menace of children's rights." (Yes, I'm sure its more complicated than that, but it makes an amusing slogan.)

Except that, for most people, what you learn in childhood sticks with you.

Very small children accept religion as an absolut truth, because they are given the world in short sentences by their parents. That means they can't discern what is real or not, what conflicts, what they can take from the message as useful and what to elave behind - instead, their brain adapts to accomodate.

Teaching a child religion, is programming them

And what of Santa Claus?

And what of Santa Claus?

Depends, if you're programming them to believe in Kris Kringle when they're grown-ups, you should be tried for child abuse for entirely different reasons. :p

Why not? Is it that different from 'human rights', for example?

Up until recently, commiting assault upon children was legal in every country in the world. only now it's changing. yes it is different to human rights, and not in a good way. it is far lesser. You can still for example, deny a child the right to medical treatment because you'd rather pray for them to get better, and only apparently when the child dies of the neglect will parents even be considered for prosecution. And not everywhere.


Like... what human rights should children not be granted?

Perhaps I mis-spoke, it happens often. children should not be denied any rights that I could read from my looking through the universal declaration of human rights, but similarly expecting all children to hold adult responsibilities is unfeasible. Would you give a baby a vote?


Is the idea of an incremental process contrary to the way the Convention of the rights of the child is set up?

I don't know, is it? All I know is at the moment, in the UK and the US, children reach an age of majority that, as if by magic, they shed the trappings of childhood and assume adulthood in a single instant. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Depends, if you're programming them to believe in Kris Kringle when they're grown-ups, you should be tried for child abuse for entirely different reasons. :p

Um....no. Telling your kid to believe in something you know is a lie, when they're too young to understand that it's a lie, is wrong. If teaching them something you believe is true is wrong, because they don't discern fantasy from reality well, then teaching them an obvious lie is also wrong.

I don't think you people think through your positions. I don't believe kids should be indoctrinated, I also don't have a problem with them participating in religion with their parents.

I don't think kids should be taught that a fat man literally comes to their house to give them presents if they're good enough, but if you want to do that, whatever.

I don't think kids should be taught that a fat man literally comes to their house to give them presents if they're good enough, but if you want to do that, whatever.

I believe this man comes to my house to deliver gifts if I'm good:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2557226570_e2133940b2.jpg?v=0]

Does it count? :D

This ammendment is nothing but a bunch of old conservatives whining that schools are going to teach their kids evolution, that they cant beat their kids, and that sometimes kids will grow up and reject their parents religion/values.


The fact that such an ammendment is being taken even remotely seriously disturbes me.

Um....no. Telling your kid to believe in something you know is a lie, when they're too young to understand that it's a lie, is wrong. If teaching them something you believe is true is wrong, because they don't discern fantasy from reality well, then teaching them an obvious lie is also wrong.

I don't think you people think through your positions. I don't believe kids should be indoctrinated, I also don't have a problem with them participating in religion with their parents.

I don't think kids should be taught that a fat man literally comes to their house to give them presents if they're good enough, but if you want to do that, whatever.

Ah yes. This is the part where you argue that telling your kids the story of Santa Claus makes you selfish and a child abuser.

The arguement didnt hold water at Christmas, it wont now.

And what of Santa Claus?

What of him?

Oh, it's okay for people to lie to their kids, because they lie about other stuff too?

I remember a poster saying something to the effect that even choosing to not teach religion to one's children is tantamount to "programming them," as it makes the children believe that religion is not important and take no stock in it, even if it is atheism. However religion, be it atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, is important. It shapes the social interactions in society and creates norms from which one can reason effectively. Without these norms or shaping influences, a child is not as able to make rational decisions. Whatever you choose to teach or not teach a child, you are effectively programming them regardless of what you say or do.

I agree Jordaxia, it should be drawn out, with increasing rights at various developmental stages. Some may reach those stages earlier than others, and some may never reach them, and rights and responsibilities should granted accordingly.

Atheism isn't a religion.

I can't speak for other Atheists, but my children have been exposed to different religions and skepticism, and we don't push any of them as 'the right choice'. We introduce them to religion (and atheism) as something that exists - we don't preach it as truth.

I can't speak for other Atheists, but my children have been exposed to different religions and skepticism, and we don't push any of them as 'the right choice'. We introduce them to religion (and atheism) as something that exists - we don't preach it as truth.
Sure, but they must be aware of the 'choice' that their Dad has made; and that must have some effect.

I don't think we could, or should, legislate against such influence -- it's inevitable -- but it's worth being aware of. (As I'm sure you are.)

To use the United Nations to control the domestic issues of a country like this is a abuse of it's purpose.

Frankly, I don't even like approaching the subject in terms of "parental rights."

What I prefer is to approach it from the direction of the rights of children. For example, in my country we believe that a child has the right to not be sexually or physically abused. We believe that a child has the right to basics of care (food, water, shelter, basic medical, etc). We believe that a child has the right to a certain fundamental level of education. A parent does not have any "rights" which trump these rights of the child.

Parents already occupy the power position in a relationship that is pretty much as inherently imbalanced as human relationships can get. As a parent, you literally hold your child's life in your hands from the day they are born (or adopted). You control where they live, what they eat and drink, when they go to bed, and pretty much every other activity in their lives for many many years.

Please be clear, I'm not saying parents SHOULDN'T have that power position. That's what parenting IS, after all. But I think it's important to remember that the child is the vulnerable party in this relationship.

The fact that the Republicans are, predictably, trying to couch things in terms of the "rights" of the more powerful entity is pretty much the definition of their problem. I really don't like framing issues in terms of what rights on person has "over" another person.

EDIT: Put it another way, it's kind of like child support payments. Lots of people try to portray child support as being about one person having rights "over" another person's bank account. But child support is really about the idea that a child is entitled to financial support. There can be debate over which person is responsible for providing that support, but the fact that the child is entitled to it is not up for debate. I don't know if I'm making this clearer or less clear :P.

