Presidents and Parents

Last Wednesday in New Hampshire, John Edwards was asked whether he'd be comfortable having a story about two princes marrying read to his second grader. His answer was stunning.

I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in (chuckling), what did you say, second grade? Well, second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade, to be exposed to all those possibilities. Because I don’t want to impose my view – nobody made me God – I don’t get to decide on behalf of my family and my children. … I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

I couldn't find the entire quote, or I'd put it here. It was, however, in so many ways, appalling -- more so in that the other candidates appeared to agree with him.

"I want them to be exposed to all the information ... even in second grade ..."

Setting aside the sheer impossibility of such a goal, I want to know about the practicality of trying to reach it. Shall we expose them to meth and heroin so they can make their own decisions? Shall we offer them porn so they can determine if they think it's right or wrong on their own? Where do we draw the line? Is there such a thing as "age appropriate"?

"I don’t want to impose my view."

Lots of people have stood up and shouted a resounding, "Huh!!!???" I'd have to join them. What do you suppose the teacher who read the story to the 2nd graders was doing? What do you suppose the friends of children are doing every day? What do you suppose the media and the religious right and the liberal left and just about everyone does ... daily? On the other hand, if it is not the job of a parent to provide moral guidance for little minds that don't yet have the skills to gather their own direction, what is the job of the parent? Seriously, practically speaking, can you imagine a parent who actually practiced what John Edwards recommended? "No, I will never tell my children what is wrong or right. They're on their own to determine whatever they think. I won't do it." Never happened. Never will. And, in truth, if they did practice that, it would, in itself, be an imposition of a viewpoint that says, "Whatever you decide is right." No small viewpoint.

"... nobody made me God ..."

Of course, nobody made God God. And, of course, no one would even begin to think that John Edwards or any other human being is God without some psychosis at work. Clearly the statement wasn't to be taken at face value. What, then, is the intent? There are several aspects implicit in this statement. First, God alone has the right to say absolutely what is right and wrong. Second, we humans cannot know what God thinks is right or wrong. Third, given the first two statements, it would be wrong of us to believe or suggest that we had the right to think that something is right or wrong. You know these are the intentions of this statement. You will hear the same thing when you suggest something is moral or immoral. "Oh? Who made you God?" The idea is "No one can know what is right or wrong and you're arrogant for suggesting you do." My side question, then: Do we want someone to be our president who doesn't believe anyone can know what is right or wrong?

In a part of his statement that is not included above, Edwards suggested that his two young children will likely come to the same conclusion that his older daughter has come to -- that her father is an idiot. Oh, that's not what he said. The question was in regards to the fact that he is opposed to gay marriage. His daughter has decided that gay marriage is right and cannot figure out why he would oppose it. And, of course, his two young children, he believes, will come to the same conclusion. How is that different than what I said? If I was completely confident that all of my children would certainly come to an opposing view of my particular stance on a topic -- and he seems to be quite proud of them for doing so -- isn't that an admission that my children are likely smarter than me and my position is likely wrong?

"I don’t get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."

I've addressed this already in terms of a parent's inherent job. More on that. Children need food for their bodies to grow. If a parent has the ability but fails to supply them with the food they need, we call it "child abuse" and arrest the parent. In a similar way, growing children need moral guidance to grow character. If they are not provided this guidance, especially by intent, how is it not "child abuse"?

The other oddity in the statement, however, is the apparent contradiction with which I don't know what to do. John Edwards was in favor of a bill that would ban smoking nation wide. He is in favor of a universal health care plan. He has a plan to eliminate poverty within a generation. He plans to remove all the troops from Iraq within one year. He intends to lead "the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution." In other words, John Edwards has lots of plans to impose his values on his nation and others ... just not his own family. So ... who made him God?

John Edwards is not my issue here. Please be very clear on that. My issue is the ideas suggested here and agreed upon by a whole segment of society including, it seems, all of the Democratic candidates. It's not a political or party issue. It is a problem of ideas. Do parents have the right, nay, the obligation to teach their kids right and wrong? If not, who does? Is it really a valid goal to expose young children to everything? Valid or not, is it even the right thing to do? Can we know right and wrong, or are we going to simply toss out any hope and surrender to absolute, pure relativism? If so, on what basis can that side say that I'm wrong for having moral absolutes? Isn't a denial of moral absolutes a denial of relativism? And are these the ideas and values -- values that seem to contradict themselves -- the values that we want running our country? Despise George Bush all you want, but do we really want someone who runs on the opposite end -- someone who aspires to no values? To me, that is frightening.