The bill is an absolute intrusion into the privacy of the home and family. It
promotes a socialist agenda in many aspects. The article is in no way an
"over-reaction", it is a sensible communication alerting readers of some
of the socialist trends out there.
These types of bills always contain some wonderful provisions. That is how they
get people to swallow them. All one needs to do is look at the foster care
system and attempts by the state force medical care on children who do not want
it. My former neighbors - who were good parents - had a child who was thought
to have cancer. The hospital insisted on treating the child with chemotherapy
which could have left the child sterile. The parents were not even allowed to
get a second opinion and were almost sent to jail for trying to get one. It
turns out the child did not have cancer. The state put the family through the
wringer because some doctor with a god complex thought he knew what was best for
the child. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent fighting the state and
courts later ruled that the parents had no recourse against the state. The
state will bankrupt your family if someone decides that they know better. All
the while children the state is supposed to care for in foster care are
routinely lost or neglected.Bills like this should scare any
William Wordsworth wrote:"Our birth is but a sleep and a
forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our
home:"We must never forget how much trust the Lord has placed in
us as He allows us to raise his precious children. He trusts the man and the
woman to whom He sends His children, to teach, to care for, to nurture.The family is the basic unit of society. It has a purpose. When a man and a
woman marry, they complement each other. The woman's strengths compensate
for the man's weaknesses and the man's strengths compensate for the
woman's weaknesses. No government agency can handle the
responsibility that God gave to us as we marry. He understands everything about
mortal life. He defined marriage. He, our Creator, our Father in Heaven, is
not amused when mankind tries to desolve the family unit.
This article is terribly insensitive (and inaccurate) considering the DesNews
actively advocates for the dissolution of SSM families in it's own state.
Talk about double-speak.
The "God of the natural world" was mentioned by Bob. I've been
thinking about that for about an hour, wondering what that god might be like.
From Bob's post, I concluded that that god's plan for populating earth
would fail because each creature would immediately destroy any other life. Man
would destroy woman because man is normally stronger than women. No child would
be born. Life would be extingished before it began.On the other
hand, the Judeo-Christian God placed Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them
dominion over the earth and all things on the earth. They were taught to grow
food from the ground and to use animal life for nourishment and for clothing.
Which concept allowed us to be born? When our
perception of Deity is artificial, we don't show proper respect to our
Creator. We don't thank Him for life. We don't think of the
obligation that we have to Him to teach children proper principles.No government can replace parents, nor can they decide what is "best"
for a child. God send those children to families to be raised in righteousness.
After doing a little research, I agree with Esquire that the tone of this
editorial is needlessly hysterical. However, I also think the "Named
Person" function is a governmental overreach. It's still unclear to me
how this role isn't already covered by social service personnel. But
that's for the Scots to decide for themselves.Here's a
little more information on the topic. This is from a summary of the bill found
on the government's web page:"The Bill requires local
authorities and health boards to provide a ‘Named Person’ for
everyone aged 0 to 18. This person will be a point of contact for advice or
concern about the child. While there are duties for various public bodies to
assist the Named Person and to share information with them, there are no new
powers of compulsion. That is, the Bill does not give the Named Person any
powers to force a child or family to do anything. If powers of compulsion are
required, this can be done under existing child protection and Children’s
When the God of the natural world created life and gave it the singular
commandment to survive, he also created a natural law of the survival of the
fittest. The act of procreation seemed to be the most popular and successful
strategy along with the loyalty and devotion that we associate with parenthood.
Many of our animal friends exhibit that same compulsion to protect their own
offspring as we humans do. There is overwhelming evidence that the
actual parents are the ones who will give the child the best opportunities for
survival and thus the family group becomes the most important and most touted.
However, humans, by virtue of their ability to think, sometimes
carry the notion of personal survival too far away from the parental instinct
and can injure the young by motives that have nothing to do with survival of the
young person himself. Religious and patriotic indoctrination is often imposed
upon the young long before the child has any sense of what it's all about.
Society, its government, has an interest in the kind of citizen
that the child will grow up to be and thus will impose rules upon parents.
The US protects children from abuse and neglect. Scotland has taken this system
too far. Instead of assigning a social worker to families who are abusing or
neglecting their children, Scotland is assigning one social worker to each and
every child in their nation. I'm shocked at my fellow Americans
who seem to think that the Scots need another adult telling them how to raise
their kids. Because that's what this is. This will hurt children as the
relationship between the "guardian" and the parents becomes a power
struggle. Reconciling religious views has always been a sore spot for those
deciding what is best for society. Common sense tells us these same issues will
be sore spots as the "guardian" and parents grapple over what is best
for an individual child. But the “guardian” will win every time. If the US were to ratify the CRPD (in Congress this July), we would be
headed down the same road to a gross loss of liberty. America is
great because America is free. A Parental Rights amendment would
protect parents and children from having a government bureaucrat dictating their
decisions, and DCFS will continue to protect vulnerable children.
