In Winnipeg, a white nationalist mother thought it was fun to draw a swastika on the arm of her seven-year-old daughter. When a teacher rubbed off the mark, the mother drew it back on. The second time, the school reported the incident and child welfare officials took both the daughter and a two-year-old boy away from the mother. It is a case that raises very serious questions of free speech balanced against child welfare.
Recently, there have been some alarming attacks on free speech by Canadian agencies, click here. This story, however, is the first involving the removal of children.
Schools are given a great deal of leeway in prohibiting hateful or inappropriate clothing. Presumably, this would also include body messages. However, the penalty is generally suspension or expulsion — not removal from the home. Moreover, so long as it is lawful for a child to receive a tattoo, a family is allowed to put a cross, star or other religious or political symbol on their children. The school may require that it be covered up, but it cannot prohibit a family from exhibiting their political beliefs.
The mother in this case is obviously pretty creepy with a house full of Nazi symbols. She now admits that it was a mistake: “It was one of the stupidest things I’ve done in my life but it’s no reason to take my kids.” Yet, Child and Family Services has removed the children because it considers such views to be potentially harmful for the children.
There is no greater form of government punishment for speech than taking away one’s children. This mother has a right to raise her children in a Nazi home. The school has the right to regulate some demonstrations of speech that are clearly inimical to the educational mission — though such limitations have to be narrowly tailored.
Canadians need to take a serious look at these attacks on free speech and the future of free expression in the country.
For the full story, click here.
This is a tough one. I agree with the Free Speech implications, but growing up in Skokie, I saw what the fear of that symbol did to people, 20 plus years after WWII. That was when a local Nazi group wanted to march in Skokie which to this day includes many residents who survived the Nazi concentration camps. You saw the fear and the anger that the symbol and name caused in that community. Luckily, calmer heads prevailed. If the mother is truly teaching her child to hate like a Nazi, she is at best, a very poor role model. But where does Free Speech end and child endangerment begin? I would probably agree that she should have the right to teach her child whatever she wants and the children should not be taken away for that issue. But I would hope that the child services people keep an eye on those kids. What a scary story.
This and other cases like it are heartbreaking. Where I live there are many ultra conservative right wing Christians. Many of their children are intellectually stunted because of strict religious prohibition against learning science and critical thinking. These same children hate lesbian and gay people and all non-believers. One of these young people is helping me in my garden. I care for her very deeply. She is a highly intelligent, genuinely kind young person. Yet every day I hear about how people do not know god and she needs to teach them before they go to hell. Her church has a scary tape that they play during street missionary work. It involves Jesus as the lover of a young girl. The young girl then meets a handsome, inticing stranger (satan) whom she falls for. She leaves her lover, Jesus, becomes depressed, starts cutting herself and falls into complete despair. But Jesus convinces her that he is the one to give her everything she needs; all the love. even all the material goods, like nice clothing etc.
Naturally, when I hear these things it is very painful to me. I do not think she is well loved at home. At the same time, her parents do feed, house and clothe her, and in their minds, I believe they believe they are doing right by her. My own way of dealing with this young woman is to be as kind, loving and supportive of her as possible.
Many societies and many religions are what I would call “soul” murdering. If we took children away from parents for teaching cruel and dumb-ass beliefs we’d be taking away a lot of children. So I think it’s important to provide forums that people may use to question these received “truths” and to provide an accepting place for young people.
Jill:
Indoctrination is indoctrination, and by whatever means or ideologies implemented is child abuse.
mespo,
I personally also consider indoctrination a form of child abuse, I just don’t know that taking children away from their parents, unless a “narrowly tailored” law is broken, is the way to handle it. Really, in my area parents who don’t indoctinate would be considered unfit by a vast majority of this community. I am open to ideas. What do you think is the right way to treat the Nazi mother and other parents who do indoctrinate?
Jill
rafflaw
1, July 13, 2008 at 10:01 am
This is a tough one. I agree with the Free Speech implications, but growing up in Skokie, I saw what the fear of that symbol did to people, 20 plus years after WWII.
Agreed, it is tough, however stealing families children, is beneath contempt over such a thing.
We don’t steal peoples kids over “bad taste”.
And drawing a swastika on her child was in bad taste, but child abuse?
Not hardly.
Child abuse has come to be such a widely interpreted accusation that indeed our Child Protective Services in this country, and apparently in Canada now too, looks and acts more like the Salem witch trials, then an agency enforcing laws.
In Texas, 400 families were traumatized because a few busy body women in the state CPS decided that they had the authority to kidnap children from their parents, without charge or demonstrable cause.
Fortunately, their State Supreme Court was more concerned with following the law than desecrating it, and ordered the return of these kids to their families.
We’ve become, by our own hands, and thanks to the self righteous bigots of this country, and the busy body security moms, more of a police state than a democratic repbulic.
And apparently, Canada’s more than happy to follow suit.
Drawing a swastika was in bad taste, and the school has every right to prohibit the child from attending the school wearing such a tasteless symbol on their person.
