Unbelievable Quote

[carlimac]

Judge for yourself.

Lean Forward... Collectively: Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC Ad Says All Of Your Children Belong To Us - YouTube

On the contrary, that's precisely what she was arguing.

It is only when children become the property of the collective- and subject to the wisdom and judgement of the collective- that we can truly begin making "wise investments".

In this case, "wise investments" is not limited merely to money- it also means protecting children from backward and antiquated notions such as "parental rights" and "radical" religious beliefs- such as thoughs espoused by evangelicals and Catholics.

The entire premise for banning cigarettes, high-calorie drinks, salt, and a myriad of other personal liberties is the notion that the public will wind up paying for them through their taxes.

The nanny-staters are already trying to control what you eat, drink, and think.

How much worse will it be when your children suddenly become their stewardship?

Then you're not paying attention.

Her entire premise is that children are the property of the State (rather than the responsibility of their parents) and that the STATE needs to be looking out for them.

I read the whole thing. She was talking about education and making wise use of money to benefit children. There are many out there (single, childless or who have grown kids) who don't want taxes to go to education because they don't think it benefits themselves. My husband was on a library board and there were some good old boys who didn't want to build a new library ( even though the one the community had was a one little room affair) because they didn't see the need for it. They weren't concerned for the kids OR the adults who would use it. They were selfish old goats who only worried about when they could turn their water onto their land. Beyond that, education was useless to them. They had no sense of community. Their mindset was- Their YOUR kids. YOU educate em and don't make ME pay for it.

This has NOTHING to do with taking parent's rights away. The soft drink thing? It doesn't just apply to kids. And actually, if people drank less or NO soda they'd be healthier. I don't believe there should be laws against it but there is some redeeming notion behind the whole idea. Nutrition in schools? Well for pete's sake, if your kids don't like the healthy lunch the school provides, no one is stopping you from making them a PB and J sandwich for lunch and sending it in a bag.

Her premise is NOT that children belong to the state. That's boloney. But sadly there are many children who don't get enough looking after by their parents. Yes some kids DO need extra help from the state.

I think you're wrong Selek. I usually agree with you but this time I believe the paranoia from the extreme right and those who capitalize on make a living on controversy is skewing this way off.

[LittleWyvern]

The nanny-staters are already trying to control what you eat, drink, and think.

Ok, this is going to sound weird, but I've gotta ask: are you Alex Jones?

If not, he pretty much did

.

[carlimac]

But the schooling isn't effective without an involved parent unless the child has the drive to excel on their own.

Sometimes it's not a parent but a teacher who inspires a child to break out of the rut. It doesn't happen often enough, though.

[Anddenex]

This has NOTHING to do with taking parent's rights away. The soft drink thing? It doesn't just apply to kids. And actually, if people drank less or NO soda they'd be healthier. I don't believe there should be laws against it but there is some redeeming notion behind the whole idea. Nutrition in schools? Well for pete's sake, if your kids don't like the healthy lunch the school provides, no one is stopping you from making them a PB and J sandwich for lunch and sending it in a bag.

Unfortunately, this has everything to do with removing rights from the child's lawful parents. How far do you want to enter into this slippery slope?

The statement should have said, "Children are the rights of their parents. In addition to the parents rights, we as a community should offer our support."

Have a click on JAG's link again and then ask yourself, does it ever happen?

[selek]

This has NOTHING to do with taking parent's rights away.

Nonsense. This is simply one more incremental step in that direction.

The soft drink thing? It doesn't just apply to kids. And actually, if people drank less or NO soda they'd be healthier.

This is an established medical fact- but it's not the government's place to tell me what I eat or feed my children.

Soda pop is a legal product. The government has no legitimate right or authority to tell me how much to drink.

That whole, incovenient Fourth Amendment thing- "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"- says so.

Nutrition in schools? Well for pete's sake, if your kids don't like the healthy lunch the school provides, no one is stopping you from making them a PB and J sandwich for lunch and sending it in a bag.

Your ignorance is staggering.

U.S. schoolchildren now subjected to sack lunch searches by government agents who enforce nutritional insanity

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough | TheBlaze.com

Food Police Update: Nanny State School Outlaws Students’ Homemade Sack Lunches Because Parents Not Capable of Making Wise Food Choices… FLOTUS Would Be SO Proud « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Criminalizing Brown-Bag Lunches | The Barr Code

School Bake Sales Become Target Of Childhood Obesity Fight, Face District Bans

Her premise is NOT that children belong to the state.

Her premise is that that we need to get past the "antiquated" notion that children belong to their parents and are "our" responsibility.

That is a direct assault on both parental rights and on the order outlined in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

But sadly there are many children who don't get enough looking after by their parents. Yes some kids DO need extra help from the state.

So- because some children need extra help, ALL children become wards of the State?

According to that reasoning, some people need to be confined to mental institutions, therefore EVERYONE should be so confined.

Yes- the example is absurd: but so is the rationale you and the twit from MSNBC are employing.

