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)