However what effectively constitutes “kidnapping” the child, and labeling a “differing viewpoint’ child abuse, is a crime, and the state authorities responsible should be held accountable for their actions.
Abuse indicates cruel and harsh treatment.
Theres nothing more cruel and harsh than physically kidnapping a young child from their hearth and home, and placing them in the cold, and usually incompetent care of the state.
Jill:
In this limited circumstance, I have no problem with giving the parent the choice between teaching hate or rearing her child. Would we be so forgiving if the mother was raising ideologically motivated child bombers who were simply not strong enough yet to carry the payload? To teach that some of our fellow citizens are less than human and thus are amenable to gratuitous punishment on account of their ethnicity or skin color seems to me no less pernicious. I don’t think substantive due process requires that we permit parents to raise children who are ideologically determined to undermine our freedoms, our pluralism, and our society.
And as for “indoctrination” of these kids, we ALL indoctrinate our kids, with the beliefs and values we hold dear, including religious, political and social morals and mores.
What’s happening here is, people don’t like Nazi’s, and understandably so, but they are taking their “preferences” and forcing them on others.
If parents believe the Nazi way was the right one, then thats their call, and they certainly have the right to teach that to their kids.
In fact, just visit Parma Idaho sometime, and you’ll find lots of families, even churches, teaching similar doctrines. And no ones taking their kids away.
Freedom means being willing to tolerate views that make your blood boil, as long as the people espousing them are not committing acts of violence, or physically assaulting the children.
Drawing a homemade tattoo of a symbol of your personal beliefs on your own kid, regardless of the symbol, is not child abuse.
Bad judgment, sure. Politically incorrect? Absolutely. Offensive? To most people no doubt.
But “abuse”?
Not even close.
Jill:
Do you enjoy eavesdroppers as much as I do? I thought manners dictated allowing the conversation to continue among the participants and injecting only if someone asked it of you, or if you were a welcome member of the conversation. Well maybe things have changed in polite discourse in our new electronic age.
But hey, soon America, and apparently Canada, will not even be recognizable to those who came before.
People love “telling others what to do”.
Its the new America. Or should I say, “Amerika”.
People today feel they have the right to commit acts of terror and crime against individuals simply because they don’t agree with their individual philosophies.
The real irony here, is people are actually suggesting that we adopt the tactics of the Nazi’s, with our own citizens, simply because they exhibit a Nazi symbol.
But hey, American’s never were too smart with regards to their own freedoms.
Just look how many we’ve gladly handed over to the government over the last 20 years.
mespo727272
1, July 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Jill:
Do you enjoy eavesdroppers as much as I do? I thought manners dictated allowing the conversation to continue among the participants and injecting only if someone asked it of you,
Oh I’m sorry. I was under the impression this was a public blog.
Not a chatroom where you decide who can speak and who cannot.
Good thing I could give a rats ass what an inbred with a big mouth thinks, ay?
See Maypo, when you comment in a PUBLIC blog, your comments are there for all to see, and respond to.
And since I was responding to Rafflaw, and not you, you can kiss my rosy red ass.
Pucker up.
The real question here in this case, from where I see it Rafflaw, is who’s the more “nazi”?
The one drawing a fake tatoo on their kid, or the state, for kidnapping the child and silencing the mothers right to think and believe as she chooses.
Free speech and freedom of belief is not just for the beliefs we agree with.
We say we don’t like Nazi’s.
Perhaps then we should try not acting like them.
Jill:
Did you hearing a buzzing sound on the blog recently? It’s annoying but unintelligible.
mespo727272
1, July 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Jill:
Do you enjoy eavesdroppers as much as I do? I thought manners dictated allowing the conversation to continue among the participants and injecting only if someone asked it of you,
Speaking of Nazi’s, lets examine this proclamation by the idiot calling himself messpo.
Notice once again Bartlebee said nothing to him.
Nothing.
Yet he decides to insult Bartlebee’s “manners” by not “waiting to speak until spoken to first”.
So what exactly is he saying?
Is he saying that this is not a public blog?
Because in a public blog, any member of the “public” is by default, “invited” to comment in any public thread where comments have been enabled.
Or is he saying that he is the lone decider of who speaks, or who doesn’t? After all, IF bloggers are not welcome to comment on the topic of the thread, WITHOUT first being “spoken to”, then who pray tell, does the first speaking?
So tell me, does his comment, make sense?
Is it “blog ettiquite” to wait until one is “spoken to”, before they are permitted to speak?
That certainly would explain the dismal post count heretofore in this blog.
After all, if the self annointed “blog nanny’s”, like Messpo are the only ones permitted to post their comments on a thread, and can thus decide who speaks, and who does not, then its not a blog, now is it?
But the truth of course is that messpo is just a big baby, who doesn’t “like” Bartlebee, but can’t contend with Bartlebee’s comments, so instead he insults him, “FIRST”, every time he sees him comment.
And like I told this momma’s boy yesterday.