Sure, but they must be aware of the 'choice' that their Dad has made; and that must have some effect.

I don't think we could, or should, legislate against such influence -- it's inevitable -- but it's worth being aware of. (As I'm sure you are.)

They are aware of the 'choice' I have made, yes. I don't hide it from them. They are also aware that their mother is Southern Baptist, and the 'choice' she has made.

We don't tell them either of us is right. We answer their questions according to what they ask, and a question like 'what happens when we die' will cover as many different answers to that question as we can cover before that curiousity dries up.

Parents should have the same authority over children that they would if they were given custody of an equally competent adult.

That's probably rather hard to define, all things considered, but it couches the issue the way I think it should be seen. We recognize that children are not yet mature enough to make many decisions for themselves and that parents are responsible for their welfare. Thus, parents can (and should) have the authority that they need to carry out those responsibilities - no more, no less.

For example, in my country we believe that a child has the right to not be sexually or physically abused.

THAT'S IT!!!

Bottle, you're a GENIUS! Democrats can use this wedge issue created by Republicans to paint them as PEDOPHILES if they move around the subject correctly, and it's EASY too!

Up until recently, commiting assault upon children was legal in every country in the world. only now it's changing. yes it is different to human rights, and not in a good way. it is far lesser. You can still for example, deny a child the right to medical treatment because you'd rather pray for them to get better, and only apparently when the child dies of the neglect will parents even be considered for prosecution. And not everywhere.
...that doesn't really support your assertion that the concept of children's rights are "outdated". On the contrary, in my opinion.


Perhaps I mis-spoke, it happens often. children should not be denied any rights that I could read from my looking through the universal declaration of human rights, but similarly expecting all children to hold adult responsibilities is unfeasible. Would you give a baby a vote?
No, but that's not a universal human right. And I can't think of any of the basic human rights I would deny to a child.


I don't know, is it? All I know is at the moment, in the UK and the US, children reach an age of majority that, as if by magic, they shed the trappings of childhood and assume adulthood in a single instant. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
Not really. They do progressively get more rights and duties as the grow older, and I don't think it's stupid that they reach adulthood in a legal sense at a set time.

...that doesn't really support your assertion that the concept of children's rights are "outdated". On the contrary, in my opinion./quote]

Not the concept, the implementation.

[QUOTE=Gravlen;14685094]
No, but that's not a universal human right. And I can't think of any of the basic human rights I would deny to a child.

Already retracted and clarified this point. Irrelevance.


Not really. They do progressively get more rights and duties as the grow older, and I don't think it's stupid that they reach adulthood in a legal sense at a set time.

they get barely moreso, and it's not a personalised system which it -has- to be. There are plenty of adults I wouldn't trust with a vote and plenty of 'children' that I would. There are plenty of 'children' that are far more mentally capable of consent than many adults are. it's a privelige that is literally based on orbits of the sun. how archaic do you get? Until the age of 18, children live so far under the thumb of parents who could be so unsuitable for the job it's scary. Parental oversight in many cases is justified, but in some cases what is oversight and guidance become manipulation, threats, violence, stacks of verbal abuse, and later mental health conditions for the child. A system of granting full adult privelige (what it is) based on meeting criteria that can be applied for makes much more sense than some arbitrary age scheme. Further, to show a lack of 'childrens rights' compared to adult privelige. Two children have sex. Both are criminalised and charged as sex offenders. So they do not have the right to access such conventional and consensual pleasures. but we also think it's the 'parents job' to teach them. which is fantastic unless the parent is someone who is remarkably backward or manipulative when it comes to sex, and curses a child with misconceptions that may cause immeasurable harm later.

So yes, I believe the way we treat children entirely is outdated and potentially harmful. Squeezing out a sproglet hardly makes a worthwhile parent after all.

Section 1 looks superfluous due to Pierce v. Society of Sisters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters). Section 3 looks superfluous due to the Constitution already superseding treaty. So we're left with Section 2, which looks like an attempt to protect this right with a more demanding test than is applied to any current constitutional issue. I can only imagine the kind of unintended consequences that will have if it passes.

Haven't read through the whole thread yet, so I'm sorry if anyone else has already been over this.

And what of Santa Claus?

Santa Claus taught me that people in positions of authority will lie. It was a very valuable lesson.

Atheism isn't a religion.

I can't speak for other Atheists, but my children have been exposed to different religions and skepticism, and we don't push any of them as 'the right choice'. We introduce them to religion (and atheism) as something that exists - we don't preach it as truth.

Fair enough. I have no problems with that. Although you must admit that atheism is a faith in a sense. It is taken as an article of faith that there is no higher power since it appears to defy human logic. Such a world view puts a large amount of faith in the power of human reason and human philosophy, which is imperfect at best. I would like to ask, what philosophy or world view to do you encourage, or to use your words 'push', you children to accept as truth to guide their moral reasoning and decision making skills, because to say you do not would be an impossibility for any parent. If you can truly say that you don't, what parenting methods do you use? Have you considered the ramifications of how that may affect your children's moral development and reasoning?

they get barely moreso, and it's not a personalised system which it -has- to be.

In a perfect world, that would be best, yes. In the real world, we have to generalize or we end up with no system at all. So we try to set these things at the age at which most people have matured enough for them.

A system of granting full adult privelige (what it is) based on meeting criteria that can be applied for makes much more sense than some arbitrary age scheme.

I don't know about any other countries but I know this is possible through the judicial system in the US. A minor can apply for "emancipation", I believe, at which point they are no longer the legal wards of their parents and get most of the rights and responsibilities of adults.

Are you suggesting that parents should teach their child about a particular religion because otherwise they won't believe in God on their own and will lose out on any hypothetical happiness they might get by doing so?

Not at all, I'm just suggesting that parents should just not begrudge children for forming an idea of a God. That's all.

Except that, for most people, what you learn in childhood sticks with you.

Very small children accept religion as an absolut truth, because they are given the world in short sentences by their parents. That means they can't discern what is real or not, what conflicts, what they can take from the message as useful and what to elave behind - instead, their brain adapts to accomodate.

