ABC's 20/20 decided to do a show on dangerous things that parents allow their kids to do. One story was of the father who took his 13-year-old son to the top of Mount Everest. Another was about Abby Sunderland, the 16-year-old who is sailing around the world solo. Then there is Rafita Mirabal, an 11-year-old matador that faced his first bull at the age of 5. And how about the story about the Westboro Baptist Church who, in the words of the news story, teaches their kids to hate? And I had to ask myself, "Which of these things is not like the other?"
Paul Romero is taking heat for letting his son, Jordan, climb Mount Everest. The other day a British climber died on that climb hours after reaching the peak. Cause of death isn't known, but the fact that such a climb is hazardous isn't unknown. According to Answers.com, more than 200 people have died making that ascent. So was Paul Romero a negligent father for letting his son make the climb? He says, "No." He says that they prepared for it for years. He says that his son has made climbs all over the world. He says his son was ready. Others disagree.
Last year Abby Sunderland decided to become the youngest person ever to circumnavigate the globe. She soloed in a sailboat at the age of 13. Her older brother broke the record at 17. In January, 2010, she set out to make a new record. She's still at it. She left Cape Town, South Africa, on May 21st and is still going. Are her parents derelict in their duties for letting her risk her life like that?
The climber, the sailor, the matador, these are all very young kids who are busily risking their lives with their parents' permission. While many think, "Wow! That's amazing!", it makes people wonder. Do good parents allow their young kids to risk their lives for things like this? Valid question. But my question is about the Westboro Baptist Church thing. How does teaching children that homosexuals and Jews are going to hell correlate to kids who risk their lives in recreational activities?
Don't get me wrong. I think that Westboro Baptist Church is dead wrong in their position. No, I'll go a step further. So far are they from anything biblical that I would have to place them in the CINO category. It's wrong. No question. But is it the same thing as hiking Everest or sailing around the world? I don't see how it is.
Worse, it begs the question. You see, here is the "apparent" connection: Parents should not be allowed to raise their kids as they see fit. Some things are not acceptable, and we ought to stop it. So, who decides? Westboro Baptist is teaching their kids to hate. Fine. I won't argue it. But are parents who say, "Look, son, the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, so you need to reach out to them with the Gospel" teaching hate? If parents teach their children that Jesus is the only way to heaven, are they teaching their children to hate? And at what point do we intervene? At what point does society step in and say, "No, you cannot do this with your children. You are being superseded"?
I don't like the nonsense that Pastor Fred Phelps is teaching his congregation. By the same token, I don't like the nonsense that Pastor John Shuck is foisting off on his congregation. But I'm not calling on the government to shut either of them down. When our world decides that parents cannot teach their children what they believe to be true, we walk into dangerous territory. I think that the 20/20 piece is asking that very ominous question.
16 comments:
Did the 20/20 show present the stories with that angle? That is, did they present the stories as "Here are parents who are doing dangerous things with their children and they should probably be stopped by society?"
If so, it sure is a dicey area. We should be allowed to raise our children as we feel right, but at the same time, we should not endanger our children.
We don't allow the abusive father to raise his children how he likes, IF he likes to beat them into submission. We, as a society, rightly make that call and we would be wrong NOT to stand opposed to such abuse.
On the other hand, we do allow SOME spanking, because it's not a black and white issue. Some parents feel a responsible spanking (not abusive, just enough to get a small child's attention to prevent them from doing something dangerous, for instance) is good parenting and society - while having mixed feelings about such correction methods - has not outlawed spanking.
It can be a difficult line to draw, but draw a line we must, at least on some behaviors. I suspect most of us can agree.
As to whether or not the "adventurous" parents were wrong, I certainly don't know. My gut response is I'd trust the parents involved.
Of the Westboro parents and their behavior, I find that to be the least defensible and most dangerous. Not physically, but spiritually and emotionally. What monstrous damage is done to a person's psyche when they've been taught to hate?
Even so, would I outlaw teaching hate to your children (ie, teaching your children that it is appropriate to hate and despise folk who are gay or black or Christian or Jewish...)? I don't guess so, how would you do that?
I don't know if the show was advocating "outlawing" any of this type of parenting on their show, but I doubt that we, the people, would go along with it. We definitely need to draw some lines, but we also have to allow for individual freedom in parenting and I think most of us realize this.
