![]() |
Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??
|
Quote:
Quote:
And yes I don't think many parents know how to raise a child. I had a nice upbringing but more often than not I see parents messing up their kids over religion/political views ect. Or do you like the fact that little Aron learns the black people are the pest of the world. Or little Ali gets fed propaganda about how evil none muslims are. I am for that the government should have a right to say to parents that teaching children things like these will later be a hinder for their kids and that scociety wont accept such prejudice against certain groups. Or to take another situation. Little Lisa has cancer but can be saved by modern medicine, she wants to live but as she is 13 her parents who believe western drugs are prohibited by their fate refuse her treatment and condemn her to die. Even though she wants to live. I believe everyone should have personal freedom to teach their children but I also believe the government has a responcibility to keep an eye on the child and make sure it is happy and well adjusted to scociety. I could easily draw up many more senarioes, but that would be pointless. |
Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.
The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him. Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted. Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse. |
Quote:
Is that not the basic line that the conservative movement take's on such issues? It surely is the reason why sex education is so horribly outdated and uninformative. |
Quote:
That still does not change reality with people who disagree. Quote:
|
In this specific case, there was a letter sent out to the parents supposedly informing them of the nature of the survey. The consent form said that it dealt with stuff concerning "early trauma" citing "violence" as an example, and in no way suggested anything specific about sexual behavior.
Any survey that could potentially make a kid uncomfortable to the point of needing a therapist afterwards is fucking dumb. |
It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?
|
"In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:
8. Touching my private parts too much 17. Thinking about having sex 22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts 23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to 26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside 34. Not trusting people because they might want sex 40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex 44. Having sex feelings in my body 47. Can’t stop thinking about sex 54. Getting upset when people talk about sex " These are the actual questions. Seems a bit heavy handed to ask seven year olds this when the thing they think about the most is Spongebob. A survey like this, done at such an early age, doesn't just inquire, it provides. These type of questions to a 7 year old, in an authoritarian school setting will undoubtedly prompt the kid, who probably never thought about sex at all, to wonder if he should start. Should he touch himself? Should he think about touching others private parts? The survey opens doors way to early that should be opened when a parent deems fit. As to the history argument..are we exposing 7 year olds to the full graphic horror of the holocaust or is that reserved for an older audience? Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children? The way the government runs most things the thought of them having exclusive control over the education of kids is frightening to say the least. |
Quote:
Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases. I guess you could say I have little faith in the average persons ability to not impart their more dark traits what they may be racism, criminality or drugs. I am most likely being over zealous on this issue but as I have said before I've seen the results of situations that could have been avoided all togheter if the system had taken a step to correct it. By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these. It may be a bit big brother but well... Small price to pay if you ask me. |
It amazes me how people can link to a decisions quote a decision and still complete miss the point. Wisker, the decision does not weaken partial rights in the slightest parents have the exact same rights after the decision that they had before.