Teaching a child religion, is programming them

But that's not at all what I was saying, G-kun. As I already responded to Hamilay, what I think is that parents should not begrudge kids for forming ideas of a god. It's not teaching them this, most of the time, kids come from school and tell parents they just heard about God and they form an idea of how God looks like and how he sounds.

To go on and tell them that these are lies is, I don't know, quite cruel. Considering that soon enough they grow out of innocence and forget. Life takes care of that soon enough, you know. Why not let them retain a modicum of innocence while they still can be innocent?

Of course, and let me go ahead and clarify it before I get shouted at by NSG's parents, and I am not a mother. Each parent has the choice in this issue and they will act accordingly. They want to tell their kids that Santa Claus is a lie, then so be it. They want to tell them that the Easter Bunny is just another way to commercialize the season, go ahead. In the end, you know or think you know what's best for your child.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities and if they fail to meet them the kids should be taken away.

Children have the right not to be abused or neglected in any way.

The amendment is shit.

Pretty much, yup.

Not at all, I'm just suggesting that parents should just not begrudge children for forming an idea of a God. That's all.

Um, I assumed SaintB meant exactly that when he said that the responsible thing is to let children make their own decisions. Where exactly is your problem with his post?

Um, I assumed SaintB meant exactly that when he said that the responsible thing is to let children make their own decisions. Where exactly is your problem with his post?

I didn't find any problems with his post.:confused:

I don't know about any other countries but I know this is possible through the judicial system in the US. A minor can apply for "emancipation", I believe, at which point they are no longer the legal wards of their parents and get most of the rights and responsibilities of adults.
Most? Emancipation is only available in some states, and in those states - at least so far as I have read - it revokes the ability of parents to exert control over their children, letting the children act as economically independent units (age 16 and up, usually). So far as I can tell, the economic right is the only positive "right" gained - in all cases, it amounts to losing the requirement to get parental permission to work, play, go on field trips, et cetera.

I suppose you could say they've been granted "rights," but really, it's mostly taking away the implicit right of parents to mess with their children's lives. The parents' "rights" already exist implicitly in the system, and are quite powerful already. I would be delighted to hear from someone with more personal experience or legal expertise would have to say. I didn't press my then-roomie all that hard on what emancipation meant to her back when she was going through it (she and her boyfriend were not roomies I hung out with much).

Ah yes. This is the part where you argue that telling your kids the story of Santa Claus makes you selfish and a child abuser.

The arguement didnt hold water at Christmas, it wont now.
Is teaching your child about your religion child abuse? If yes, then telling them about Santa as if he were real is as well. If telling them about Santa is not child abuse then teaching them your religion is not. They are in effect the same thing.

But that's not at all what I was saying, G-kun. As I already responded to Hamilay, what I think is that parents should not begrudge kids for forming ideas of a god. It's not teaching them this, most of the time, kids come from school and tell parents they just heard about God and they form an idea of how God looks like and how he sounds.

To go on and tell them that these are lies is, I don't know, quite cruel. Considering that soon enough they grow out of innocence and forget. Life takes care of that soon enough, you know. Why not let them retain a modicum of innocence while they still can be innocent?

Of course, and let me go ahead and clarify it before I get shouted at by NSG's parents, and I am not a mother. Each parent has the choice in this issue and they will act accordingly. They want to tell their kids that Santa Claus is a lie, then so be it. They want to tell them that the Easter Bunny is just another way to commercialize the season, go ahead. In the end, you know or think you know what's best for your child.

I agree completely.

You are entitled to your opinion; I hope you respect my right to express mine. For me it is a moral imperative to instruct any children I may have in the Christian faith, if, as adults, they choose to leave the faith, that is their prerogative. However I would be kinda sad that they rejected the community, no, family that I grew up in:( I would pray for their happiness and spiritual fulfillment.

The problem with this is that children, of an early age, do not know how to make their own decisions. To begrudge a child the idea of God is a bit cruel. The key is that children are still innocent, they are still ok and not assholes, not like we turn out to be after life has played it's dirty tricks on us. Yes, as much as possible, we should just guide them so they learn to decide, but thrust them right in the middle of something and expect them to make the ''right'' decision is a bit too much. They're still kids.

That's your thing, I don't see anything more than letting them know that there are people who believe in a God, and there are many ways to believe in them, nudging them in the 'right' direction doesn't appeal to me as a responsible thing to do. But what really grinds my gears is the kind of full on indoctrination and Mrs. Boucher style brainwashing that that people think is their right.

Um, I assumed SaintB meant exactly that when he said that the responsible thing is to let children make their own decisions. Where exactly is your problem with his post?

I think she was trying to elaborate upon my point and add some opinions of her own, not that she had a problem with it.

Is teaching your child about your religion child abuse? If yes, then telling them about Santa as if he were real is as well. If telling them about Santa is not child abuse then teaching them your religion is not. They are in effect the same thing.

Yes. There is no harm in telling children about these things but I believe there is harm in telling them its absolutely true and the way things happen. I would tell my kids that Santa Clause is like a team mascot for Christmas, he's not a real person but he is a symbol of the joy of giving (and maybe the joy of eating cookies).

Yes. There is no harm in telling children about these things but I believe there is harm in telling them its absolutely true and the way things happen. I would tell my kids that Santa Clause is like a team mascot for Christmas, he's not a real person but he is a symbol of the joy of giving (and maybe the joy of eating cookies).

I agree again. :)

What a shoddy excuse for a party the GOP is if they must keep resorting to these gimmicks to try and stay relevant. Let's hope the GOP dies out soon.

So you would rather have a 1 party government; where there is no opposition's to anything being passed? No matter what it is?

Sounds a bit like a place....oh yeah, the USSR.

So you would rather have a 1 party government; where there is no opposition's to anything being passed? No matter what it is?

Sounds a bit like a place....oh yeah, the USSR.