I think you're wrong Selek. I usually agree with you but this time I believe the paranoia from the extreme right and those who capitalize on make a living on controversy is skewing this way off.

Yes- you can chalk it up to paranoia, but the diagnosis is "less than convincing" given your demonstrable lack of information.

Edited April 9, 2013 by selek

[selek]

---

The next step is "YOU can't raise your children"

It's already begun:

Obama Admin Wants to Deport Christian Homeschoolers - Todd Starnes -

---

The Administration is explicitly affirming the notion that the German State can override the will of the parents and inculcate its own values over theirs.

How long until American parents are given the same treatment?

Not long:

Look Out for Eroding of Parental Authority - Marybeth Hicks - Page 1

New Hampshire Learns Lesson in Parental Rights - Marybeth Hicks - Page 1

Judge Green Lights Exploitation of Girls With Over-the-Counter Morning After Pill Ruling - Katie Pavlich

According to the State, you are already unfit to determine what you children eat, have no right to help decide what they are taught in school (and no right to opt out), and, oh yes, no right to keep them from abusing a dangerous cocktail of medications designed to abort pregnancies.

So...how long until we are deemed totally unfit to raise our children without the permission and approval of the benevolent and all-caring State?

Not long.

[talisyn]

gah. you know, just once it would be nice to have a decent conversation.

[selek]

gah. you know, just once it would be nice to have a decent conversation.

I believe daffodils are nice and non-confrontational...

...shall we start a thread to discuss the topic?...

...or are you one of those carnationand-sunflower-loving heretics who insist on turning everything into a fight?

[Saldrin]

we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. ~Melissa Harris-Perry MSNBC anchor

Does that mean it takes a whole village to raise an idiot?

[selek]

Does that mean it takes a whole village to raise an idiot?

Why bother raising our own when we can get them surplus in the MSNBC parking lot for pennies on the dollar?

[Vort]

My Bishop said something very similar to me when he extended me my current calling of teaching the 14-15 year olds. He said that while it is hoped for that most youth in the church are receiving gospel instruction in the home, the fact is that many aren't, and so he wanted to me to try to give these teens the best opportunity for gospel instruction it was within my little 50 minute window to give them so that they could hopefully go out into the world as young adults with strong testimonies.

It is every parents' responsibility to raise children that will be a benefit to society, but not every parent will live up to their responsibilities, and so we need to do what is within our power to do to help them as closely reach their full potential, rather than allowing them to grow up knowing only neglect and ignorance, and potentially going down destructive paths that could end up harming more than just themselves.

The question is, do we take choice out of the hands of the responsible parents to try to protect the children of the irresponsible?

The answer is: Those who believe so need not be told to go to hell, because they've already established residence.

Is it any wonder we homeschool?

[MorningStar]

Sometimes it's not a parent but a teacher who inspires a child to break out of the rut. It doesn't happen often enough, though.

But every child will need some help at home and they can't bring that teacher home with them. The teacher isn't going to pick them up for before and after school programs when extra help is needed. A teacher might make them care more, which is good, but I can't imagine how I would have made it through school without my parents. And when they couldn't explain things anymore, they hired a tutor for me.

[Guest]

But every child will need some help at home and they can't bring that teacher home with them. The teacher isn't going to pick them up for before and after school programs when extra help is needed. A teacher might make them care more, which is good, but I can't imagine how I would have made it through school without my parents. And when they couldn't explain things anymore, they hired a tutor for me.

In addition... a classroom is a generalized teaching method. It is targetted at commonalities. It is not practical to expect a teacher to tailor a lesson to every individual's learning method. The home is where you get that individualization to guarantee success.

[carlimac]

Your ignorance is staggering.

And so is your conceit.

A few examples of over zealous nutritionists and you think they're coming to take the kids away. Jumping to wild conclusions? I suggest you lay off the news for awhile and look at everyday reality in your own neighborhood. Relax and take some deep breaths.

[carlimac]

But every child will need some help at home and they can't bring that teacher home with them. The teacher isn't going to pick them up for before and after school programs when extra help is needed. A teacher might make them care more, which is good, but I can't imagine how I would have made it through school without my parents. And when they couldn't explain things anymore, they hired a tutor for me.

So what is your solution to the problem of parents who don't care? Do we just flush those kids down the toilet because they're a lost cause?

[carlimac]

Unfortunately, this has everything to do with removing rights from the child's lawful parents. How far do you want to enter into this slippery slope?

The statement should have said, "Children are the rights of their parents. In addition to the parents rights, we as a community should offer our support."

Have a click on JAG's link again and then ask yourself, does it ever happen?

Yes, it was worded awkwardly. And yes it happens when there is cause for concern. I watched the whole Texas thing as it was happening and thought it was over-the-top at the time. But then look what happened to Warren Jeffs. Perhaps law enforcement were at least partially in the right. This wasn't a normal, mostly law-abiding neighborhood they were dealing with. There were multitudes of young children in danger. Young girls having the babies of old men and young boys being severly neglected and shunned from their homes. In fact I'm surprised this kind of take over hasn't hasn't happened in other places, too.