If he doesn’t like it, then he shouldn’t START it.
But in all fairness, he would make a great Nazi.
Now, back to my comment, unless Messpogirl wants to start more trouble he can’t finish with me.
Which is more Nazi like?
To draw a fake tattoo of a symbol of your belief system that may be offensive to others?
Or to silence someones free expression and KIDNAP their children away, tearing apart a family and permantly traumatizing the child, simply because you don’t like their belief system?
Don’t know about you folks, but I’ll take “B” Monty.
Bartlebee,
First of all, this country ahs been leaning fascist ever since George W. Bush was appointed to the Presidency. Secondly, however, I still believe that the “State” has to have extraordinary circumstances to remove one’s children. Is teaching your kids to be a skinhead extraordinary? I am not sure, but it is getting close. Maybe Canada should recommend some family counseling for the mother and her children.
I apologize for screwing up the word “has” in my first sentence.
I find the topic of removal of children from their parent a touchy subject that should be done with plenty of thoughtfulness and introspection. Rarely is it really necessary IMO and there are options.
I wanted to bring to Jonathan’s attention this NYTimes article on the ICE raid in Postville, Iowa meatpacking plant. Didn’t know if he was
interested and had no contact info to tip him off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/11immig.html?
The article contains a video of Erik Camayd-Freixas, Ph.D. of Florida International University, the disgusted 23 year federally certified interpreter who has broken his code of confidentiality and has spoken up to reveal the inner workings.
More from the Sanctuary:
http://thesanctuary.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=603E26830E004BDE43B0709A39F83D4E?diaryId=269
“Dr Camayd-Freixas will be testifying before Congress later this month at the Immigration Sub-Committee of the House of Representatives in regards to the raid.
He has asked that anyone moved by his account help the relief effort in any way possible;
“Finally, my new friends from Postville involved in the relief effort inform me that they are still dealing with a very tough humanitarian crisis. So, please, if you have any opportunity for fundraising, this is the address where donations can be sent:
St. Bridget’s Hispanic Ministry Fund
c/o Sister Mary McCauley
PO Box 369
Postville, Iowa 52162″ “
Rafflaw said..
Is teaching your kids to be a skinhead extraordinary? I am not sure, but it is getting close
Well it may be unsavory. Unseemly even. But “extraordinary”?
There would have to be a law against being a skinhead, for that to be true.
And of course we don’t know thats what she was teaching the kid, even if there was a law against being a skinhead, which theres not.
She was putting the nazi swastika on the kid.
And the swastika, is a legal symbol. So is being a Nazi for that matter. Being a member of the Nazi party is perfectly legal in this country, and the Nazi party regularly petitions state and federal government for permits to legally demonstrate and voice their beliefs, under their constitutionally protected right to do so.
So for this to be “extraordinary”, there would have to be some sort of crimanal act here, which being, or teaching someone to be, a Nazi, is not.
Now I’m not familiar with Canadian law, and if you’re implying its illegal to be a member of the Nazi party in Canada, then your position would have more merit. But from a legal standpoint, I can’t see how she did anything to warrant having her children taken away.
And let me clarify my obvious opening, that even in the absence of a recorded law, the action would have to be something outside of what is already accepted as legal code of conduct, within the constraints of the judicial system for something to be rendered, “extraordinary”.
And since being a member of the Nazi party, and proselyting others to join is legal in this country, and most likely in Canada, therefore the circumstances could in no way be construed as extraordinary.
That its distasteful, and politically incorrect, is not in doubt.
But we don’t take peoples children away for that in this country.
At least not yet.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about the country leaning fascist since the Supreme Court ruled George Bush gets to be king for a bit. But we have ourselves to blame for that, more than we do Dubya and friends. After all, if we didn’t buy it, he never could have sold it.
“Soccer Moms”, “Patriots”, waving flags and spying on their neighbors. Cheering new constitutional restrictions and handing over freedoms gladly using the time worn excuse of;“well, if it keeps us SAFE”.
Of course, who said life was safe?
Our battle cry used to be “give us liberty or give us death”, emulating the famous speech of Patrick Henry. Now, our battle cry is “take whatever of our liberties you need Mr President, just don’t let us, or the kidz, get hurt“.
Just as in this case in Canada, we see Americans would rather lean to the side of “being safe” than enjoy their constitutional right to not have their kids kidnapped by their own government.
Concluding that drawing a flag on a kid is somehow so damaging to the kid, that it would be better to steal the child away from its family and toss him into the care of the state, which is usually incompetent to begin with, is ridiculous.
Kids endure all sorts of mental abuse growing up, and are exposed to a wide variety of environments. Its called “life”. Most will deal with it, and grow up reasonably normal, and others will not, and thats just the way it is.
Trying to create a nation of bubble-boys, isn’t what a democracy is all about.
The truth is, I think some of us, claiming to love democracy, would rather live under a Police State, where every thought ANOTHER person has, is strictly regulated and controlled.
