| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: Should parents be more closely monitored.. |
 |
|
Recently my sister adopted a child. Previous to that she already had four children of her own. The process of adoption was a long, drawn out affair (taking roughly a year and a half) and involving numerous home visits by social workers to ensure that herself and her husband would make fit parents. The irony was not lost on her that she and her husband were already parents to four children and yet, prior to the adoption, the state (the UK) never questioned whether or not they were fit to be parents. There seems to be a double standard here.
In a thread (http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=67704&start=45&sid=c44351e3be66512966a828def07675bd) in the general discussion forum
Gwangjuboy poses the question
| Quote: |
| Should we ban children from being exposed to religion? |
to flotsam
and receives the reply
| Quote: |
Of course families have the right to raise their children to a set of beliefs they follow, and guide them through corresponding institutions.
|
but is this really right?
The Olsen twins spring to mind
| Quote: |
The Olsen Twins of the White Nationalist Movement
Submitted by Shutterbug on Tue, 2005-10-25 13:25. politics
When does racism begin in a child's mind? Where do they learn it from? These girls are thirteen years old and already working for the Ku Klux Klan. They're used as pawns to draw people to concerts benifiting the "cause." Their parents believe in white supremacy and the "preservation of the white race."
Growing up in a home with a mother and teacher (the girls are homeschooled) who is a white supremacist, these children may never know what they're really saying. Their mother is happy to announce how she teaches her children "her version" of history.
This story begs me to ask many questions. Should the mother, knowing her racist views, be allowed charge of her daughters education? Knowing full well that they are not learning the full story, should her duty as a homeschool teacher be revoked? Also, will these children ever grow out of this as if it were a phase?
|
(Source: http://woi.brynmawr.edu/node/423 )
I think the last question goes to the heart of the matter. How easily can adults discard the core beliefs that they have been taught as children?
I suspect that most people who have a religion, have the same one as their parents because the answer to the above question is... 'not that easily'.
And given that what a person believes has a huge influence on their whole life, and what a society believes has a huge impact on how that society behaves...
Should parents be more closely monitored in what they teach their children?
Should parents be made more answerable to the State?
Should parents be more closely vetted before they're allowed to have children?
If the answer is 'yes' then how?
If the answer is 'no' then why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it would be a horrible idea to allow the state to enforce what people teach their children. that's honestly one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while.
why? because if it were up to our government in America, we might be forced to teach our children intelligent design theories. or be banned from discussing abortion. we simply can't rely on the state to discern what is good to teach and what is harmful.
Think about it, we have freedom of speech laws so that the state can't regulate what we say in public. but you would allow the state to regulate what is said inside a family's home? it's such a gross violation of freedom of speech it reminds me of 1984, where all the kids were nastly little spies for the government.
Also, vetting people or giving them licenses to have children is a terrible terrible idea. if you don't think some people would use that to enforce racist policies, you're naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
billybrobby
| Quote: |
| it would be a horrible idea to allow the state to enforce what people teach their children. that's honestly one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while |
I'm not suggesting this so much as they should prevent ban parents teaching certain unacceptable beliefs and racial hatred is one example. Doesn't your constitution enshrine certain values and beliefs? (All men are created free and equal). If the majority of people in america accept these then why not insist that they are taught to children to the exclusion of values that the majority rejects?
| Quote: |
| Think about it, we have freedom of speech laws so that the state can't regulate what we say in public. but you would allow the state to regulate what is said inside a family's home? |
We don't have the same freedom of speech laws. We have incitement to hatred laws that outlaw the propagation of racist views.
| Quote: |
| Also, vetting people or giving them licenses to have children is a terrible terrible idea. |
This already happens. As I stated in my OP, people are already vetted and given licence to adopt (and the double standard this creates). Also the state has the power to take children away from parents when they are deemed unfit. Is prophylaxis not better than cure?
| Quote: |
if you don't think some people would use that to enforce racist policies, you're naive.
|
Certainly certain people may try. It's up to society to ensure that they don't succeed. Who was it that said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence'. This is a responsibility society should never seek to abdicate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
billybrobby
| Quote: |
| it would be a horrible idea to allow the state to enforce what people teach their children. that's honestly one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while |
I'm not suggesting this so much as they should prevent ban parents teaching certain unacceptable beliefs and racial hatred is one example. Doesn't your constitution enshrine certain values and beliefs? (All men are created free and equal). If the majority of people in america accept these then why not insist that they are taught to children to the exclusion of values that the majority rejects? |
Excluding values that the majority rejects? My god, man, do you really have such a weak sense of personal liberty? What do they teach you over there in England? I think you should remember one of your countrymen, John Stuart Mill, and his concept of tyranny by majority.