Would this type of thing happen in a generic American town? No. The government isn't going to come in and round up kids for no good reason.

I have heard of individual kids from isolated families being taken away when they shouldn't have been. But it was always proven that the agent involved hadn't done their homework or were not following policy.

Edited April 9, 2013 by carlimac

[selek]

And so is your conceit.

Ooooohhh, you have no idea!

I was thinking of changing my name to Rei de Tutti (King of Everything), but you can call me "Ray".

A few examples of over zealous nutritionists and you think they're coming to take the kids away. Jumping to wild conclusions? I suggest you lay off the news for awhile and look at everyday reality in your own neighborhood. Relax and take some deep breaths.

I live in Utah (snow country) and I trained in pattern recognition and failure analysis in the service.

How many "few examples of overzealous snowflakes" does it take before it becomes an avalanche?

Or as my youngest might put it, "How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Toostie-pop?"

Fifteen points if you can name the movie from whence the "Ray" quote originates.

Edited April 9, 2013 by selek

[Jamie123]

Isn't that the same thing as saying it takes a whole village to raise kids?

I remember studying the Mbuti tribe when I was at school, and that was exactly their view of raising kids. They have no nuclear families. All the adults in the tribe are parents to all the children.

[Windseeker]

I've noticed since this whole "takes a village" thing took off during the Clinton years the burden on parents has increased. I can't believe the projects, reading, homework demands on parents now days. I don't remember having anywhere near the amount of homework my kids have. It makes me think the teachers don't teach anymore they just hand out homework. At the same time it doesn't feel like kids are any smarter either.

I believe more then ever the advantage for Children in two parent homes has only increased. Having been a single parent for many years I'm speaking from experience. I don't know how any single parent can make it these days with the demands to work and do all the schooling for children. The state isn't just encouraging people to live on the dole they are forcing people with their policy.

[Anddenex]

Would this type of thing happen in a generic American town? No. The government isn't going to come in and round up kids for no good reason.

I have heard of individual kids from isolated families being taken away when they shouldn't have been. But it was always proven that the agent involved hadn't done their homework or were not following policy.

I assume this is where we disagree carlimac, a government that is provided absolute power, or convincing a population that the community is more important than the family, then yes, unfortunately we will see this happen.

My concern, what is a "good reason"? What happens when the "good reasons" of those in your community do not line up with the "good reasons" of the individual family?

I believe your last paragraph puts the hammer on the head. Agents have, and continue to abuse power. The child shouldn't of been taking from the home in the first place without proper investigation, the fact that the child was removed and isolated from the parents...speaks volumes...at least to me.

[Anddenex]

gah. you know, just once it would be nice to have a decent conversation.

Well, if everyone would just agree with me, we would never have a non-nice argument

[Just_A_Guy]

Would this type of thing happen in a generic German town? No. The government isn't going to come in and round up Jews for no good reason..

It's surprising how fast things can go downhill in an ostensibly "civilized", western society. And YFZ shows us that there are plenty of people in this country who would break up a family for no stronger reason than ideological/religious differences with the parents.

That should scare the bejeebies out of every Mormon in this country, IMHO.

[dahlia]

I heard that garbage on Limbaugh. I'd like to say I can't believe it, but since it's a lib, yeah, what's new. Fortunately, I think that even people who aren't very political are gonna get political when the state starts coming after their kids.

There's an old song from Paul Kantner and Jefferson Starship, 'A Child is Coming,' with these lyrics,

"What you gonna do when Uncle Samuel comes around

Askin' for the young one's name

And lookin' for the print of his hand for the files in their numbers game

I don't want his chance for freedom to ever be that slim

Let's not tell 'em about him --"

Call me an old hippie, but I still have these feelings. When people say they want to run off to Montana or Wyoming and get off of the grid, I understand. Personally, I'm thinking of getting a few acres and a double-wide when I retire; get away from everyone.

[carlimac]

It's funny that a few of you are treating my statements as if I'm a liberal. I'm not. I have a healthy wariness of government but I'm trying to balance "the sky is falling" overreaction to this woman's words with reason and reality. To take these words as literal "we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities" is tripping y'all up. Don't we ALL "belong" to a community? That doesn't mean the Community "owns" us. Does the Church own us if we belong to it? I think some of you are jumping at shadows. Yes, Big Govt. wants to get into our lives too much but I think your imaginations are taking you for a wild ride on this woman's comments.

[applepansy]

I can completely understand this. I guess my thought was more along the lines of teaching them correct values and principles, while not sheltering them completely away from things so much that when they go into the world on their own, they're not prepared for it. I think there needs to be careful knowledge of less-than-virtuous things, in order to help teach one's own children and properly navigate the dark and spacious world.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense. But what you're saying has nothing to do with the village raising your children. Rather you're saying you need to let your children be aware of the pitfalls inthe village so they can guard against them.

Am I correct?