Dan Trabue: "Did the 20/20 show present the stories with that angle? ... I don't know if the show was advocating 'outlawing' any of this type of parenting on their show"
No, nothing was said about "Should we outlaw this?" The intent of the show was to make the viewers ask the question on their own. It was to say, "Isn't this horrible? What do you think we should do about it?" In fact, if the actual suggestion was made, it would likely terminate the process. That is, if you think about it, it clearly becomes someplace we don't want to go ... so don't think about it -- get upset about it. Lots of Americans (and not Americans exclusively) are very good at determining right and wrong based on their emotions. It makes no sense, but since we've been fed "if it feels good, do it" since the '60's, it's not a big surprise.
Oh, and I agree that there must be a line (so we have CPS and the like), but "Where?" is a touchy question and where their stories might suggest it be is way too far.
I agree that some times people try to draw the line way too far. For instance, folks who would outlaw or not allow perfectly loving and capable folk of adopting a child simply because they happen to be gay is stepping ridiculously too far. Those who'd outlaw or not allow any and all spanking are going too far (while I personally don't think spanking is a worthwhile method of discipline, I wouldn't want to imprison folk who do so within reasonable bounds - although defining those bounds might be tricky...).
It IS a tricky balance - finding the right mix of freedom to parent and protecting children - and I think people of good faith can disagree on where to draw the line. I tend to draw it more towards the "dangerous" or "harmful to the child" area. On matters of mere preference ("I don't like to see gay parents..." for instance), I don't think there ought to be laws or bans, typically.
See how tricky? You interpret restricting homosexual couples from adopting as "I don't like to see gay parents..." while I interpret it as not in the best interest of the child (or, in your words, "'dangerous' or 'harmful to the child'"). Just an example of how tricky it is.
Yes, it can be tricky. Which is why I tend to side on leaving the matter to the parents involved, NOT the state, regardless of where the particular parents or acts fall on a cultural or political scale.
For instance, I'm opposed to spanking. I find it to be (according to studies and in personal experience) an unproductive, ineffective means of disciplining children. This tends to be true of those of us on the so-called liberal side of things.
AND YET, I'm opposed to criminalizing spanking in general. Even though it can be a borderline issue, I side with leaving it to the parents involved (short of where it crosses a line into actual abuse).
Do you feel the same about gay parenting? I don't know.
I believe that there are no significant sociological or scientific or faith-based reasons to think it "dangerous" or "unhealthy." No significant unbiased studies that show that (just the opposite, I believe). Just some opinions.
Are you of the opinion, then, that gay folk OUGHT to be banned from adopting children? Even though you seem to be criticizing the practice of outsiders getting involved in parenting in this post, do you actually support societal intervention when you have a hunch that some parents might be bad?
What rules or guidelines would you suggest provide a reasonable rationale for society intervening in parental freedom?
Dan Trabue: "I believe that there are no significant sociological or scientific or faith-based reasons to think it "dangerous" or "unhealthy." No significant unbiased studies that show that (just the opposite, I believe)."
Well, two issues here. First, your source of truth is "scientific" and "unbiased studies". I have a different source. If I read in the Bible that x is wrong and "scientific" and "unbiased studies" tell me, "Naw, there's nothing wrong with that", I'll still say that x is wrong and question the science and lack of bias. Second, your idea that there are no "faith-based reasons" is based on your own (and very uncommon) interpretation of "faith-based reasons". (That is, the Church has long held that homosexual behavior was a sin and, as such, homosexual couples were not a good thing.) But setting aside our difference of perception in source and interpretation, you would actually argue that "two daddies" is just as healthy for a child as a good male-female set of parents? (Don't go all wonky on me with something like, "Well, bad heterosexual parents aren't as good as good homosexual parents" because that's apples and oranges. We're assuming good parents -- nice people.)
If I were assigning adoptions and I had to choose between a husband and wife of good character and a couple of homosexuals (of either gender), I'd choose the husband and wife 100% of the time. Of course, part of that is due to my absolute certainty that mother/father parents are far better for a child than either male/male or female/female parents. It's also partly due to my certainty that putting a child into a home that presents as "normal" what is clearly not normal (look, I didn't make up the terms "queer" and "straight", nor did I assign the number of roughly 2-4% of the population as "homosexual", so regardless of your view on the morality of the question, it falls outside the normal bell curve) is not good for the child.
