Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dream_bean_94 t1_jcble87 wrote

Reply to comment by Pink_Slyvie in Central York School District is back to banning books by melosebrain37

Our society values parental rights over child welfare.

25

UnfairAd7220 t1_jcbujz7 wrote

'Parental rights' isn't as meaningful as merely 'being the (actual) parents.'

Students go to school under in loco parentis, while they are in school, simply to be able to run organizations of that size.

At no point ARE the Districts the parents.

These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

Whether its books that could be construed as (pick one) salacious, age inappropriate, content inappropriate, etc, or things like 'oh. What we say here you don't have to tell your folks' or even having a child choose to identify differently at school than at home, those are all red lines that Districts shouldn't be NEAR, forget crossing.

Child welfare is the care of the parents. Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.

−9

delusions- t1_jcbvkqn wrote

You're saying a whole lot of nothing while implying everything.

>These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

What's this mean to you? > Child welfare is the care of the parents

Wwwwwhat

>I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.

No you're not "just saying" anything. Just like no one "just asks questions"

15

Pink_Slyvie t1_jcc1iv9 wrote

>Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

We should start weighing in when parents tell their kids they are worthless unless they worship an invisible sky daddy, and anyone who doesn't is evil. Teaching Evangelical Christianity to children is abuse.

9

SeptasLate t1_jccyjwm wrote

I'm not sure if I'm sold that the government should police a family's religious practices.

0

Pink_Slyvie t1_jcczfp3 wrote

They already are, but I'm not suggesting we police religious practices. I'm saying that if religious practices are abusive, they should be stopped.

Like why is genital mutilation still standard for so much of a the population

1

SeptasLate t1_jcd1jeu wrote

But we already intervene in cases if child abuse, it's just not everything people think is abuse actually is.

Worse yet, if you've worked with child welfare services in PA, or children that are in the system, intervention can be more disruptive and lead to the kids being in worse situations.

0

[deleted] t1_jchecmt wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jchkabt wrote

Yeah but does that happen in Pennsylvania or beyond fringe religious groups?

I think allowing kids an avenue out of abusive situations is a good thing. But what determines "religiois abuse?" Theres also the unfortunate reality that, based on my experience with kids in the system, we currently struggle to help and support kids as is. For most kids going into the system isn't an improvement.

I'm also not really sold on the idea that religion is inherently abusive. Maybe there should be a focus on the aspects that are?

1

[deleted] t1_jchko5j wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jchmdbd wrote

Im confused, arent there already laws against sexual abuse? Is your suggestion that we help kids being sexually abused or every kid that attends a catholic church?

I thought it would be something interesting like an lgbtq kid being forced to attend a fundamentalist church, which increases their likelihood of ending up dead or homeless as a teenager.

1

[deleted] t1_jchoszh wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jciiyru wrote

That's a really unfortunate situation and I'm sorry you went through that.

I'm just still not sure how that applies to an entire institution or religion. I've dealt with shitty priests like that but I've also met nice ones that did great work for their community. It's similar to how I've had teachers that were straight up bullies but I don't see that as a condemnation of teachers or public education.

I do agree that there needs to be, and to a degree has been occurring, an acknowledgement of how people in positions of power treat those below them. There's been huge shifts in pedagogical approaches in the past decade or so focusing on this.

As much as I may disagree politically with these people I'm not sure how we ethically keep members of the community from participating in elections and government.

Those are very upsetting stories I think they highlight the problems with fringe insulated communities, more so than an issue with religion.

1

[deleted] t1_jcimvj9 wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jcitjle wrote

I'm not sure how you can make an honestly compare Catholicism to the Klan. I also dont understand your use of quotes around catholic church. Yes the church is corrupt but that doesnt condemn all of its members.

Im not sure this example works. Parents are capable of beating their kids. They are not capable of sending them to hell.

I really don't see how either of these examples would be religious abuse that would require the state to support a kid, or how either of these are worse than having a kid enter the system.

As an aside, I'm kind of curious now, how to plan on keeping Christains away from elected offices?

1

[deleted] t1_jciuk9p wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jciwdpt wrote

I'd rather have to live next to a Catholic than a Klansman but maybe I'm just crazy. I guess a difference is the catholic church also doesn't preach for the enslavement or destruction of my partner or neices. Again the institution is corrupt and has a horrible past but comparing parishioners to klansmen seems offensive to reasons why people are members of either institution, especailly to those who have been targets of the klan.

What's happening in this state where Republicans are stopping child victims from seeking justice. This also seems to be an issue with Republicans. Where do the catholic, Christian, and other religious democrats stand on the issue?

I'm still not seeing anything that would require a new practice of the state protecting kids from "religious abuse."

1

[deleted] t1_jcixsob wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jciyux8 wrote

I haven't been aware of church calling doe the death of anyone recently?

Didn't pope Francis recently go to Canada to apologize and the catholic church in Canada is paying reparations set by the Truth and Reconciliation council? Isn't also possible there are members that are pushing for the church to make further amends? Im not sure why you're choosing to ignore that I've acknowledged and agreed that the institution of the church is corrupt and bad but that not every member us responsible for the genocide. I'm not sure what my great grandma in Ireland did to the Native Americans.

And as for supporting old institutions with sordid pasts I still vote Democrat despite their role in reconstruction era violence.

Amd what was that legislation in PA you were talking about that stops child victims for seeking justice? And what're religious democrats doing? To build off of that do we need to keep religious democrats away from politics too or just the republican ones?

1

[deleted] t1_jcj4gef wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jclmgx7 wrote

Well that's upsetting to see how the institution shirked its responsibility to pay onto the average person.

That's also a very upsetting read about that republican legislation. Oddly enough the two catholic politicalicians from my area are strongly opposed to it. Makes you think don't it?

I don't know what your problem with Eric Adams. I think it's long time since the mayor of NY declared a war on rats. In the same line you also have religious politicians like Wolf and Shapiro, idk if I'd call them messes.

Man that last presidential election must have been rough for you. Either vote for Trump or throw away a vote on a third party in a swing state.

I think that's a gross oversimplification of religion amd ignores those who maintain their faith but try to change to the institution. I mean, "as dangerous as a nuclear bomb"? But you have your right to your opinion. I hope it was cathartic writing all of that out.

Still I don't see where there would need to be any new forms of protections created targeted at religious abuse. All real forms of abuse are already covered and the system is not likely to be better for most of those kids.

1

[deleted] t1_jclzdpw wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jcm1gna wrote

OK the nuclear bomb thing is wild. Like an insane take.

I also think all of those are sacrifices we must make so we can win the war on rats (this was a joke). But also a weird amount of focus on a politician not from Pennsylvania. I like the ones from here.

Unfortunately, I do think we've given up on the purpose of this conversation and I'm no longer certain the purpose of these rants.

1

[deleted] t1_jcm7do0 wrote

[deleted]

1

SeptasLate t1_jcm8ird wrote

I personally think all parents shouldn't have a say in education and that it should be left to professionals.

While I think some of these Christian nationalist organizations are dangerous, calling the removal of precious from a library is a far cry from abuse.

1

[deleted] t1_jccr72j wrote

So when the hell do teachers get to be the teachers?

Parents want to direct what books can be in the building, what teachers can teach, what teachers can say, what teachers can hang in their rooms, what teachers can look like.

Just give the teachers their pensions, fire all of them, and make all these control-freak parents quit their day jobs and start teaching the classes as far as I’m concerned.

1