Did you even read the article.

Sex was actually not even a big issue on the survey. It was sparsed in with questions about violence, interactions with others, and feelings that would raise an alarm in ANY parent's head.

Its not like a bunch of amateurs performed these surveys. It was COMPLETELY anonymous, it didn't ask anything terribly inappropriate or graphic, and it was done by tasteful professionals from what I read.

If you can't accept that an institution is surveying your kids and the subject of your kid's peepee is going to come up, send them to a private religious school. I don't see why the state schol cater to pansy-ass parents who can't talk assess their own child's feelings or feel "uncomfortable" that their kid is going to be asked about psychological evaulation questions which MAY JUST INVOLVE their body.

A first grader doesn't even know what "masturbation" is.

These are not pedophiles. They are PSYCHOLOGISTS. Wow.

Now Devo, a lot of fucked up things were done in the name of Psychology. Like electroshock therapy and Lobotomies.

I've heard electroshock was making a bit of a comeback now that people have gotten past Kesey's reactionary response to it.

I also feel sorry for the first grade teacher that has to answer the question, "What's masturbation?" (Also insert necessary child mispronunciation of the word.)

I'm just sayin'. The suggestion that Psychologists know what they're doing is a little sketchy. They haven't established themselves very well just yet.

Nobody seems to have brought it up, but what I gathered from the statement was that the questionnaire was designed to bring to light any trauma (violent or sexual) which might be inhibiting a child's learning.

It's also been my impression that touching oneself as such a young age is indicative of sexual trauma. I think asking whether a kid touches himself out of a neurotic response to rape is more valid than wondering whether 6 year olds get horny.

If you look at the wording of that letter, the parents have a point that it wasn't explicitly stated that there would be questions with sexual content. That may have been an ingenuous ommission by the district, but I can easily imagine a meeting where someone said "Oh don't say that; then they'll never go for it!"

Oh, and lurker, by the third grade I had a rough understanding of procreation. eg. Babies came out between girls' legs, and boys peed up there to make it happen.

Hello? This is America we're talking about here. You can be a scientist... just don't talk about evolution. You can be a climatologist... just don't talk about global warming. You following?

And people wonder why Americans are behind other industrialized nations in the sciences.

"Brainwashing" is such a harsh word. It's more like socialization. Or if you really have to be negative about it "conditioning". Society needs to be maintained, and public/private education is maintenance required to maintain the existing order of things.

Furthermore, home schooling materials still have to be mandated by the State. Private/public school teachers are typically certified by the State. So home schooling really won't be illegal.

That really wasn't what the article was about, but considering the quality of my "sex education" when I was in public school... well calling it a "education" is a insult to my senses.

That was probably the real reason. I don't see much point to a questionnaire though, since the signs would be physically manifested at that point.

You have a point Watts. The questionnaires would be useful if they indicated specific children who had been traumatized, allowing those children to be helped, or to find relations between specific learning problems and specific traumas, allowing the former to be solved by treating the latter.

However, if anonymity is guaranteed, then the only thing you get is a statistic analysis of children who have been traumatized. A comparison with one regarding children with learning problems might indicate a relation. However, I thought we already knew that there was a link between the two.

True, but how effective could a comparison be? All too often sexual abuse is only the first worm in a very large can of worms.

Right, which is not in the interests of protecting the children. They're being used as lab rats at that point. I can't say I'd be for that.

Not necessarily. Many states only require that ceratin subjects be taught and the cirricullum doesn't have to be state approved. Many cirricullum are religious based and thus wouldn't meet "state" approval.

My whole point in bring this issue up isn't sex education and the like...it is however the fact that a court has determined that parents have less rights in deciding their own kids education that does the state. It is frightening that the state has more rights over your kids than you do. The state says your kid need Ritalin or he's out of school...he goes on ritalin. Your a conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew and you believe homosexuality is a sin..tough shit cause the school says you're wrong...and the list can go on. I believe a ruling like this sets a dangerous precendent by establishing that the state has a greater rights than parents in regards to their children.

In a world of fucked up parents, the state has a responsibility that children have a happy childhood and don't end up as psycho/mental patients because the system didn't pick up their unfortunate situation.

And yes denying a child medisin that helps them function in scociety(Yes I know someone in my family with ADHD and he doesn't function well at school without the drugs sad but true) or put them up against other parts of scociety cause they are sinners in the parents eyes. I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat.

And yes I believe christianity ect. are wrong for putting the sinner stigma on certain groups of people like they do. But thats a discussion for another time.

In other words - parents have no right to determine what medications their children take, where they go to school, and how and when they learn about sex?

Sounds like an argument that the government knows what's better for kids than their own parents do. Because once you make the argument for one set of parents, why not apply it to them all?

In one word yes.

I've seen enough parents making their children miserable/sick by their ill actions if intentional or not. I'm in short saying fix it before the shit really hits the fan.

And people bitch when the government wants to control our video games.

Never bitched about government control over games to minors myself.

Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:

This just means they don't have the right to sue anyone who allows the kid to learn something not explicitly approved by the parent. I think that's reasonable. Well...they can't successfully sue, at any rate.

Then what is the point of parents outside of the actual conception and birthing part? If they have no right to determine anything, then you're basically saying that the government is everybody's parent.

No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.

That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?

Fundamental rights are best described as things like the right to life, the right of self defense, the right of bodily autonomy, the right of property, et al. These are universal (apply to everybody), natural (you have them because you are who you are), and inalienable (you cannot have them taken away, period). The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

These are the ONLY three criteria. At best, they allow for something to be merely probable. There is never a necessary connection. Events can happen with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but there is never a 100% chance.

And yet, the government is still playing the role of parent to everybody in the country. The government decides what we can or can't use, where we can live, what we can do with our money, and how we can conduct ourselves in our own homes (though this is hard to actually enforce).

The government is everybody's parent, because it's assumed for close to a century now that it knows what's best for us, despite the fact that since everything is politicized, "what's best for us" is usually decided by a vocal minority (prohibition). It's an authoritative oligarchy that has no need or consideration for any individualism or "fundamental rights." Bodily autonomy is already out the fucking window.

True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.

And why the fuck not? You only have people cheating the welfare system, stealing from the IRS by lying on your tax returns, having more kids so they can get more money or any other number of scenarios.

(People are shitty and think they're exempt from rules for some reason. I don't fucking get it myself.)

How, exactly, is the government playing the role of the parent on abortion? Playing the role of the parent would be saying "You have too many kids. You must have an abortion." Playing the role of the parent would also be "I think this is wrong, so I'm not going to let it happen." As it is, they leave the decision specifically TO the biological parent.

The government definately plays the role of the parent on a lot of topics. Abortion isn't one of them.

Oh. My. God. I think I just found my true political polar opposite.

Please tell me you're exaggerating your beliefs just a little to get a rise out of some of us. Please. If not, then at least set my mind at ease by assuring me that you really do live in Norway as your flag indicates, so I don't have to worry about you casting any votes any time soon.

Geeze, I love this shit.

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

yeah, much better to have a centralized gov't as a moral dictator. did your parents oppress you with their instruction Kensaki, or did they let you find your own way 100% on your own?