Democracy’s a messy thing. Too messy for the faint of heart.
rafflaw
Canada has some pretty draconian laws regarding free speech involving NAZIism, the NAZI Holocaust and it’s symbols. I believe they have a man jailed (or now deported) because he is a NAZI Holocaust denier and published his beliefs. They classify that as a hate crime of some sort.
Not to diminish that particular genocide, but there are a couple others that have been more bloody and deadly. What of their symbols and doctrine, can anyone name them? Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) and Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39).
These types of laws diminish their plight as if the people killed in the NAZI Holocaust are of greater value than these others.
I don’t believe in that type of law that suppresses free speech no matter how incorrect or offensive. It stifles debate, which is the best way to the truth.
teknikAL
1, July 13, 2008 at 6:40 pm
rafflaw
Canada has some pretty draconian laws regarding free speech involving NAZIism, the NAZI Holocaust and it’s symbols. I believe they have a man jailed (or now deported) because he is a NAZI Holocaust denier and published his beliefs. They classify that as a hate crime of some sort.
So Canada “does” have laws restricting membership to the Nazi party, or spinoffs. And apparently to even speaking about it. Which of course adds credence to your position Rafflaw, with regards to the states right to remove the womans kid from her home. At least in Canada.
If it is indeed a law or statute that she is violating in Canada, then of course legally they would have at least some grounds for removing the child, not that I agree with the concept. Like you, I agree it goes against free speech and self expression, which of course actually moves the state closer to the philosophy of the Nazi’s, than does permitting its citizens to exhibit a Nazi symbol.
In America however, it is not illegal to join, or proselyte others to join the Nazi party, so merely painting a swastika on your kid would not be grounds for the state seizing custody of the child, and therefore I am surprise to find some Americans advocating that position.
I find it similar to the flag burning Amendments being constantly proposed before Congress. Americans seem to be easily lulled into concerning themselves over a symbol instead of the principles they represent.
After all, our fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc, fought and died over the course of our country’s history for the rights that flag represents. One of those rights, one of the fundemental ones, is the right to peacefully protest ones government.
Therefore, if one purchases a flag, with his own, legally earned or aqquired monies, and either has a permit to burn, or doesn’t require one in his neighborhood, and chooses to peacefully protest his own government by burning the flag, then that certainly constitutes exercising a constitutionally protected right. Yet Americans and Congressmen every day, from both parties, talk of outlawing flag burning, so as to remove one of the key rights from Americans, that the flag represents.
And of course the real irony in the flag burning Amendment is that the “accepted” way to dispose of a flag is burning. Any former Boy Scout knows that.
Which demonstrates the level of knowledge on the subject of the people suggesting, and supporting such measures. But the real issue is of course the hubris in making a law to make the cloth the flag is printed on more sacred than the principles it stands for. In fact, to remove said principles in order to turn the flag into some sort of false idol.
So too with making laws deciding what philosophies or attitudes people are free to observe. Saying we are free, except when it comes to belief systems and philosophies the majority of us do not like, is to not be free.
As long as those people are not violating laws, or injuring others in some way, then they have the right to assemble, and to think the way they so choose. Whether the rest of us like it or not.
Of course, the school also has the right, even a public school, which is permitted to adjust its codes of conduct based on the communities in which it resides, to keep the girl from wearing such a stupid symbol on their school grounds.
And if the mother, continues to put the swastika on her kid, effectively keeping her from school, and if the mother does not provide another legally recognized venue of learning for the child, then obviously that would constitute grounds for removing the child, as the mother then is guilty of neglecting the childs right to an education and thus would constitute a form of abuse.
It is an interesting case.
technikAL,
Thanks for the primer on Canadian law. After several posts Bartlebee, you came back to the jist of my earlier statement that is is an interesting case. Some people may argue that using your child as a poster for some political protest or demonstration by painting signs or symbols on them, just might be considered harmful to the child. If the parent wants to demonstrate, let them do it. But don’t use the child to make your point. Good night to all.
I can’t believe that all indoctrination is child abuse as was written in an earlier post. If so, then certainly religious indoctrination would count as abuse as well. (Please don’t think that I am comparing Naziism to organized religion, I most certainly am not.) In my mind freedom of expression ends when your words or actions incite imminent physical violence. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know if the law agrees with me. I simply do not see any imminent threat posed by the woman’s addmittedly tasteless actions. The fact that a child is involved is troublesome but not enough reason to have the child removed.
I’m not certain that I agree the government should do anything. I don’t think a government governing free people can impose tolerance on its citizens and still call itself free.
I am sad for the child. I am sad for the situation. I am appauled at the mother’s intolerance and ignorance. I believe the child’s best interests are probably better served by a foster family. But more than anything else, I believe it is not my place to be the one who makes that decision, and certainly not the government’s in a free society.
rafflaw said…
Some people may argue that using your child as a poster for some political protest or demonstration by painting signs or symbols on them, just might be considered harmful to the child.
Why?
Thats another protected constitutional right.
