alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (08/14/84)
I am very fortunate in that I have parents as Rich Rosen describes. Through the years, I've been able to pick my friends, hobbies, pasttimes, subjects in school; I've been able to manage my own finances, set my own hours, and, most importantly, express my own beliefs. My parents did not neglect me, as some people have made Rosen's way of parentage sound. They introduced me to the basic concepts of religion and the basic concepts of our religion; they did not force me to accept that religion, nor did they force me to follow all of they guidelines they follow. They've shown me how society functions; they have not dictated how I should behave; that I've learned from my surroundings. I'm sure that if Rich suggested that parents do that, some of the people who have replied to him would have insisted that their kids would have grown up to be punks. Well, I don't think I'm a punk, and I don't think anyone considers me a punk. All in all, I am thankful that my parents seem to agree with Rich Rosen's philosophy. I think they've helped make me a good member of this world, and I thank them for giving me a chance to enjoy it. Adam
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/15/84)
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)atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) (08/15/84)
I agree with Rosen as well. I feel the most important thing
a parent gives to his offspring is the ability to function
on their own in their society. Giving your children the confidance
and knowledge to stand on their own two feet is paramount.
Brian Atkins
UUCP - {hao | allegra | ucbvax}!nbires!atkins
USPS - NBI, Inc.
3450 Mitchell Lane
P.O. Box 9001
Boulder, CO 80301
444-5710 (x3036)alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (08/15/84)
I think what Rich and I have said has been read in the extreme, when we never meant it so. Case in point (from Paul's fine arguments): If the parents are of a certain religion, then naturally the child will grow up in that atmosphere. That is natural, and it has been happening for thousands of years. There is nothing 'wrong' (sorry) with that, so long as the parents allow the child to realize that there ARE other, viable religions, and that their beliefs are not everyones. However, if the parents do not allow the child to come to this understanding, then they are unfairly biasing their child. To those who say, ''Well, I have the right to tell my child what religion to be in the name of religious purity and continuation,'' I say you are wrong. Religion does not give you the right to impose it on your children. I am not saying that it is unfair to the child to have one religion practiced in the house, UNLESS that child is prevented from understanding other faiths. To generalize: There is no way to prevent the views and beliefs of the parents from rubbing off on the child; indeed, no one is saying there should be, for that is how society continues. What is wrong is preventing the child (or any person) from exploring other beliefs, other ideas, other facets of life. Nobody has the right to impose the future, and for a person to determine his own future, he must be able to think objectively.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (08/20/84)
I would suggest that all of those who are currently beating the dead horse over kids rights vs parents rights wait awhile until they have their own set of kids then wait 15 years while they experiment then post the results. I find all of this talk about 'rights' a bunch of horse pukey. Every kid is different. Every parent is different. And above all, Dr Spock was wrong and even admitted as much. There is just no way you can reason with a two-year old, at least 99% of them. The values your child receives will be your values so preaching teaching other values is wasted. Let's get back to finding out what to do about earaches, diaper rash, and the other myriad of problems parents must face on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure most parents don't sit around discussing the proper way to instill a set of values on their children. It is just not the real world of parenting. There are far too many other problems that have to be addressed on a daily basis. The rights discussion has little to do with what we do every day other than as back-burner thought once in awhile. T. C. Wheeler
pickens@sdcsla.UUCP (Karen Pickens) (09/19/84)
I can't believe this discussion is still going on, especially if people aren't interested, as T.C. Wheeler implies, but... I'm 24 years old, and *someday* (hopefully) my S.O. and I are going to have kids. We do discuss how we will raise them, as interesting hypothetical situations come up. I assume we will continue to discuss it after we have kids. Ear aches and diaper rash *are* important, but that's not all there is to having kids. I do think, however, that R.R. is being misinterpreted (as has been said so often.) I personally *think* I agree with him a lot -- sure, your kids tend to have your values, but you can't force them to; by not letting them see what the rest of the world believes, for example, or telling them "I (or God) say so, therefore it's true." After a certain age, they will see that other authority figures say differently, and may (like I did for awhile) swing from believing blindly in one figure to another, or give up on "authority" completely. *Sometimes* saying "I believe this is true, here's why" is more easily digested than "I say so." On the other hand, if your kid runs in the street, grab her first and *then* explain why... I think the best way to instill values in children is to live them yourself, know why you have them, and be able to explain them clearly and calmly. Back to work, Karen Pickens - UCSD