Dan Trabue: "do you actually support societal intervention when you have a hunch that some parents might be bad?"
I'm sorry. I thought this was a given. We're talking about adoption here, not natural born children. The state does nothing to intervene even though parents might be bad. But I thought the state was intimately involved in allowing or disallowing who gets to adopt. Did I miss something?
I am not offering rules or guidelines for intervening in parental freedom. I am concerned about adding new ones (which society these days seems bent on doing). My post was raising the concern, not making suggestions.
Stan...
If I were assigning adoptions and I had to choose between a husband and wife of good character and a couple of homosexuals (of either gender), I'd choose the husband and wife 100% of the time.
I'm sure you would. But my question is, is it reasonable to think that this is the ONE and ONLY acceptable adoption model?
In a situation where there are 100 children in an adoption agency and 25 perfectly fine heterosexual couples want to adopt a child each, 15 single men wish to adopt a child, 25 single women and 10 gay couples (lesbians and gays, both, let's say), do you think it reasonable to say to the orphans, "You first 25 can be adopted, but the rest of you all have to stay here until such time as acceptable male/female couples come along..."
Assuming in each of the adults applying that they were perfectly loving and responsible adults, all with experience with children and by all evidence capable of raising children, what possible reason would we have for NOT letting all those children go to loving homes?
I understand that you think the gay couples are "sinners" and, apparently, as such, not good role models or capable parents. But, lacking any real world evidence of their inability to be good parents, do you think it reasonable that other citizens go along with your presumptions?
Is it a good thing to have both male and female role models? I believe absolutely yes, it is. And in each situation where I know a single parent (of either gender) or gay/lesbian parents, they all make efforts to establish role models of the "missing" gender.
But is the lack of both a female and male in the household a rational reason to not allow adoption? I can see no possible real world, logical or moral reason to suggest that. I can see no BIBLICAL reason to suggest that.
Stan...
It's also partly due to my certainty that putting a child into a home that presents as "normal" what is clearly not normal (look, I didn't make up the terms "queer" and "straight", nor did I assign the number of roughly 2-4% of the population as "homosexual", so regardless of your view on the morality of the question, it falls outside the normal bell curve) is not good for the child.
I'm relatively sure you don't wish to use "normal" as a guideline for who can and can't adopt. The Amish aren't "normal," are you suggesting that they should not adopt? People who believe as you do (I'm guessing you'd agree) are not "normal," does that mean your type of person would not be a good adoptive parent?
"Normal" is not the same thing as loving, able, parental, wise or Godly and, as such, is not a good reason for keeping someone from adopting.
The question comes down to me, again, to: Is there any rational reason to suspect harm? If a person is able to be a good and loving parent, able to tend to the health and welfare of a child, then, they should not have the gov't interfering with that. This would be true for adoptions, too, I'd suggest.
We've obviously strayed long and hard from the point of the post (which, I think we agreed on).
I believe it is a bad choice for a child to be put in a home where sin is presented as normal, so we won't agree or even come close. The question isn't the math problem you offered, but whether or not I think it is healthy or unhealthy for a child. I think it is unhealthy. But, of course, since you see nothing in the Bible that should be understood as labeling homosexual behavior as a sin, of course you don't see anything in the Bible about what I'm saying.
By the way, studies I've read suggest that children raised by homosexual couples do have noticeable affects. They have a much higher rate of self-identifying as non-heterosexual and, in a recent study at USC, they seem to end up without gender roles. I know, I know, you find that a good thing, but I actually think that God made men and women different for a reason other than mere procreation.
But, hey, is this rabbit trail at all related to the post? I can't see that it is, so let's stop this, okay?
Well, just to be clear: homosexuality is a mental illness.
So the question is, would you put children into a mentally ill home?
And the Westbro Baptist Church (Islam) is also full of people mentally ill. So no kids put there.
How do I know? Because one absorbs their identity from Man and the other from God to make up the loss in themselves. Damaged people seek pride to cover their acting out into mere copiers and conterfeiters.
Any child witnessing these false-selves will be stonewalled and crushed.
So protect the children from this very clear and present danger.
