Thread: Qualifications for parents

Parents should always keep in mind that their personal beliefs aren't always best for the child. Unfortunately so many people these days have lack of common sense or they are so high in their personal believes/hobbies/work that they simply have no skills/time/energy to raise their kids. It is a shame.

My wife works for psychiatric hospital for children. That is most depressing work i can imagine. Seeing those little mistreated kids day after day. That is something most of us can't even imagine.

I'm not saying there are single one right way to raise a child. It is rather that child comes first; personal opinions are not that important.

Originally Posted by Sailor

I'm not saying there are single one right way to raise a child. It is rather that child comes first; personal opinions are not that important.

An old friend of mine is a foster parent. He and his wife have 4 kids of their own IIRC, and then they take care of kids that are placed with them by child services for a couple of months because the parents are in rehab, or jail, or temporarily relieved of their rights as legal guardian (abuse or investigations).

While I acknowledge that what he is doing is extremely generous and benefical to the wellbeing of the kids, it is also extremely hard to deal with the emotional side. Because often the kids have to go back to parents that are anything but suited to raising kids. Yet their biological bond trumps most other considerations. So the kids go back to misery with a very high probability that the problems will repeat themselves, and they all know they'll be back with the foster parents, several months later.

Personally I would not know how to deal with that without becoming terribly jaded. Especially since sometimes the kids themselves are crying and begging to stay with the foster parents...

I can totally see how Phil says only 1 in 20 people is suitable to be a parent. SWMBO and I have said to each other on countless occasions, after seeing some drunken buffoons fighting and vomiting in the street, "Dear Lord, I hope that person(s) is not allowed to breed..."

You have to be licenced to operate a vehicle, you have to be licenced to operate a 'Ham' radio, your dog has to be licenced, yet you don't need a licence to create life...I fail to understand why all those unimportant things require a licence and even a course of study, but to have and raise children only requires the limited mental capacity to be able to have sex. I for one would love to see compulsory parenting courses...I might have even found my initial steps into being a daddy that much easier if I had some formal lessons into what to do with regards to caring for a child. Mind you my first born seems well balanced at the moment...


Mick

Originally Posted by MickR

Personnally I think that if the parents reasons for teaching against homosexuality is based on religious belief, then they shouldn't be allowed to teach that at all. I feel that religion is a personal choice and that jamming religion down the throats of impressionable youngsters is child abuse.

Honestly, this confuses the heck out of me. By extension of your statement, we should outlaw parochial schools, Sunday school programs, children's church, and in fact the Roman Catholic church itself. If/when you are married Roman Catholic you have to promise to "the best of your ability" to raise your children in the church.

In many Christian denominations, children are baptized/dedicated as infants, and basically all have child specific programs (Sunday school, youth group, children's church, etc)

Also, based on your comments I'm assuming you're "non-religious", but say the parents choose to go to church on Sunday morning... what do you propose they do with their child/children? hire a sitter? Certainly taking them to church with them must be "shoving it down their throat".

Originally Posted by MickR

I would say that sensible attitudes to parenting play a part here.

Sleep for a child comes under protecting the child, in this case health (Junk food is covered here as well and the child would go hungry as we don't have any in the house ). It's not forcing any ideals on a child, it is just good sense that a well rested, properly fed child has the health and energy to go out and change the world everyday.

If you were a Christian, or a 100% devotee to any religion, you would have to consider that according to your belief, a lack of spirituality in your children would be far worse in the long term than the physical needs you're talking about.

If you believe whole-heartedly in Heaven and Hell, wouldn't you do everything you could to ensure your children end up in the former, and avoid the latter?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Parents should always keep in mind that their personal beliefs aren't always best for the child.

Keep in mind... most religions profess to be the ONLY way. If you believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then that belief is just as important for a child (moreso in fact) than feeding, housing, and clothing them.

Originally Posted by MickR

You have to be licenced to operate a vehicle, you have to be licenced to operate a 'Ham' radio, your dog has to be licenced, yet you don't need a licence to create life...I fail to understand why all those unimportant things require a licence and even a course of study, but to have and raise children only requires the limited mental capacity to be able to have sex. I for one would love to see compulsory parenting courses...I might have even found my initial steps into being a daddy that much easier if I had some formal lessons into what to do with regards to caring for a child. Mind you my first born seems well balanced at the moment...
Mick

While I don't disagree with your assertation, in an age where I read 1 in 10 children are "sexually active" before their 13th birthday, how do you propose teaching these classes? That number is from US News about 9-10 years ago.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Honestly, this confuses the heck out of me. By extension of your statement, we should outlaw parochial schools, Sunday school programs, children's church, and in fact the Roman Catholic church itself. If/when you are married Roman Catholic you have to promise to "the best of your ability" to raise your children in the church.

I'll simplify then; A religion that has no tolerance is just plain wrong.

The christian church is also responsible for covering up cases of child abuse inflicted by preists and brothers, some of which occured becaue of their access to kids at sunday school, so hypocritical also comes to mind.



In many Christian denominations, children are baptized/dedicated as infants, and basically all have child specific programs (Sunday school, youth group, children's church, etc)

So basically, they're just trying to remove the free choice from the child. The freedom to choose their own spiritual path, yes?!