The USSR had a lower rate of return in it's politicans that the United States Congress.

It is always the temptation for a party to resort to easy populism when in the opposition because they don't need to take responsibility for the feasibility of their proposals, but it does not serve the country. I'm sure we'd all much rather have at least 2 functioning parties, preferably more, but alas we have 1 barely functioning one [Note some actual debate occouring within the democratic party, debate the doom of western civilization no doubt] and one entirely non functional party.

When in the opposition it should not be your position to harass and destroy the party in power, regaining power through the strength of your ideas and the honest dedication to the well being of the nation, rather than whatever plan the GOP has now.

ALSO:

I would disagree that athiesm is a faith, though that is perhaps in the same way that black is not a colour. And I would say that not putting faith in a divine controller doesnt require that faith be transfered to humans [as the new most powerful being in the world view].

So you would rather have a 1 party government; where there is no opposition's to anything being passed? No matter what it is?

Sounds a bit like a place....oh yeah, the USSR.

No I prefer a no party government where everyone has to incur their own running costs and people don't band together to battle one another politically just because they have a certain group of friends.

No I prefer a no party government where everyone has to incur their own running costs and people don't band together to battle one another politically just because they have a certain group of friends.

NO party !? You mean to suggest that politicians would be bound to act in the best interest of their constituents instead of their party ? Madness.

[I can't agree about the running costs thought.]

NO party !? You mean to suggest that politicians would be bound to act in the best interest of their constituents instead of their party ? Madness.


Yes, that's what I am saying.

There needs to be some kind of a balance here between the lefty loonies and the right wing loonies. The left wingers want to give families free food, shelter, and medical care. The right wingers want to be able to pick their kids religions.

Do the lefties really want kids to not be spanked though? That seems too extreme even for them.

A good balanced approach is to let families be solely responsible for providing for their children and keep government the heck out of it, let children get the devil beaten out of them, and let children attend whatever church they want to.

There needs to be some kind of a balance here between the lefty loonies and the right wing loonies. The left wingers want to give families free food, shelter, and medical care. The right wingers want to be able to pick their kids religions.

Do the lefties really want kids to not be spanked though? That seems too extreme even for them.

A good balanced approach is to let families be solely responsible for providing for their children and keep government the heck out of it, let children get the devil beaten out of them, and let children attend whatever church they want to.
Shorter GF:

I, a right wing loony, feel that right wing lunacy is preferable to left wing lunacy.

Unless you actually think it made any sense at all when you said we should "keep the government the heck out of it," allow parents to BEAT THEIR CHILDREN, and this somehow would be conducive to an environment in which children get to pick which church they attend.

A good balanced approach is to let families be solely responsible for providing for their children and keep government the heck out of it, let children get the devil beaten out of them, and let children attend whatever church they want to.

That's not a good balanced approach... that's what the Bill wants.

There needs to be some kind of a balance here between the lefty loonies and the right wing loonies. The left wingers want to give families free food, shelter, and medical care. The right wingers want to be able to pick their kids religions.
Well that's a load of hooey.

Do the lefties really want kids to not be spanked though? That seems too extreme even for them.
Not really an "extreme" position, and there's many on the political right who are of this position as well.

A good balanced approach is to let families be solely responsible for providing for their children and keep government the heck out of it, let children get the devil beaten out of them, and let children attend whatever church they want to.
That's not a balanced approach at all, that's what you would call a "wet dream for a child abuser."

So you would rather have a 1 party government; where there is no opposition's to anything being passed? No matter what it is?

Sounds a bit like a place....oh yeah, the USSR.
So the US, when one party controls bothe the House and the Senate as well as the Presidency, equals the USSR?

Well that's a load of hooey.


It's not often I laugh out loud when I read a post- but it happened when I read that.

So you would rather have a 1 party government; where there is no opposition's to anything being passed? No matter what it is?

Sounds a bit like a place....oh yeah, the USSR.

How about 'Another party arises from the ashes of the GOP'? The US has many minor parties that would certainly take advantage of the GOP's fall.

Well that's a load of hooey.


Not really an "extreme" position, and there's many on the political right who are of this position as well.

That's not a balanced approach at all, that's what you would call a "wet dream for a child abuser."



Disciplined children and children who have freedom of conscience is not a child abuser's wet dream.

Shorter GF:

I, a right wing loony, feel that right wing lunacy is preferable to left wing lunacy.

Unless you actually think it made any sense at all when you said we should "keep the government the heck out of it," allow parents to BEAT THEIR CHILDREN, and this somehow would be conducive to an environment in which children get to pick which church they attend.

Goodness I never want children beaten! I want the devil beaten out of them so that they are good kids.

Not really an "extreme" position, and there's many on the political right who are of this position as well.


You do not think it is extreme to interfere with the diciplining of children and the family to the point of making it illegal for parents to spank their children? Ummm this is a fundamental violation of privacy. Are you a pro-lifer or something that you have a problem with privacy rights?

You do not think it is extreme to interfere with the diciplining of children and the family to the point of making it illegal for parents to spank their children? Ummm this is a fundamental violation of privacy. Are you a pro-lifer or something that you have a problem with privacy rights?

I would like you to explain exactly how prohibiting spanking is a violation of privacy rights.

Goodness I never want children beaten! I want the devil beaten out of them so that they are good kids.

You want children beaten.

THAT'S IT!!!

Bottle, you're a GENIUS! Democrats can use this wedge issue created by Republicans to paint them as PEDOPHILES if they move around the subject correctly, and it's EASY too!

And we have Mark Foley as a good example. :D

I would like you to explain exactly how prohibiting spanking is a violation of privacy rights.

Because the disciplining of children is a family issue. Families are entitled to privacy. The foundation of the right of privacy in the United States rests on the right of families to have privacy. The seminal case on the right of privacy was a case involving a family who wanted their children taught in a German language school.

You want children beaten.

That is trolling or flaming or whatever. Unlike you I will not rush off to the mods.