The decision only say parents do not have exclusive control over when a child is introduced to information. No where in that decision does it say that state knows more then the parents do about what good for the children, or that it has exclusive control. In fact it says the opposite: In Prince v. Massa- chusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that par- ents’ liberty interest in the custody, care, and nurture of their children resides “first” in the parents, but does not reside there exclusively, nor is it “beyond regulation [by the state] in the public interest.” Quote:
Quote:
"It is clear, and the parents agree, that no court has ever held that parents have a specific funda- mental right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accor- dance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” In fact, no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation’s history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty." The parents knew this and all the case really amounted to was a bunch of pissed off soccer moms trying to find loopholes in the law. The parents are the one who wanted to create precedent here Wisker by find a previously undiscovered constitutional right. The judge made the right decision, following legal precedent. People over the internet then preceded to misinterpret it, end of story. |
Quote:
Also, it's still kind of creeping me out that nobody's getting this, maybe it's just me. If parents have a fundamental right to control what their children learn, that means they can call upon the courts to take action against anyone who introduces anything to their kids which doesn't meet their approval. That sounds like a legal nightmare to me. I could sue the neighbors for letting their kids swear near mine. I also want to make sure everyone is aware that nobody said anything about parents not having a say in raising their kids. The only thing that ruling said was that the rest of society has a right too. Since when has a child ever been raised without society's input? This doesn't seem new to me. Further, I recall while I was in high school, everyone was bitching about parents having too much control over the school system. The school administration was tied up about so many things because the PTA/PTO had so much weight. So, it seems to me that if your kid hears/learns something you didn't want them too, you first present your viewpoint, with all the authority of parenthood behind it, and then you rally and kick the shit out of the place that allowed it. Regarding childhood innocence, I agree, it's a wonderful ideal. I'll point out that in my experience, it was ruined by my peers, not by the administration. I'm certain this is the norm. This is an affirmation of the status quo, why are we all up in arms about it now? |
Lack of exclusive control meaning that if I as a parent decide that little Jimmy not learn all about the birds and the bees until, oh lets say he's 9 years old, but the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides that innocent little Jimmy be introduced to sex and touching himself, and touching other people, or, lets go beyond the survey, since we're talking sexual matters not just the survey, condom usage, at age 7, then I am a parent am shit out of luck.
So little Jimmy comes home from school and being only 7 and not emotionally able to handle the new sexual knowledge he has, starts touching his little sisters vagina. This ruling is ludicrous and it is bad law. |
Quote:
Maybe you think the peering eyes over your shoulder is worth the avoidance of some childhood trauma, but I don't. Quote:
|
Dear Wesker: "Bad Law" is a phrase with a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean "a law that I think is bad". Please be more careful.
Furthermore, if you think little kids aren't already naturally curious about the interior of their underpants, you're deluded. Little boys don't need a class to tell them that girls don't have a thing down there, you dumb spastic. The Wesker Philosophy: "If anyone learns anything, they will probably use this knowledge to commit a crime!" If this is a reflection on the way YOUR brain worked at 7, Wesker, I feel kind of afraid of you. Quote:
At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?! Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14! |
You forgot about incest.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You as a parents have a right to not sign the consent form. You as a parent have the right to home school your child. You have the right to send your child to private school. You as a parents have a right to get the school board to change it’s curriculum You are making a jump from non-exclusive to governmentally exclusive, this is not even close to reality. All the judge said in layman’s terms is if you chose to give your child to our school system you can’t to say we violate your 14 amendments rights because we made a bad call and said something you didn’t like. Your misinterpreting the legalese because believe it or not this is all this amounts to. Quote:
You are mad because of the word sex in the decision not it legality. Again the example you keep avoiding: all public schools following your ludicrous logic must be shut down because all public schools by definition violate this supposed right. When YOU, the parent, send a child a child to a school to a public you are choosing to send them to someone else to be educated. If you are sending them to someone else you are no longer the exclusive means of information. You cannot simultaneously say that I want someone else to educated my child and demand exclusive control of said education. Again lots of people hate that their child is taught evolution in school and if parents have exclusive control then all biology programs in public schools are unconstitutional. Or not even evolution just pure biology that deals with reproduction. No it not different, Wisker exclusive means excusive, any program is suspect if you have this supposed exclusive right. Read the decision again Wisker this isn’t “bad law” it the same law that has been in place this country inception. This doesn’t set a dangerous precedent it upholds existing precedent. Not having this right hasn’t caused any problem for our nations in the last 200+ years, I don’t see any reason why going to suddenly start cause problems. Again it amazing how many people are shocked when they actually read the law as written. The judge did make new precedent he upheld existing precedent. Let me ask: again did your parents have any problems raising you with out this exclusive right? Mine seemed to handle it just fine. (and just to make it redundantly clear the judge was quoting existing cases when he said parents did not have exclusive rights he was not making it up) So wekser if the law is so bad please list for some of the horrors past generations have faced by not having this right. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.