Are you honestly equating Pastor Shuck and his inclusive outreach of love to the hate spewed by Fred Phelps?
Seriously?
Naum: "Are you honestly equating Pastor Shuck and his inclusive outreach of love to the hate spewed by Fred Phelps?"
If Shuck's "inclusive outreach of love" which denies the Resurrection, denies even the existence of Christ -- denies everything biblically "Christian" -- if his message damns people because he presents to them as truth things that are false, then, yes, I'd say his message is just as bad as (if not worse than) Phelps. I might even say it's worse because Phelps is easy to spot as a loon and dangerous and hateful, but Shuck sounds so ... warm and friendly while he misleads and misguides his flock.
Kinderling: "Well, just to be clear: homosexuality is a mental illness."
Not to Kinderling, but to the rest of the readers, I need to point out that I disagree and wouldn't support such a position. Kinderling is expressing his own opinion. If you (understandably) have a problem with it, feel free to take it up with him. I've already gone on record as suggesting that most of what he says makes no sense anyway.
There is Reparative Therapy and there is Conversion of the mind.
In a nut shell everything Jesus taught was a healing of the mind, to open areas you were afraid to tred thru trauma, violatation and judgement. Thus is to go back to the child to remember and forgive.
In a nut shell everything St Paul taught was the forgetting of the mind to have the mind of Christ. He jumped, with no by-of-your-leave after once submitting to Y-hw-h J_h_v_h, to the prevailing wind of the Risen Christ. We now have the prevailing wind of Socialism and Diversity and people are having similar 'roads to Damascus' and converting to that. Today, St Paul would be called Sister Anthony of Stonewall.
Jesus' path is the only way. Period.
And all fake copy-cats are dangerous to children, for the children have what they do not have.
Stan, thank you for making it clear we do not agree.
Never have a homosexual near a child.
Listen, Kinderling ... could you do me a favor? Since you deny everything at all relating to Christianity (with the possible exception of the existence of Jesus), perhaps you could stop trying to argue Christianity on this blog. Yours is a bizarre, Gnostic idea so far from anything Christian as to be pointless. I'm not asking you to stop believing whatever you believe. Your eternal destiny is in your hands. But no one here has the slightest inclination to throw out Christianity for this scattered philosophy you offer, so you're only muddying the waters. As a favor, would you go do that somewhere else?
No problem Stan, I will leave you to your comfort of a very real-world Christianity of a Priesthood; where paedophiles and homosexuals are rife who can safely operate within this church of Believers awaiting The Rapture.
I came with a sword to help you discern who is in the camp to show there is a line that cannot be crossed or tolerated or made allowances for. Truth without Love (Pastor Phelps) or Love without Truth (Pastor Shuck).
You were born in this world to make it anew, a baby Jesus, and then squashed by the first religion that took away your fears and anxieties. A pacifier, a placebo.
As I've said before I only know Jesus as far as I know Socrates or Plato to agree or disagree with their philosophies. Jesus had an extraordinary hill to climb among Believers and made it. Yours is not so high. No one is going to kill you for being yourself.
No leap of blind faith required as it is just to see what is discovered here. 4.2 billion years of bacterial evolution to consciousness, and you want to throw it all away.
Farewell.
Great! You couldn't go quietly, could you? You had to be an idiot as you leave. Seriously, have you no brains at all? Can you not distinguish between "real-world Christianity" (that is, genuine Christianity) and those who merely claim it ... you know, like Jesus warned about? Folks who claim to know Him but don't. (You know ... "You will know them by their fruits.") Tares among wheat. All that sort of thing?
I do have to say that I like the nice turn of phrase there when you characterize Phelps and Shuck. I mean, it's not entirely accurate (I don't think Phelps actually has truth and I don't think Shuck actually has love), but I like it.
To you, the universe is all about you. (Fine, me, too.) Okay. So your "religion" magnifies your own importance, the natural condition of Man. Okay, so you believe you're right. We all believe we're right or we wouldn't believe what we do. But do you have to be a liar about it, intentionally misrepresenting what Christianity believes and intentionally being unkind in your misrepresentation? In your view, is that moral?
These are rhetorical questions. In your enlightened state, that should be easy to see. I don't want answers. I appreciate your exit.
Post a Comment