Because the disciplining of children is a family issue. Families are entitled to privacy. The foundation of the right of privacy in the United States rests on the right of families to have privacy. The seminal case on the right of privacy was a case involving a family who wanted their children taught in a German language school.

But are there limits on what is acceptable as discipline?

Would, for example, privacy rights protect the parent raping the child as a method of discipline?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure why that's flaming - you stated explicitly you wanted the devil beaten out of them, which quite clearly implies beating them.

But are there limits on what is acceptable as discipline?

Would, for example, privacy rights protect the parent raping the child as a method of discipline?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure why that's flaming - you stated explicitly you wanted the devil beaten out of them, which quite clearly implies beating them.

Privacy rights would not protect rape or child abuse but it certainly would protect the decision to spank a child.

If you beat the devil out of a child you are not beating the child you are merely striking the child it is the evil in the soul that is beaten out of the child thus freeing him from the wickedness that many people are born with.

Privacy rights would not protect rape or child abuse but it certainly would protect the decision to spank a child.

A very convincing argument can be made that spanking a child is child abuse. It is causing physical harm - were it to be done to another adult, it would be illegal, so why should it be legal when done to children?

Edit: More fundamentally, you have just admitted that privacy rights do not protect parents from what they do to their children. As a result, you have destroyed any hope you had of your position being defensible.


If you beat the devil out of a child you are not beating the child you are merely striking the child it is the evil in the soul that is beaten out of the child thus freeing him from the wickedness that many people are born with.

Yeah... Try making that distinction in a court of law.

A very convincing argument can be made that spanking a child is child abuse. It is causing physical harm - were it to be done to another adult, it would be illegal, so why should it be legal when done to children?

Edit: More fundamentally, you have just admitted that privacy rights do not protect parents from what they do to their children. As a result, you have destroyed any hope you had of your position being defensible.



Yeah... Try making that distinction in a court of law.

Your edit is sophomoric and a bit rude.

There is no physical harm. There is an educational and devellopmental benefit. I can assure you that there will never come a time when anyone will be convicted for spanking their children so long as it is done lovingly and not in an abusive way.

If you do not discipline your children that is child neglect. I am not sure if it is to the point where it is criminal but it certainly is the sort of conduct that would greatly reduce the custodial rights of a parent of a child from a broken home.

Your edit is sophomoric and a bit rude.
Pointing out that you just defeated your own point is rude?
If you do not discipline your children that is child neglect.
The steaming pile of bullshit this statement is made up of aside, there are ways to discipline a child without spanking them. Unless you wish to argue that anyone who was never spanked was neglected, which is a statement I will take issue with.

Goodness I never want children beaten! I want the devil beaten out of them so that they are good kids.The beating will hurt the actual live children. Your demons, being completely imaginary, will remain unaffected.

The beating will hurt the actual live children. Your demons, being completely imaginary, will remain unaffected.

I wonder if he supports beating the gay out of children as well.

The beating will hurt the actual live children. Your demons, being completely imaginary, will remain unaffected.

Discipline helps children. This is known.

Pointing out that you just defeated your own point is rude?

The steaming pile of bullshit this statement is made up of aside, there are ways to discipline a child without spanking them. Unless you wish to argue that anyone who was never spanked was neglected, which is a statement I will take issue with.

I am glad for the sake of your present of future children that we all agree that discipline is important for the well being of children. How you choose to discipline your child is up to you and your spouse. It is not a matter for the state unless there is child abuse. This is why this is a matter of familial privacy. This is also the basis for our right to use contraceptions and abortions.

I am glad for the sake of your present of future children that we all agree that discipline is important for the well being of children. How you choose to discipline your child is up to you and your spouse. It is not a matter for the state unless there is child abuse.

...and therein lies the issue. People disagree on what constitutes abuse.

Once upon a time, beating your child until he couldn't sit wasn't considered action-worthy abuse. These days, it would likely result in a loss of custody. Perhaps, spanking will one day go the same route. And then again, maybe not.

...and therein lies the issue. People disagree on what constitutes abuse.

Once upon a time, beating your child until he couldn't sit wasn't considered action-worthy abuse. These days, it would likely result in a loss of custody. Perhaps, spanking will one day go the same route. And then again, maybe not.

I have never heard of spanking being considered abuse. We do get pretty worked up when we see finger type bruises though. Open palm spanking never has been an issue that I have observed (and it should not be).

I am glad for the sake of your present of future children that we all agree that discipline is important for the well being of children. How you choose to discipline your child is up to you and your spouse. It is not a matter for the state unless there is child abuse. This is why this is a matter of familial privacy. This is also the basis for our right to use contraceptions and abortions.

If you were to spank another adult without their consent, that's called assault (or battery) and is illegal. Why, exactly, is it not child abuse to commit a crime against your own children? You still haven't demonstrated that.

That is trolling or flaming or whatever. Unlike you I will not rush off to the mods.

You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
Você quer que batam em crianças.
Tu quieres que le peguen a los niños.

And not ONE mod will take action against me. Because you OUTRIGHT SAID YOU WANT CHILDREN BEATEN, no matter how imaginary and roundabout the way you said it is. You either want parents to CONJURE UP the "devils" in the kids, separating them both, and beat the fuck out of the devil with no harm to the kid, in which case you're insane, or you want children beaten so the "devil" will take it, in which case, guess what, YOU WANT CHILDREN BEATEN!

You want children beaten.

You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
Você quer que batam em crianças.
Tu quieres que le peguen a los niños.

Fixed.:D

Fixed.:D

Gracias. :D

Nosotros hablamos en espanol!

If you were to spank another adult without their consent, that's called assault (or battery) and is illegal. Why, exactly, is it not child abuse to commit a crime against your own children? You still haven't demonstrated that.

It is ridiculous for a child to sue his parents for assault and battery. It is not a crime to spank your child. It is a crime to abuse your child. I do not have to demonstrate anything other than the fact that familial privacy is pretty fundamental in our legal system.