Also, based on your comments I'm assuming you're "non-religious", but say the parents choose to go to church on Sunday morning... what do you propose they do with their child/children? hire a sitter? Certainly taking them to church with them must be "shoving it down their throat".

Your assumtion is wrong, I'm just not a believer in a 2000 year old story that has been re-translated and re-written numourous times and even been changed to suit the powers that be at the time (King James for example). I believe in offering choice. To teach one religion and say that it is the one and only right path is wrong. There are many paths that lead to the same place. The path that is right for you is not necessarily right for me. So teach kids about many religions and not only might they learn tolerance, they might also find the path that is right for them. I've had christianity and roman catholisism shoved down my throat as a child, so I'm speaking from personal experience.




If you were a Christian, or a 100% devotee to any religion, you would have to consider that according to your belief, a lack of spirituality in your children would be far worse in the long term than the physical needs you're talking about.

I am devoted to my belief 100%, but my belief is not necessarily right for my children, and no, I don't think a lack of spirituality will be harmful to them. If they choose atheism, then that is their belief...Their religion of choice.

If you believe whole-heartedly in Heaven and Hell, wouldn't you do everything you could to ensure your children end up in the former, and avoid the latter?

Heaven and Hell...Sorry I don't believe either exist in as much as you think of them existing. Too complex to go into here and not really the point of discussion


Keep in mind... most religions profess to be the ONLY way. If you believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then that belief is just as important for a child (moreso in fact) than feeding, housing, and clothing them.

Yes. A shame really too. Since feeding, clothing and housing them are far more important than relying on some ethereal force to provide for you is just plain silly...People forget the part that says "the lord helps those who help themselves"...Just another case of the contradiction that is the bible.



While I don't disagree with your assertation, in an age where I read 1 in 10 children are "sexually active" before their 13th birthday, how do you propose teaching these classes? That number is from US News about 9-10 years ago.

A sadly failed attempt at parenting...Perhaps the chosen method wasn't the right one for the child or pehaps the parents were just bad at their job or didn't care. Who can say.

Would a parent that teaches their children no religion be just as wrong as one who teaches their child only the religion that they practice?

That blog uses horrible argument. Slippery slope fallacies all the way. Here again we get religious fear-mongering used to influence people politically.

Lets look at their conclusion:

So, here is the future: if the state can declare the Johns unfit to be foster parents, and thus deny them foster children, because they may teach these children the Christian understanding of human sexuality, then the state, armed with Judge Walker’s premises, can declare any married couple unfit to be parents, and thus remove their natural children from their home, because these parents, in fact, teach their children the same lesson the Johns were forbidden from teaching.

Slippery slope anyone? Child Protective Services do not remove children from homes lightly. My gf's mom has recently gotten severyly depressed, and her young sisters are in an amazingly oppressive atmosphere. They are 12 and 16, but they are not allowed out of the mom's sight. They sleep in the same room, despite living in a 4 bedroom house, she doesn't let them go to school, she doesn't let them out of her sight at all. Child protective services were called, and investigated, but since there was no physical abuse going on, CPS couldn't do anything.

If CPS isn't doing anything in this situation, they certainly aren't going to take someone's children away because of their beliefs on homosexuality.

Secondly, they weren't denied because they are christian like the article tries to emphasize, but because they declared that they are intolerant toward homosexuality (and there are plenty of Christians that are fine with homosexuality). I think the adoption agency has the right to impose this restriction, just as they would not want a foster home to be one that teaches white power, or that man are superior to women and women belong in the kitchen.

Originally Posted by markevens

That blog uses horrible argument. Slippery slope fallacies all the way. Here again we get religious fear-mongering used to influence people politically.

Lets look at their conclusion:
Slippery slope anyone? Child Protective Services do not remove children from homes lightly. My gf's mom has recently gotten severyly depressed, and her young sisters are in an amazingly oppressive atmosphere. They are 12 and 16, but they are not allowed out of the mom's sight. They sleep in the same room, despite living in a 4 bedroom house, she doesn't let them go to school, she doesn't let them out of her sight at all. Child protective services were called, and investigated, but since there was no physical abuse going on, CPS couldn't do anything.

If CPS isn't doing anything in this situation, they certainly aren't going to take someone's children away because of their beliefs on homosexuality.

It's not about what they do, it's about the precedent it sets. As the article mentioned that family had already fostered 20 children, but now were denied.

Did you not see the event, I believe last year, where CPS arrested parents for having pictures of their young children taking a bath?

Secondly, they weren't denied because they are christian like the article tries to emphasize, but because they declared that they are intolerant toward homosexuality (and there are plenty of Christians that are fine with homosexuality).

The Bible (on which Christianity is based) and the Catholic church says that homosexuality is wrong, and the basis for the John's intolerance is purportedly their Christian beliefs. Since their beliefs are inline with main-line Christian teachings I don't see how you can say they weren't denied because they were Christian.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

The Bible (on which Christianity is based) and the Catholic church says that homosexuality is wrong, and the basis for the John's intolerance is purportedly their Christian beliefs. Since their beliefs are inline with main-line Christian teachings I don't see how you can say they weren't denied because they were Christian.

Because a christian that was fine with homosexuality would not have been rejected.