Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Rights and Rosen
Message-ID: <3434@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 23:13:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3434
Posted: Tue Aug 14 23:13:20 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:11:42 EDT
References: <972@pyuxn.UUCP>, <2953@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 113




Adam,

While I agree, to a great extent, in principle to all that you have
said, I have to wonder what it all proves as far as raising children
is concerned.  Does it mean that Rich's philosophy of parentage does
not produce "punks"?  Does it mean anyone else's does?  Maybe there are
plenty of punks out there whose parents had the same philosophy.  (But
I don't think any of of them will come forward and counteract your testamony.)
Likewise, there may be some of us whose parents have quite a different
philosophy who are also not punks--even some with parents who neglected
them.  You say that your values were learned from your surroundings, but
do punks always learn them from their parents?  The environment varies 
between different growing children, but you seemed to treat it as a constant
in your argument.  Will every child learn good behaviour from their
surroundings?

In net.religion, Christians have been told many times that the personal
testamony of an individual counts for nothing as an argument for those
beliefs being right or true.  Do you now use the same tactic in support
of Rich's philosophy?

As I see it, the crux of that philosophy is that parents should not
*determine* or *control* a child's moral or intellectual development,
inflicting an unquestionable bias in them.  Rather, parents should
do what they can to insure the child grows up as a free thinking
adult, with the ability to make decisions for himself.  One can hardly
disagree on the principle, but what about the particluars?

While we all agree that controlling and molding kids into a preconcieved
mold is an abuse of parental authority--unfair to he child, I think
that a certain amount of guidance is mandatory.  Without it we are
accused of parental neglect.  So what forms the lines between control,
proper guidance, and neglect?

We all seem to know what constitutes a controlling influence.  It
consists of parents saying "this is right, and don't question why",
or "you should do this just because I said so".  Anyway, I think
most of us have a pretty good idea of the actions involved in being
abusive.  But what actions are involved in fulfilling the philosophy
of *your* parents?  It seems that what parents are *not* to do is clear
but what they *are* to do is not.  It would seem to me that this makes
the responsibility of parenthood one of being worried over doing the
wrong or harmful thing without having much confidence in what positive
action I can take.  It seems that whatever positive action I take will
inflict bias.  Are parents not allowed to teach their children anything
about morals or intellectual or religious belief?

So what are the particulars?  Is it unfair to read the Bible to my
daughter without also reading her the Koran, I Ching, Book of Mormon,
etc.?  Is it unfair to bring her to church and let her sit in Sunday
School?  Should I take care to expose her to all other beliefs?  If
so, to what extent should I go in order to avoid the accusation of 
biasing my child?  I don't think I can make my children into Christians.
I think that to try and do that would undermine the genuine Christian
comittment that I hope they will make (it's either that or nothing). 
Why do I hope?  Because as a parent I hope for I think to be the best
for them.  I know I can't enforce that hope.  But, on the other hand,
I simply can't run around opening up every other door for them.  I always
expect to take every question and challenge they give me seriously so
as not to stifle their intellect.  But they will grow up in a pimarily
Christian influence because my wife an I are commited to that.  Is this
unfair?

This brings me to another question.  Is there any such thing as a 
truly free thinking adult?  Rich didn't go into much detail as to
what he meant by that term.  What is the difference between raising
a child as a "free thinker" and fostering in them moral and intellectual
relativism?  Relativism is a philosophy too and those who embrace it
are not necessarily free thinkers.

I suppose it could be argued that if you teach a child to trust in
his own intellect, we can have faith that the intellect will not fail
him and it will guide him toward being a productive member of society.
But this introduces another variable (assuming we all agree on what
a productive member of society is).  The data each of us have available
for our intellectual processes to work on is different.  Many of us
have come to develop different sociopolitical or religious beliefs, and
we would all like to believe that we develop and hold such beliefs in
the context of free thought.  I think my Christian belief system and
world view to be tenable and logically coherent ... and true.  Others
are in the same position with their beliefs.  So we will view the
particulars of child rearing differently and instill different values
in our children (at least, start them off from different perspectives.)

Personally, and as a parent, I have to reject the relativism that so often
gets mistaken for openmindedness.  To intimate to a child that what you
believe doesn't matter goes against my better judgement and experience.
I believe some philosophies and religious beliefs to be dangerous.  Should
I not tell my kids what I think?  Would you give your kid a bag of candy
if you suspected some of the pieces to be poisonous?  I don't blame any parent
for warning their kids against any beliefs or practices they honestly think
are wrong or hurtful.  A man in the woods without a compass might be free
but he is also lost.  All I want to give my kids is the compass I believe
to be accurate and teach them how to use it.  When they are of age they can
decide whether or not to trust it.

All in all, I don't think there is any place to pass judgement on the
competency of any parent.  The state has the power
to remove a child from his parents in cases of physical abuse or neglect.
Will the next step be to develop a standard for intellectual, religious,
and moral upbringing and, if that is violated, revoke the parents'
priviledge (dare I say *right*) to nurture their own child?
Let's not go around saying that parents who teach their children child
such and such are incompetent.  Big Brother might hear you. :-}
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)