You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
You want children beaten.
Você quer que batam em crianças.
Tu quieres que le peguen a los niños.

And not ONE mod will take action against me. Because you OUTRIGHT SAID YOU WANT CHILDREN BEATEN, no matter how imaginary and roundabout the way you said it is. You either want parents to CONJURE UP the "devils" in the kids, separating them both, and beat the fuck out of the devil with no harm to the kid, in which case you're insane, or you want children beaten so the "devil" will take it, in which case, guess what, YOU WANT CHILDREN BEATEN!

You want children beaten.

Spanking does not harm children. It helps them become better people. Spanking beats the evil out of them it does not beat the child. Beating a child connotates child abuse. No sane person wants children abused.

No sane person wants children abused.

Indeed.

You, nonetheless, want children beaten.

Spanking does not harm children. It helps them become better people.

Buh-buh-buh-BULLSHIT.

<snip>

While his initial accusation was a little silly, you may want to watch that - it could very well be considered actionable.

Just a friendly suggestion, really.

Spanking does not harm children. It helps them become better people. Spanking beats the evil out of them it does not beat the child. Beating a child connotates child abuse. No sane person wants children abused.

So, you cant explain why there is a difference?

Spanking does not harm children. It helps them become better people. Spanking beats the evil out of them it does not beat the child. Beating a child connotates child abuse. No sane person wants children abused.

If I, like our legal system, do not accept the concept of beating the devil out of a child, then the bolded should be removed. This, unfortunately, leaves the following sentence: "Spanking beats them, it does not beat them" (slightly paraphrased). The nonsense inherent in your point should then be painfully clear.

It is ridiculous for a child to sue his parents for assault and battery.

Why is it ridiculous, if they have done so?

It is not a crime to spank your child.

I don't give a damn about that, because...


It is a crime to abuse your child.

... I have been arguing that spanking is abuse, an argument which you have singularly failed to disprove.


I do not have to demonstrate anything other than the fact that familial privacy is pretty fundamental in our legal system.

You have already accepted that this does not extend to crimes committed against the children by the parents. I am arguing that, irrespective of whether spanking is a crime, it ought to be a crime, as it is an action which is criminal when carried out by adults against other adults.

You have still refused to consider this, only harping on with some nonsense about beating the devil out of kids.

A very convincing argument can be made that spanking a child is child abuse. It is causing physical harm - were it to be done to another adult, it would be illegal, so why should it be legal when done to children?
Not addressing spanking here, but your argument that if anything done to a child would be illegal if done to an adult therefore said action(s) should also be illegal for children doesn't make all that much sense and is not all that convincing.

It is illegal to make legal and health decisions for adults, and yet children cannot do so on their own without permission from their parents (Indeed parents can override their children's wishes).

It is illegal to restrict the movements of adults, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to make kids go to school and return runaways back home.

etc.

If I, like our legal system, do not accept the concept of beating the devil out of a child, then the bolded should be removed. This, unfortunately, leaves the following sentence: "Spanking beats them, it does not beat them" (slightly paraphrased). The nonsense inherent in your point should then be painfully clear.



Why is it ridiculous, if they have done so?


I don't give a damn about that, because...



... I have been arguing that spanking is abuse, an argument which you have singularly failed to disprove.



You have already accepted that this does not extend to crimes committed against the children by the parents. I am arguing that, irrespective of whether spanking is a crime, it ought to be a crime, as it is an action which is criminal when carried out by adults against other adults.

You have still refused to consider this, only harping on with some nonsense about beating the devil out of kids.

Our legal system has no problem with a family's decision to beat the devil out of children through spanking.

What is your definition of abuse? My definition is causing harm to children. Spanking helps them and therefore is not harming them. harm is the opposite of help.

Our legal system has no problem with a family's decision to beat the devil out of children through spanking.

What is your definition of abuse? My definition is causing harm to children. Spanking helps them and therefore is not harming them. harm is the opposite of help.

Can you show a source that says that spanking does more good than harm?

Our legal system has no problem with a family's decision to beat the devil out of children through spanking.


You keep saying this as if that is somehow in dispute.

Goodness I never want children beaten! I want the devil beaten out of them so that they are good kids.

That is so ridiculous, I genuinely laughed at it as parody.

But ...

Privacy rights would not protect rape or child abuse but it certainly would protect the decision to spank a child.

If you beat the devil out of a child you are not beating the child you are merely striking the child it is the evil in the soul that is beaten out of the child thus freeing him from the wickedness that many people are born with.

"Striking" is "beating."

If there is a "spirit of the devil" in the child, how does one strike (or beat) the child so that the pain and animosity is received only by that spirit? Where do you strike them, with what special action, do you strike them that no other "spirit" in them (including the "spirit of God") is not accidentally struck?

-----------

Your edit is sophomoric and a bit rude.

It is not, one bit. To accuse another poster of contradicting themselves is the most basic of debating tactics.

I am glad for the sake of your present of future children that we all agree that discipline is important for the well being of children. How you choose to discipline your child is up to you and your spouse. It is not a matter for the state unless there is child abuse. This is why this is a matter of familial privacy. This is also the basis for our right to use contraceptions and abortions.

Wrong. The sovereign right to one's own body is the basis. If "familial privacy" was all that protected a woman's right to seek an abortion, you would have either: (a) a definition of "family" as one person, or (b) a recognition of the foetus as a "person" making up a family along with the pregnant woman. Both are absurd and the second would be a contradiction, as it simultaneously recognizes a foetus as a person yet does not protect the rights of that person.

But you try to put the "basis" where it suits your argument -- "familial privacy" ACCORDING TO THE PARENT, which would apply whether or not that parent is a child abuser.

Until you demonstrate how "familial privacy" is the basis of legal protection of children, all that is just a red herring.

Only now, it's a dead red herring.

---------

It is ridiculous for a child to sue his parents for assault and battery. It is not a crime to spank your child. It is a crime to abuse your child. I do not have to demonstrate anything other than the fact that familial privacy is pretty fundamental in our legal system.