Really, I find it frightening that a seemingly intelligent person would be so willing to sell his personal liberty down the river for some pie in the sky goal like preventing the transmission of pernicious racial beliefs from parent to child.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Think about it, we have freedom of speech laws so that the state can't regulate what we say in public. but you would allow the state to regulate what is said inside a family's home? |
We don't have the same freedom of speech laws. We have incitement to hatred laws that outlaw the propagation of racist views. |
I dunno how it's done over there, but to me, nothing trumps intellectual liberty except immediate personal safety. In other words, the only speech that ought to be censored is stuff like "let's all get our pitchforks and murder Mr. Johnson."
When it comes down to it, if you're for defending free expression, you've got to let the Nazis and the creationists and the Jihadist say their piece. And you've got to vigorously defend their right to do it. It would be easy to be proponent of free speech if all you had to do was defend John Lennon songs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ps- i don't mean to be nasty, i'm just trying to be..uh...lively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
billybrobby
| Quote: |
| ps- i don't mean to be nasty, i'm just trying to be..uh...lively. |
Don't worry on that account. This is an idea that's been germinating in my mind for a while. I didn't post it just to have people agree with me. I do want to hear other people's points of view.
| Quote: |
| Excluding values that the majority rejects? |
I'm not talking about excluding values. Certainly consenting adults can debate whatever they want. I just don't believe in inculcating them in children who will accept them uncritically. To me that's just another form of child abuse.
| Quote: |
| Really, I find it frightening that a seemingly intelligent person would be so willing to sell his personal liberty down the river for some pie in the sky goal like preventing the transmission of from parent to child. |
I think you are both over-estimating the danger to personal liberty and under-estimating the damage done by these 'pernicious racial beliefs '.
| Quote: |
| When it comes down to it, if you're for defending free expression, you've got to let the Nazis and the creationists and the Jihadist say their piece. |
Europeans do not put the same value on 'free expression' that Americans do. In this regard I think we're being a little more pragmatic. We're recognising that there is no such thing as 'absolute freedom' and imposing limits so that freedom is optimised in order to be enjoyed by as many as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K-in-C
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Location: Heading somewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: Re: Should parents be more closely monitored.. |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Should parents be made more answerable to the State?
If the answer is 'yes' then how?
If the answer is 'no' then why not? |
Yup! If I were from the USA I would LOVE to have "the State" (George W. Bush) mold my childrens' minds and tell me how to and how not to raise them.  NOT! And for that matter I wouldn't want Stephen Harper to either.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: Re: Should parents be more closely monitored.. |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yup! If I were from the USA I would LOVE to have "the State" (George W. Bush) mold my childrens' minds and tell me how to and how not to raise them. NOT! And for that matter I wouldn't want Stephen Harper to either. |
Fortunately the state is not synonymous with individual politicians.
'George Bush' does not equal 'America". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just find the whole idea monstrous, like a feature of some horrifying fictional dystopia. licenses for pregnancy. the state denying parents the right to teach their children certain beliefs. *shudders*
children are always used as pawns in the push for more censorship. their supposedly fragile, unquestioning minds are always used a reason why grown adults should not be able to say certain things. to me, it's a sham. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I liked this part of your post:
| Quote: |
| Recently my sister adopted a child. Previous to that she already had four children of her own. The process of adoption was a long, drawn out affair (taking roughly a year and a half) and involving numerous home visits by social workers to ensure that herself and her husband would make fit parents. The irony was not lost on her that she and her husband were already parents to four children and yet, prior to the adoption, the state (the UK) never questioned whether or not they were fit to be parents. There seems to be a double standard here. |
It's an interesting question.