Politicians have been using their children for years to carry signs, and you’ve never heard of “kissin babies”?
That the symbol is distasteful to you does not preclude their constitutional rights to express themselves as they see fit.
Once again, unless you can demonstrate some law or statute is being broken, then how can you assume any sort of legal footing for removing the child? Of course I’m talking about US law, not Canadian now. Obviously if what Tek said is accurate and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then Canadian law has specific statutes against belonging to or symbolizing the Nazi party.
Those laws however do not exist in the United States. So on what legal grounds are you basing this? Because “someone doesn’t like it”?
Thats not a basis for taking children from their parents. And that “some” people “may” argue that a perfectly legal act is harmful to the child, those same “some people” do not have one ounce of legal standing to make that claim.
And implying they do is one of the reasons we’re finding ourselves in this growing police like state. Because we think we have the rights to decide what others can think, and believe. Do I hate Nazi’s? Sure I hate Nazi’s.
But thats the beauty of our flag. All living under it have the right to believe whatever they want, and assemble peacefully under whatever motto or creed they want, as long as they are not breaking the law.
And as I stated earlier, being a member of the Nazi party, or encouraging others to do so, is just not a crime.
So even though some people may feel that some people might make an argument, it is nonetheless not a tenable one.
You can’t decide somethings illegal just because you don’t like it.
Josh
1, July 14, 2008 at 4:24 am
I can’t believe that all indoctrination is child abuse as was written in an earlier post. If so, then certainly religious indoctrination would count as abuse as well. (Please don’t think that I am comparing Naziism to organized religion, I most certainly am not.) In my mind freedom of expression ends when your words or actions incite imminent physical violence. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know if the law agrees with me. I simply do not see any imminent threat posed by the woman’s addmittedly tasteless actions.
And you’re right. They do not pose a threat and no one could make that stretch, not at least plausibly.
As for whether the law agrees with you, the laws in the country usually seem to follow the old addage, “my right to swing ends where your nose begins”.
So no, once again its hard to produce a victim. Perhaps a holocaust survivor might be able to seek some civil compensation for trauma, but even that would be difficult if the person wasn’t rubbing it in their face.
Also, I liked your comparison of religous doctrine and this situation. Because in truth many, many religions can be demonstrated to be harmful to the kids. More mainstream ones than you know, too. For example, cases involving Jehovah’s witnesses have more than once found their way into the courts, usually due to withholding some sort of treatment for an ailing child. But just the concept of teaching kids to fear medicine could be construed by some as harmful to the child. But yet we don’t shut down the JW’s. Why? Because thats life. You don’t get to decide that your way is the best way for everyone. Look at the Amish.
How many more generations of inbreeding there before serious defects begin appearing on a regular basis? Couldn’t that be seen as real physical threats to the kids? But we don’t go round up the Amish.
The fact is life is dangerous to your kid. And children will be raised in all sorts of environments, and that doesn’t really mean a thing. Because kids can die in the safest of environments, and thrive in the worst of them.
At the end of the day, its the roll of the dice, and we can’t go around telling parents how to think, or what to believe in, just because it fits with OUR ideas about what is right and what is wrong. Doing so is to make Ameirca no longer America, but some sort of paranoid, overprotective police state, where busy bodies create smothering rules that the rest of us have to live under.
In this country, its legal to be a Nazi, so this case would be a no brainer. Or at least, it should be.
You can’t call it abuse, if the law recognizes it as a legal, constitutional right.
This type of thinking always “sounds” good when security moms and dads consider the “keeping the kids safe” idea. But they are the pitfalls to totalitariansim.
Just look at police states, where the govt decides who can procreate, and how often. Like China, with their “1 child” rule.
Imagine. Living in such conditions. How could one of us, an American, survive in such conditions. Yet here we are, many of us perfectly ok with the notion of effectively kidnapping someones child, because you don’t like their political philosophy. Which just opens the door to more government interference in the family.
And calling it hate doesn’t make it right either. Is Nazism hate? Sure. But so are most religious beliefs. Most Christian religions hate homosexuals. In many countries Protestants hate Catholics to the point of war. And the Nazi’s don’t have the corner on Anti-Semitism. The Muslims are none too fond either. And Vice Versa. And they all hate us godless heathen.
So there really is no possible way to start deciding which belief systems “cross the line” other than a “one size fits all” policy. It must be a level playing field and therefore we only start drawing lines where laws are being broken or people are getting hurt.
To do otherwise is to open a can of worms we’d never get the lid back on. First its Nazi’s. Then its the Communists. Then its the Libertarians. Then its the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on, and so on.
One thing you can be sure of when you decide to start deciding what people think, and that is you’re never gonna stop.
And defining what the word “hurt” means, is like straining at the meaning of the word “is”.
We all know what it means to be hurt.
And being exposed at a young age to some experiences, and or doctrines and philosophies that may be considered negative in general society, like say a single mother who supports her two children by dancing in a stripper bar, or a father who is a gun buff, and teaches his son to hunt and kill at a young age.