Demonstrate it, then. Fourteenth ammendment? Show how the 14th is the "basis" of habeas corpus, or of the presumption of innocence. Show how it is the basis of the right to a fair trial. Show how it is the basis of the State's claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. All of these are more fundamental than a "right to privacy."

Or the 4th perhaps, and it's permission to spouses not to testify against each other. That does not apply until charges are laid -- for instance, to conceal a crime by a spouse is itself a crime. "Familial privacy" is no protection.

Am I to take it you would forbid a child to "sue" their parents? (You say it is ridiculous, but does it need to be specifically prohibited if a court would find it ridiculous.) How about reporting to police or other people outside the family, what they believe is a criminal assault? Would you forbid that, on the presumption of "familial privacy?"

That seems to me to be the crucial fault in your argument. "Familial privacy" allows the concealment of what even you would concede is criminal assault. Yet, legally it is NOT assault until proven so in court.

----------

While his initial accusation was a little silly, you may want to watch that - it could very well be considered actionable.

I agree. "If you are saying x, you are insane" is a personal attack, if the poster addressed is in fact saying x. A conditional ad hominem, if you will.

--------

Our legal system has no problem with a family's decision to beat the devil out of children through spanking.

You really think every other poster here is so incompetent in law that they can't find one, ONE, case where a defence of EXORCISM has failed in a child abuse case?

That is so trivially easy I will give you a moment to reconsider.

What is your definition of abuse? My definition is causing harm to children. Spanking helps them and therefore is not harming them. harm is the opposite of help.

And if a child has never done anything naughty to deserve a beating? Is it right, then, to deprive them of the "help" of a spanking? Wouldn't that be neglect?

I will conclude by noting one possible harm of "spanking." Spanking done with love can teach a child that spanking is an expression of love, making them vulnerable to physical abuse as an adult. When they should leave an abusive partner, instead they conclude that the assault apon them is an expression of love when almost certainly it is an expression of hatred.

Are you enjoying your beating, Glorious Freedonia ?

You keep saying this as if that is somehow in dispute.

I dispute it.

Either it is a semantic trick without meaning (if a court finds it to be "spanking" not "abuse" then the accused was presumably acquitted) or it is wildly wrong.

Exorcism is not a legal defence. At best, believing that one's child is possessed by the devil is irrelevant. Many courts would find it evidence against a parent's fitness to care for children.

I remember a poster saying something to the effect that even choosing to not teach religion to one's children is tantamount to "programming them," as it makes the children believe that religion is not important and take no stock in it, even if it is atheism. However religion, be it atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, is important. It shapes the social interactions in society and creates norms from which one can reason effectively. Without these norms or shaping influences, a child is not as able to make rational decisions. Whatever you choose to teach or not teach a child, you are effectively programming them regardless of what you say or do.

I disagree (mildly) with the bolded. To say that religion "shapes" the social interactions in society is to make religion the cause and the society the effect, which is only supportable if one Believes, ie, holds that the religious beliefs come from outside of society ... from God for instance.

It is equally plausible (perhaps just to me?) that the changes evident in any religion come about through changes in society. That society is the cause and religion the effect!

By saying "any religion" you open the door to comparative theology. I'm not an expert (or even a serious scholar) but isn't it obvious that all religions change over time -- texts are added to their holy canon, sects with differing beliefs wane or prosper, renewals and revolutions occur even to the extent that one religion can become two, renouncing each other and even turning armies to their opposing causes.

The "facts" propounded as truth by any religion, even by all of them combined, are a tiny fraction of human knowledge. It is knowledge, not this emotionally-weighted fraction of it, which creates the norms by which we can reason effectively. It is simply not necessary for two reasonable and educated to people to share a religious belief, that they be able to agree on the significant facts which allow them to work and live together and to do great works in co-operation with each other.

Perhaps it was, in some putative age of ignorance when what we now call "religious" belief was the science of the day. Far more likely, society and the interactions between people was governed even then by common knowledge. The fair price of bolt of linen, the best time to plant grain, what to do when someone made your sister cry. That some of these things rather ludicrously appear as the "will of god" even when no reasonable person would even attempt them nowadays (they may well be illegal, as for instance buying and selling slaves) shows religion for what it really is: a collection of beliefs, human fallible beliefs, which are shaped by society.

Religious beliefs only "shape" society in that they have inertia. Religious belief holds society in the shape of old beliefs, old accepted knowledge. That's not an entirely negative thing -- new beliefs, new ways, must prove themselves better than the old. That imposes some kind of standard, some hurdle to clear, and saves us from a drunkard's walk of change for the fun and excitement of it.

Not addressing spanking here, but your argument that if anything done to a child would be illegal if done to an adult therefore said action(s) should also be illegal for children doesn't make all that much sense and is not all that convincing.

It is illegal to make legal and health decisions for adults, and yet children cannot do so on their own without permission from their parents (Indeed parents can override their children's wishes).

It is illegal to restrict the movements of adults, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to make kids go to school and return runaways back home.

etc.

True, and I was wondering if GF would manage to pick up on that. To salvage my point, I'm going to extend it: if what you are doing to a child would be illegal if done to an adult whom you have the responsibility of caring for, then it should be illegal when done to a child.

I'm pretty sure that should slice it where I want it sliced - physical harm, such as spanking, is still excluded on one side, while the ability to make certain decisions on behalf of the child is retained. Let me know if you see any gaping flaws in this.

Our legal system has no problem with a family's decision to beat the devil out of children through spanking.

You still need to remove the bolded, as your legal system is secular, and does not recognise the devil.

Once you have done so, you might try rereading the post you quoted, where I made it clear I was not talking about what your legal system is like, but what it ought to be like.


What is your definition of abuse? My definition is causing harm to children. Spanking helps them and therefore is not harming them. harm is the opposite of help.

I was spanked as a child. I can still distinctly remember serious pain and complete terror at the threat of it. Sure as hell sounds like it's causing harm to me.