But it's so subjective. Look at that thread about the 16 year old actress who announced she was pregnant. (How) Is she better off than other 16-year-old? Not taking your latter points about racism and intolerance into question, I think trying to enforce anything like this would fail. (Not to mention it's unethical.) It would just reinforce the stereotypes/hatreds already in our society. Kind of like when people debate population control in "developing nations," and the solution is to just throw condoms at the brown people. Studies have shown---IIRC---that education across the board is the best way to ensure intelligent, responsible choices. I think if we gave equal opportunities to the disenfranchised----poor, black, white, Mexican, Rust Belt, immigrants---we'd slowly see some of our old prejudices go away. That's pie-in-the-sky talk, but that's why we've dealt with the same issues for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| billybrobby wrote: |
I just find the whole idea monstrous, like a feature of some horrifying fictional dystopia. licenses for pregnancy. the state denying parents the right to teach their children certain beliefs. *shudders*
|
I can't help feeling that this is a knee-jerk response and that you're thinking of some sort of totalitarian 'orwellian' type state. That's not what I mean. I mean a truly democratic state where people have decided certain values should not be imposed on children because it's taking unfair advantage of them. As laws stand at the moment parents can (and do) teach children any kind of crap they want. There still a belief inherent in modern society that parents somehow 'own' their children (and it's something of a 'holy cow').
I think parents should be viewed more as caretakers of their children and answerable for their stewardship.
| Quote: |
children are always used as pawns in the push for more censorship. their supposedly fragile, unquestioning minds are always used a reason why grown adults should not be able to say certain things. to me, it's a sham. |
I don't believe in censorship for adults but I do for children simply because they do not have the critical values to evaluate what they see and hear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Smee wrote
| Quote: |
| Not taking your latter points about racism and intolerance into question, I think trying to enforce anything like this would fail. (Not to mention it's unethical.) It would just reinforce the stereotypes/hatreds already in our society. |
Nevertheless the state does at certain times and under certain condition decide that certain people are not fit parents and removes children from their care. Prophylaxis vs. cure. The vetting procedure does not have to be draconian but why should it be less stringent than that for parents who are adopting children. Are 'biological' children not entitled to the same standard of care? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grainger
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Location: Wonju, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not suggesting this so much as they should prevent ban parents teaching certain unacceptable beliefs and racial hatred is one example. Doesn't your constitution enshrine certain values and beliefs? (All men are created free and equal). If the majority of people in america accept these then why not insist that they are taught to children to the exclusion of values that the majority rejects?
A constitution is not a fixed set of laws. It evolves and changes as the people that live by it evolve and change. There are many current majority views that were once championed by a minority. For example, a woman's right to vote or to be considered a person independent of her husband under the law. There were even women who believed that this was not necessary. It was the minority that changed the majority's perceptions.
"All men are created free and equall". Tell me, were there not still slaves in America when this was written. So how exactly would you define a man?
People need minority views in order to grow, adapt and change in a changing world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| billybrobby wrote: |
I just find the whole idea monstrous, like a feature of some horrifying fictional dystopia. licenses for pregnancy. the state denying parents the right to teach their children certain beliefs. *shudders*
|
I can't help feeling that this is a knee-jerk response and that you're thinking of some sort of totalitarian 'orwellian' type state. That's not what I mean. I mean a truly democratic state where people have decided certain values should not be imposed on children because it's taking unfair advantage of them. As laws stand at the moment parents can (and do) teach children any kind of crap they want. There still a belief inherent in modern society that parents somehow 'own' their children (and it's something of a 'holy cow').
|
Our (yankee) founding fathers created the bill of rights to check the power of the democratic government over its constituents. That is, they did not discern between royal tyranny or democratic tyranny or any other sort. Governmental violation of personal freedom is unacceptable no matter from what the government derives its power. To me, because a bunch of values have been agreed upon by a democratic society does not make them worthy of handing to the government with the charge of "make sure everybody raises their children with these."
Children are often unable to judge whether an idea is a good one or not. Fortunately, children are largely powerless so it doesn't matter what ideas they hold. But they grow up, and by the time they do gain power they blessedly gain the ability judge good ideas from bad. Or at least that is the ideal. I think you take an overly pessimistic view of people as being 'locked' into the ideas they were fed as children. This isn't without merit, of course. We are all, in some way, chained to the ideas of our parents and our societies. But I believe in giving people full freedom to choose from the whole range of ideas - great and terrible - even if it means dooming some of them to having to overcome a childhood of miseducation.
Often people what the rest of their society to "think right" and therefore support censorious measures to weed out dangerous and harmful ideas. but what they fail to realize is the only way to consistently get people to think right is to expose them to a broad range of ideas and force them to think for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
grainger wrote
| Quote: |
People need minority views in order to grow, adapt and change in a changing world.
|
I am not against minority views. I am not against any views! Where are people getting that???
I believe that in a democratic society people should be able to freely debate all ideas.
However I do not believe that when parents teach certain values to their children that this constitutes a debate (or even a discussion). Rather chilren are passively and uncritically accepting ideas and concepts transmitted to them by their parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