Once we start defining the meaning of harm, we will end up with an encyclopedia of potential “hurts” so thick the sheer tonnage of it will crush us.
Sorry for leaving that thought dangling.
I meant to say that being exposed at a young age to some experiences, and or doctrines and philosophies that may be considered negative in general society, like say a single mother who supports her two children by dancing in a stripper bar, or a father who is a gun buff, and teaches his son to hunt and kill at a young age, is NOT considered “harm” as per how the law defines harm.
Nor is your mom drawing a fake tattoo on her kid of a distasteful symbol.
Josh:
“If so, then certainly religious indoctrination would count as abuse as well.”
****************
There are many people who think that religious indoctrination is abuse. There is a significant difference between education and indoctrination. The primary distinction being that dogmatism always accompanies indoctrination as opposed to the encouragement to question things found in education.I give your the Branch Davidians and Jonestown as just two examples. Even mainstream religion postulates dogmatism and infallibility, and as such constitutes an abuse of the mind as has been pointed out by intellectuals from Thomas Jefferson to Professor Richard Dawkins. Such training leaves many recipients with a predisposition to demean those who oppose the indoctrination. If you look carefully on this blog you might even see some evidence of that.
Mespo,
Sorry to not reply back. Yesterday was my group’s dance performance, part of which was in the river at night! (No snakes were handled.)
If you watch the documentary, Jesus Camp (very well done but really depressing) you will see clearly that the parents do want to train suicide bombers for Christ. Pick your religion or secular cause, there are always people who would sacrifice their children for it or teach them to sacrifice others. In these extreme cases I think a child should be removed for their safety and wellbeing. I don’t think this violates the law as we do have laws against killing and mass murder.
Here’s where the harder part comes in for me. I know many Christians who teach their children to HATE any lesbian, gay or non-believing person. They don’t stress that these people should be killed, but if you go to a Christian bookstore you’ll find some unwholesome references to that idea. This “right up to the line” stuff is pretty common.
Then I am familiar with “ruthless economic parent syndrome”. In this case the indoctrination is: be obediant, do your work, do not think , get into a good school and pick one of only a handful of jobs. This lovely worldview also produces children who HATE. They hate the poor–people in non-prestigious jobs who don’t make a ton of money. They hate those who don’t have power in their society. It produces some of our society’s worst criminals. It produces adults who believe in PNAC and justify torture. It produces traders who laugh about cutting off people’s power while they make money. To my mind these are very scary people.
So I see various types of truly destructive child indoctrination in many aspects of our society. Creating enough spaces where these forms of indoctrination are questioned is helpful. Creating spaces where children are loved and accepted is a good idea. Children and adults who are secure. (or at least more secure) within themselves and have been allowed at least a few times to make up their own mind about what they are being told will be able to make meaningful choices in their lives. So I guess I would say pluralism is one of the strongest helps in breaking free of indoctrination.
I hope this was at least semi clear. I do understand the horror of Nazi indoctrination. I am hoping that this child’s interaction with the “wrong” people at her school will cause chips to break in the Nazi armor. The school could certainly do lessons about the holocaust, about the many genocides that have occurred throughout human history, and they could take on the sociology of belief in general.
Jill
Jill:
I was specifically thinking of “Jesus Camp” and the myriad of other kooky things perpetrated against kids in the name of religion. Is there any indoctrination that would be grounds to deny parents the right to raise children? What if they preached but did not practice incest? Or their parenting style was to scream and berate the kids all day? Does society have no interest in ensuring that families are producing well adjusted citizens capable of handling freedom and tolerance? I agree that schools do socialize children to some extent, but the advent of home schooling vitiates this beneficial product of education. I have civil liberties concerns here as well, but this doctrine of hate seems egregious enough for me to equate it with mental abuse.
J&M,
At the risk eavesdropping (although how one eavesdrops on a public forum I’m not to sure) and of making an overly long post that nobody’s going to read (hint hint), I’m going to offer up a slightly different perspective on what you’re talking about. I grew up attending an Evangelical Free church (I always described us as Baptists that clap on the wrong beat). The hatred of non-believers wasn’t taught outright. It was a byproduct of a couple of highly stressed beliefs.
I was told that we should be separate from “the world” and that having non-christian friends was more likely to “drag me down” then “pull them up.” I was never all that clear about how that related to spreading the Gospel. There was also a deep rooted sense of being persecuted by the secular aspects of society (which is why I’m a little more sympathetic to which-ever Martha it was that’s super religious, I know how hypersensitive it makes one to be told ‘they’re out to get us’ all the time). Put those two ideas together and you’ve got a pretty good reason to dislike anyone that fits into the label of non-believer.
As far as indoctrination methods go it seemed relatively tame at the time. We did see a bunch of badly produced shock videos. Kid’s dying in car accidents and going to Hell was a big idee fixe. There were also camps where we sang bad music (If I were God I’d be pretty pissed that I went from getting Bach to getting Micheal W Smith) and listened to speakers talk about the afore mentioned beliefs. Although I used the camps mainly as a way to meet cute girls.
