Thread: Qualifications for parents

Originally Posted by mhailey

I don't buy it. The article states that the fatehr is claiming that he lost custody because of his religious preference. However, the article goes on to describe an almost textbook case of abusive/controlling husband/father. There is more to the story than "I lost my kids because I am agnostic."

The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.

Originally Posted by markevens

The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.

It also does not indicate that he was not. It did indicate that used profanity in front of the children, failed to control his anger, stalked the mother of the children, and got into a violent confrontation with the mother's boyfriend.

However, all of that to the side, it must be due to his agnostic belief.

Originally Posted by mhailey

It also does not indicate that he was not. It did indicate that used profanity in front of the children, failed to control his anger, stalked the mother of the children, and got into a violent confrontation with the mother's boyfriend.

However, all of that to the side, it must be due to his agnostic belief.

The boyfriend is the one that started a fight with him. And even though the mother, “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats,” (all far worse than cussing in front of a child) she gets to keep the kids.

Originally Posted by markevens

The boyfriend is the one that started a fight with him. And even though the mother, “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats,” (all far worse than cussing in front of a child) she gets to keep the kids.

Look, I'm not taking sides. I'm saying that there is MUCH more to the story than "The judge took my kids away because I'm agnostic."

Your assertion is MUCH too symplified.

Originally Posted by markevens

And what, pray tell, are your conditions for "proof."

If you would have omiited "pray tell" and the tone it invokes, I would have happily answered your question. I will leave you to research the answer yourself. I'll give you a hint though, proofs are not one's opinions, wishes or beliefs.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

A well thought out post with many valid points. What you are saying, in effect, is that ideally foster parents should be people with no strongly held belief in anything, especially any organised religion.

That is not what I said at all, I have no issue with those of religious belief of any sort from fostering children. I'n fact I believ that the kindness taught in all the major religions would be a blessing and benefit to a child in need.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

For example, if our family had fostered a child we would have needed to find somewhere for the child to be looked after on Sunday morning if attendance at Sunday school was deemed unacceptable. Likewise festivals such as Christmas and Easter would have presented logistical problems.

Yes you are perfectly correct in that matter, if you are willing to put yourself in a position of assisting a person in need, you must also accept the possibility that it may put you out to a certain degree.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

My wife taught primary school for many years , starting in Canada in the late 1960s, followed by Scotland and then England. Towards the end of her career it was becoming 'politically incorrect' to celebrate or express belief in very much at all. At her last school, even the time honoured tradition of making fathers day cards was eventually ruled out by the headteacher, on the basis that it was discriminating against the third of the class who didn't have a father in the household.

And as for this, as I pointed out, the argument here isn't wether you have the right to express your beliefs, or wether it's politically correct to express them in public, it is in fact wether you have the right to insist someone who you are choosing to care for follow that belief when in fact it may not be their own.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Thank you for a highly logical and well thought out response!

I guess my remaining question is a matter of whether the article correctly states the bit about "teaching them that it is OK".

Again I believe to provide a loving and caring and *accepting* environment is quite another thing than actively teaching a particular subject.

You're veryu welcome bbshriver

To be honest I find that claim to be dubious at best, I think that it's more likely that they where informed they couldn't tell the child it's wrong, as opposed to being forced to tell the child it's right, and to be honest there is a fair difference in my mind.

Originally Posted by HNSB

That brings me back to the question of who gets to be the ultimate authority on what are "common beliefs or moral code" vs. what is indoctrinating a child with an "individual's beliefs". In the case of homosexuality, it is probably not as grey (at least in the minds of most) as other topics may be. It seems to me, that there needs to be a way to establish the line of what is acceptable vs. not acceptable to teach a foster child.

You're right, there does have to be a way to make these differentiations, however, the line that I personally would draw, is that the child has the right to make up their mind on the lifestyle they wish to live, and as long as that lifestyle is within the law and is not harming the person, then you don't have a right to tell them it's wrong, and if their choice is not to follow your moral beliefs, you have no right to try to enforce it on them, and this is based back on the logic, that child is not your child.

Sorry this is so long, but it was too late to post last night, so I'm catching up

Geek

Originally Posted by pcb01

My spiritual journey has been my spiritual journey. Very different from my parents'.

My son's spiritual journey will be his spiritual journey. I only pray that my God (and his) will bless and direct him.

Now just to stir your mind a bit here, what if he chooses a spiritual path that holds a Goddess in higher favour than a God?!...Indeed what if he chooses to follow a path that has a pantheon of goddess'/gods. I hope you won't be too upset by his choices then...I say each to there own personally.


Mick

Originally Posted by TheGeek

You're veryu welcome bbshriver

To be honest I find that claim to be dubious at best, I think that it's more likely that they where informed they couldn't tell the child it's wrong, as opposed to being forced to tell the child it's right, and to be honest there is a fair difference in my mind.

If that was the case, and the article misquoted, I would re-think my opinion on the matter. I agree there's a distinct difference in the two. Personally, as a Christian, I believe it's my job to show God's love, not be a judge of character. Thankfully, God will do the judging himself, and I needn't burden myself with that.

You're right, there does have to be a way to make these differentiations, however, the line that I personally would draw, is that the child has the right to make up their mind on the lifestyle they wish to live, and as long as that lifestyle is within the law and is not harming the person, then you don't have a right to tell them it's wrong, and if their choice is not to follow your moral beliefs, you have no right to try to enforce it on them, and this is based back on the logic, that child is not your child.

Sorry this is so long, but it was too late to post last night, so I'm catching up

Geek

I agree with you, and I believe your post is relatively in line with Christian teaching. Everyone has to make the choice on their own grounds.

I'm supposed to help show people the way to the Kingdom of God, but I can't knock you out and drag you there.. merely help you figure out the map, if you ask.

It is interesting how even today things like religion and sexuality clash. Recently, about few months ago we had TV talk show with high church officials, politicians etc talking about the topic or how Lutherian Church should consider sexual minorities. Now i do not know for sure but i think that currently priests are not allowed to pray with or for persons who are not straight.
At some point of the conversation the chair woman of the Christian Democratic party told her heavy opinions about the terms marriage and sex: their only purpose is to produce children. It is what the Old testament teaches, she said. Through the years she has told in public about many other 'interesting' opinions she has and this was just a last in line.
However, as a result of her statement more than 30 000 Finns did resign from the Church within 2 weeks and in the low population country like this it is a huge, i mean real huge number of people.
I have no issues with this as i do not belong to those minorities and i am no member of any religious instance either, yet i have no bad feeling towards either as well.
I do not know what this means. Maybe sooner or later the Church has to consider the fact that everyone isn't ready to bite and swallow all opinions that some camel shepherds wrote down thousands years ago or so.
Little off topic i know.

Originally Posted by frank47

I never was going to since I never made the claim it was unnatural. In fact I never made any claim one way or the other for this entire thread. What is the root cause of homosexuality as far as I am concerned is unknown. If one states they know the root cause, all I ask is to prove it.

It meets the definition of being natural. So there is no reason to believe it's unnatural.

Nobody claimed to know why one human is homosexual and the others aren't.

You won't define unnatural and you won't even state what you'll accept as "proof". So there is no point to this discussion.

And you won't get proof in science. Just evidence.