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…

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.

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.

“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?

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?

This is really too easy

Words no doubt oft repeated during your conception.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

But we don’t take peoples children away for that in this country.

At least not yet.

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.

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.

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″ “

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.

But in all fairness, he would make a great Nazi.

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.

Did you hearing a buzzing sound on the blog recently? It’s annoying but unintelligible.

Perhaps then we should try not acting like them.

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.

And since I was responding to Rafflaw, and not you, you can kiss my rosy red ass.

Pucker up.

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?

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.