What I think separates the Church I grew up attending from
being a place that teaches a “doctrine of hate” was the REST of the messages we were given. For every sermon about being a stranger in a strange land there was one on helping the poor stranger on the side of the road and one on Jesus eating with the Tax collector. Were there people who ignored the parts of the Bible that started with sentiments like “what ever you do to the least of these?” Yes, but they were a small percent. Mostly it was just a bunch of people who were trying to raise their kids to pray before going to bed and to be nice to other people.
Mespo,
I do think every society should try for this goal and I agrree that teaching a doctrine of hate is mental abuse. I’m not trying to deflect what you’re saying, but what do you think about all the other instances I mentioned, even the secular hate doctrines which have produced our current president and bush? This stuff is everywhere in one form or another. Additionally, there really are whole groups of parents who believe any parent who isn’t bringing their child up in a religious instituion is an unfit parent. Christians took away native american children because they thought the native americans’ religion was inferior to their own.
Gyges:
Eavesdrop away. My comment referred to those not in the conversation or not welcome to participate in conversations I am having. I don’t consider my posts a billboard at all times especially when I am talking with someone directly. As far as I am concerned you are always a welcome member of the conversation. Plus I like your points in the recent post which provided some personal perspective.
Jill:
I think secular hate and religious hate are from the same tree and believe that to be abuse if taught to children. I also agree that any philosophy that teaches unwarranted hate is undesirable and its promulgation is abuse. I don’t like being so black or white on the issue, but I have seen the aftermath and its destructiveness outweighs notions of freedom of expression and religion when put into action.
Messpo said..
If you look carefully on this blog you might even see some evidence of that.
Yea.
Like in the constant unwarranted attacks for example, from you and your mental midget common-law partner, russ on Bartlebee, each and every time you see him post a comment.
That would be a good example of attempts at mental abuse, if of course you two pinheads didn’t get your ass handed to you, each time you open your mouths to put your own feet in them.
Like for example, how with each post Bartlebee makes in any thread, regardless of its content, russ starts the attack and or recites his infatile pejorative poem, and messpot jumps on and declares, “good one russ”.
I’m guessing russ is the big dog, and messpots the little yapper dog lapping at his feet?
They do however make a cute couple, I’m sure.
Dumb and Dumberer.
mespo727272
1, July 14, 2008 at 11:55 am
Gyges:
Eavesdrop away. My comment referred to those not in the conversation or not welcome to participate in conversations I am having. I don’t consider my posts a billboard at all times especially when I am talking with someone directly.
Oh look Gyges.
Messpots given you permission to post without his “by” or “leave”.
How utterly benevolant of him, to permit another blogger to comment.
He has of course decreed that I cannot comment however, without his first “inviting” me to do so.
Whether I’m speaking to him or not.
Good thing he’s a two bit punk with a big mouth, that doesn’t have one ounce of say so over who speaks in here, or who doesn’t, ay?
But its always fun to watch him stomp his little feet, and throw a tantrum when Bartlebee ignores his demands, and comments in this public blog, in spite of his impotent demands.
Messpot said.
I think secular hate and religious hate are from the same tree and believe that to be abuse if taught to children.
Of course you would.
Because you like police state rule. You’ve demonstrated that in here, by your ridiculous demands that I not be permitted to speak unless you first decree that I can.
You, like your friend there, are “busy-bodies”.
Cackling hens with big mouths, bigger egos, and a desire to control the thoughts, actions and lives of all those around you.
You are the greatest danger to democracies everywhere. Because people like you, don’t appreciate democracy, or freedom.
You’re too worried about keeping your fat, precious, mini-van driving, T-ball asses “safe”.
My suggestion?
You and the rest like you, purchase one of those steel “Panic rooms”, climb in, shut the door behind you, and we’ll call you big heroes when its “safe” to come out.
Might be a while though.
Gyges said…
For every sermon about being a stranger in a strange land there was one on helping the poor stranger on the side of the road and one on Jesus eating with the Tax collector. Were there people who ignored the parts of the Bible that started with sentiments like “what ever you do to the least of these?” Yes, but they were a small percent. Mostly it was just a bunch of people who were trying to raise their kids to pray before going to bed and to be nice to other people.
Yes, today theres thousands of churches doing likewise. There members hear beautiful sermons, right before their encouraged to go out and vote to bomb 20 million people in the middle east back to the stone ages.
Its all in perspective, and therefore, the slippery slope of permitting the perspective of people like messpot to make the rules the rest of us live under, is of course a no brainer.
Just like messpot.
russ:
There’s that buzzing again. It may be time to cue your poem just one last time. Apparently, it’s having a deleterious effect on someone’s affect. This is really too easy and we need to quit tugging on “Superman’s” cape, lest he declare victory over us yet again and fly off to Krypton to join the other invincible superheroes — as his head explodes. LOL
mespo727272
1, July 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm
This is really too easy
Words no doubt oft repeated during your conception.