Your problem is that you are conflating spanking and discipline. Discipline is generally a good thing, to a certain extent, and when tempered by a healthy degree of disrepect for authority. Spanking is a form of discipline based on physical abuse, which is a bad thing.

Edit: NH, interesting points on religion. I'm not sure I totally agree - probably because I'm a Christian - but well put and thought-provoking.

True, and I was wondering if GF would manage to pick up on that. To salvage my point, I'm going to extend it: if what you are doing to a child would be illegal if done to an adult whom you have the responsibility of caring for, then it should be illegal when done to a child.

I'm pretty sure that should slice it where I want it sliced - physical harm, such as spanking, is still excluded on one side, while the ability to make certain decisions on behalf of the child is retained. Let me know if you see any gaping flaws in this.
As far as I can tell it does, though adding "of diminished capabilities" in between adult and whom would make the analogy crystal clear.

Disciplined children and children who have freedom of conscience is not a child abuser's wet dream.
Allowing for parents to beat "the devil out of them", while keeping "government the heck out of it", is.

You do not think it is extreme to interfere with the diciplining of children and the family to the point of making it illegal for parents to spank their children? Ummm this is a fundamental violation of privacy. Are you a pro-lifer or something that you have a problem with privacy rights?
You are joking, right? Good one.

No, I don't think it's extreme. I think the rights of the child trump the rights of the parents to dicipline them in any manner they see fit. When it could be harmful to the child, it shouldn't be legal.

And as for the right to privacy...
Privacy rights would not protect rape or child abuse
Indeed.

but it certainly would protect the decision to spank a child.
That's where we disagree, since we obviously have a difference of opinion on what constitutes child abuse.

If you beat the devil out of a child you are not beating the child you are merely striking the child it is the evil in the soul that is beaten out of the child thus freeing him from the wickedness that many people are born with.
...

um... no.

Spanking does not harm children. It helps them become better people.
Debatable, at best.

I believe that throwing acid on children drives devils out of them. Therefore, it is not abuse, but help, which is the opposite of harm. Therefore, it should be legal to throw acid on my children. Also, I have the right to privacy and you have no right to violate that to see if I throw acid on children.

.Your problem is that you are conflating spanking and discipline. Discipline is generally a good thing, to a certain extent, and when tempered by a healthy degree of disrepect for authority. Spanking is a form of discipline based on physical abuse, which is a bad thing.
I would say it's more of a confusion between discipline and punishment.

Discipline is instruction. (think the talk after the spanking)
Punishment is a consequence. (spanking, grounding, time out, etc.)

I discipline my children in many of the same ways my friends who spank do, I punish them differently.

There is nothing instructive about spanking your kid. I've debated this at length on this board. I tend to hear that spankings are used for children who you can't reason with, which leads me to believe they do NOT know what they did was wrong and the spanking is merely pain unrelated in their mind to their actions. If you can reason with a child, you should so so. If they are too young or cognitively unable to accept reason and punishments involving the taking of privileges, then they are too young to understand spanking as a punishment and therefore you are abusing them.

i would say it's more of a confusion between discipline and punishment.

Discipline is instruction. (think the talk after the spanking)
punishment is a consequence. (spanking, grounding, time out, etc.)

i discipline my children in many of the same ways my friends who spank do, i punish them differently.

There is nothing instructive about spanking your kid. I've debated this at length on this board. I tend to hear that spankings are used for children who you can't reason with, which leads me to believe they do not know what they did was wrong and the spanking is merely pain unrelated in their mind to their actions. If you can reason with a child, you should so so. If they are too young or cognitively unable to accept reason and punishments involving the taking of privileges, then they are too young to understand spanking as a punishment and therefore you are abusing them.

qft.

Snip.

Everyone has specialties. While TCT got the proverbial gold medal for arguing, I will point out that in this one subject, Smunk, you're unbeatable, and would make short work of me, or him, were we to commit the idiotic stupidity of going against you in it. Your post was PERFECT.

You seemed to have mistaken spanking with water boarding. Which this amendment protects.

Yea so wat the flip are you talking about? What torture do you think kids want now? Like that mother that forced her kid to drink gallons of water till she died just for wetting the bed. And btw she got AQUITED! That doesn't really seem that fair!

tell me greed of death how does that make you think!?

Can you show a source that says that spanking does more good than harm?

The Bible.

The Bible.

I was hoping for something more scientific.

The Bible.

Screw it.

Not addressing spanking here, but your argument that if anything done to a child would be illegal if done to an adult therefore said action(s) should also be illegal for children doesn't make all that much sense and is not all that convincing.

It is illegal to make legal and health decisions for adults, and yet children cannot do so on their own without permission from their parents (Indeed parents can override their children's wishes).

It is illegal to restrict the movements of adults, and yet it is perfectly acceptable to make kids go to school and return runaways back home.

etc.

To be fair, it is illegal to do these things for competent adults. If an adult is declared incompetent and another adult is given custody of that person, then they do gain the authority to make health decisions, restrict movement, etc.

In my mind, a parent has the authority over a child that they do because the child is not yet competent to make those decisions for himself.

So then, the question becomes, is there an adequate reason that a parent needs the authority to strike their children in a way that would be illegal if they did not have custody of that child? If so, then it would fall right along with things like restricting movement and overriding health decisions. If not, then there is no reason to make an exception.

The Bible.

How about a source that isn't a work of fiction?

I have nothing against spanking in itself, I think a blanket ban on spanking is pointless. Spanking can sometimes cause serious injury, and sometimes do very little harm whatsoever. I don't see any reason why a slap to the bum should be treated inherently worse than a parent shouting at you. When I was growing up, having my parents shout at me was far more emotionally painful than the temporary pain I had from a light spank. It's obviously a matter of scale, we should tackle each case of alleged abuse on an individual basis, rather than assume abuse because of an action that is not inherently bad.

The Bible.

This bit perhaps?

23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Please assure me that you understand that "beating with a rod" is not "smacking."

Where did my box go?