Personal attacks are childish – enough said.
Also, why only point out the negatives of the Nazi government? The most important thing that Hitler ever did was to destroy the British Empire, which enslaved hundreds of millions of people (India, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt…). In fact EVERY country that didn’t get rid of the British by the 19th century is still a Third World country. Thanks to the Nazis, now the sun barely rises on the British Empire.
Also, wouldn’t you say it’s evil indoctrination if parents told their children that only they, by virtue of their birth would go to Heaven and ALL other people were condemned to Hell because they weren’t fortunate enough to be born into that race/religion?
zakimar:
“The most important thing that Hitler ever did was to destroy the British Empire, …”
You might be surprised to learn that Hitler lost WW2, and the Empire was converted into Commonwealth status by agreement. I doubt many of the victims murdered by the Nazi’s, or any of those who fought that barbarism (or their offspring) would thank the Nazi’s for anything. Your suggestion is akin to “thanking” the Klu Klux Klan for the increased sale of rope.
“Also, wouldn’t you say it’s evil indoctrination if parents told their children that only they, by virtue of their birth would go to Heaven and ALL other people were condemned to Hell because they weren’t fortunate enough to be born into that race/religion?’
**************************
Yes indeed. That is really the crux of this war against terrorists wouldn’t you agree?
First of all, I’m sure the hundreds of millions of people freed from British rule would disagree with you. Just listen to how the British were “thanked” at the official ceremony when their “100 year lease” over Hong Kong expired. Btw, the killing of innocent people should never be called “important” by any civilized people.
And secondly, do some research, Jews think they are the Chosen People by birthright, so if the terrorism is Israeli, I’d agree with you.
PS. Hitler lost the battle but won the war. Think about it.
Ich glaube nicht.
Not too many people want to make the effort. Ignorance is bliss – until the knock is on YOUR door.
It was not a swastika. She drew a sunwheel, a religious PAGAN symbol.
Firstly, I love how we respond to a facist symbol in a tolerant and free society with facism.
I agree Ms. Mespo is another do as I say not as I do liberal, “Does society have no interest in ensuring that families are producing well adjusted citizens capable of handling freedom and tolerance? I agree that schools do socialize children to some extent, but the advent of home schooling vitiates this beneficial product of education. I have civil liberties concerns here as well, but this doctrine of hate seems egregious enough for me to equate it with mental abuse.”
Every study shows and logic dictates that children are best adjusted growing up in a household with both a Father and a Mother, yet the goverment schools are “socializing” our children to accept and revere homosexuality. A stable family headed by a man and woman is in the best interest to society.
Ms. Mespo asserts that homeschooling vitiates governemnt education! If only that were true. Religion is love and understanding that the world does not revolve around you. It allows values and judgements to keep us all on track. How is religion not of great value to society. Ms. Mespo wants, I’m OK Your OK, except if you don’t agree with her. She is the only one who can judge.
The government has absolutely NO right in stealing other peoples children, because of there personal beliefs… this is a complete undermining of our rights and freedoms…
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it…
We must remain steadfast as our rights and freedoms are being taken away by government…
What was that case about the Yarmulke and the military. Ok, I understand that. Then the Arm Bands on school property. Why could not a bandage been applied over this childs arm? This is BULL S**T.
Telling children that they cannot be proud of their race and ancestry is also child abuse. Modern multiculturalists and egalitarians will accept and encourage racial pride in ANY race but the white race. Liberals think Freedom of Speech is great as long as it is for their own personal use.
What is the difference between the ” indoctrination” of the parent who teaches their children to be vegetarian, Christian, Jewish, or raises them in a openly homosexual household? That also effects a child’s belief system and can create lifelong “scars”….
April:
are you serious? I think there is just a tad bit of difference between a Vegan and a Nazi.
I don’t think I would want my ancestors trotted out if they had been involved in mass murder, but then that is just me.
April:
you do know that your website is as full of shit as your views?
Vegetarians didn’t kill 6 million Jews, Roma, homosexuals, the mentally ill and those with birth defects. There’s a big difference between not being ashamed of your race and wallowing in moment in time that is the Gold Standard for human barbarism. Hate is not a family value, even for the Addams Family. It’s a weakness that makes you prey to those who would use you for their ends. It’s a handle on your head just like fear is. Just waiting for some sociopath to come along and start pulling you around. You aren’t raising “proud Arayan warriors”. You’re raising victims.
Byron,
I hate Illinois Nazis. I imagine after going to Stormfront you need to go take a shower. This might also be cathartic.
Gyges:
you bet.
The really scary part about the Nazi’s, they were just average people. The Germans were really into it to. I could get into the philosophy but I wont. But I will say they had about 100 years of bullshit that paved the intellectual way for the Nazi’s. The German people were easy pickings for Hitler and Goebbels.
I wonder what people that visit that Stormfront website believe as a core life philosophy? I doubt individual rights is high on their hit parade.