Let's look at the "line of accountability" that exists in every
family. God, our Father, allows us to welcome and nurture His children into our
homes. God is just, but He doesn't suffer fools or foolish ideas. He
knows what He is doing. He has instructed us to marry someone of the opposite
sex and to wait until we are married before having sex; then, after marriage, He
expects us to be faithful to our spouse. He has instructed us to welcome
children into our family and He has charged us with the responsibility to
properly raise those children. He has never given authority to the
government to usurp the authority of the parents in that family. If government
usurps that accountability, then those in government who interfere will be held
accountable to God for that child. That is something that no thinking person
2 Bits:I generally agree with much of what you said, but one example
you used I think is pertinent: FLDS parents.Because of the
demographics within the polygamist communities, even though they have a roughly
50/50 split of boys and girls, many of the boys become unneeded, or considered
"competition" for a patriarch that is looking for additional younger
wives.This results in the "lost boy" phenomenon where
polygamists in Colorado City, AZ / Hilldale, UT essentially "banish"
numbers of teenage boys, usually dropping them off in St. George to fend for
themselves, unprepared for dealing with others and oftentimes minimally
educated.In SLC there are volunteer rescue houses where "lost
boys" are acclimated to living in society, and some heart breaking stories
emerge. One 20 year old, who was pulled out of school in the 4th grade or so,
had attempted to take the GED high school equivalence several times,
unsuccessfully.In hindsight, aren't some of these cases
reasonable opportunities for intervention? Or, how to handle muslims
who mutilate the genitals of teenage girls so they will be less prone to
Tornado Mama says:"Scotland is setting the stage for systematic
assault on parental rights. It won't just be the occasional over-reach, the
occasional exception. It will become commonplace, it will become the norm . .
And yes, Christians have good reason to fear they will be targeted and even that
their children will be taken from them."Just . . because, huh?
You go ahead and worry for all of us. You say the worst will happen with no
actual information or knowlwedge to back it up besides a few bare-bones
anecdotes. YAWN.What exactly is "homosexual education,"
anyway? Is the lack of overt condemnation of a thing tacit promotion of that
One potential problem I see with this is... what if the Government appointed
guardian thinks it's "bad for the child" to expose them to
Conservative political beliefs (and insists that liberal government beliefs be
taught to the child). Or the government surrogate-guardian thinks
the parent's religion is not right... and therefor the child should not be
exposed to it?Can you imagine how this would work out for for FLDS
parents living in Texas (or elsewhere in the bible-belt where not being Baptist
is "child abuse")?It's just too open for outsiders to
step in and over-rule the parents IMO.I think most Parents are good
people (though their personal style may not be the same as some government
overseer). They should be given a LOT of latitude on how they raise their
children... not always in fear the the Government guardian may not like what
they are doing and take their children away.I've found that
even when I don't agree with the parents... what they are doing usually
ends up best for the children. It's hard for an outsider to judge.
Tornado Mama:I'm familiar with the German case where the couple
is trying to get political asylum in the US because they're home schooling
their kids and don't want to get authorized as a school.What
about the couple in Wisconsin who felt prayer was the preferred treatment for
their child who had diabetes? The couple were convicted for some level of
homicide. Isn't this also a case of government incursion on freedom of
religion? Please elaborate.If a man is one of those so-called snake
handlers, and in a religious meeting one of the snakes gets away from him and
bites a child, and the child dies, should there be some accountability? Or is
this just the Will of God, or some other protected religious practice?
Pardon me for yet another comment. My niece, in another state, was accosted by
a Child Protective Services worker at a fast food restaurant for two reasons,
one, my niece carried her infant child in a wrap around her mid-section rather
than in a baby carrier and then she allowed her 5 year old to hold the baby for
a few moments supervised at the table, sitting on the booth bench. The CPS
worker assumed that the absence of a baby carrier in the restaurant indicated
the absence of an infant car seat in the automobile my niece was driving and the
CPS worker didn't like it that my niece was allowing her daughter to learn
to hold a baby in those circumstances.The next thing they know, CPS
shows up at their home for a home evaluation/inspection and threatens them with
removal of their children if they did not cooperate.
Scotland passed this bill because they had previously passed both the CRPD and
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Scotland is setting
the stage for systematic assault on parental rights. It won't just be the
occasional over-reach, the occasional exception. It will become commonplace, it
will become the norm. "Guardians" have unprecedented power
to make decisions on whatever issue they feel is not in the best interest of the
child. And yes, Christians have good reason to fear they will be targeted and
even that their children will be taken from them. Christians are
already the target in other countries who have passed the CRC and CRPD. In the
UK in 2010, Owen and Eunice Johns were denied the right to foster children
because they refused to tell a child that homosexuality is acceptable. In Germany, armed troops are storming homes, removing children, and
threatening parents with heavy fines and imprisonment. Why? The parents
home-school their children instead of sending them to public schools which teach
homosexual education in kindergarten. This is the living reality of hundreds of
Christians in Germany, the Romeike and Wunderlich families are examples. Yet,
Jews and Muslims are targets, too.
@I M LDS 2 according to the bill in Scotland, the parents are NOT the named
guardians of their children. It would be a teacher or health visitor or someone
already employed in the care of children who may or may not already have a
pre-existing relationship with the child.And as I said before, while
on the surface, this seems like a wonderful idea for the welfare of children,
your level of trust in the government seems naive. I am in agreement with our
founding fathers who saw that government is a necessary evil, not the entity to
whom we look as the ultimate source of our strength and power. Previously such
governments were referred to simply as "the King." Currently, they are
referred to as dictators and/or despots. And while all may be well and good at
the hands of a benevolent dictator, the less benevolent dictator is hard to
overthrow once you have willingly given all your power to the king.
While understanding the necessity of government, our founding fathers also held
and encouraged a healthy skepticism of government by the citizens. The level of
trust many give to the government today seems to be based in a naive belief that
the government will always define mine and your best interests as we would
define them ourselves. Even with much evidence to the contrary, many are seduced
by the thoughts of burdens lifted and life made easier supposing the power they
have thus relinquished will always be held by someone wise, with whom we are in
agreement as to it's proper use. Example consider the use/misuse of the
Social Security funds.
I've seen this movie before.Historically, whatever happened
inside a family was considered that family's business, in total, and anyone
outside the family - including law enforcement - was considered a violator of
the family's "sovereignty" if they tried to intervene.The rights of the family unit in US were previously considered absolute, to
the point where the first cases of child abuse were tried using cruelty to
animals laws, because no laws prohibited a stern dad from breaking the bones of
his kids, if he felt that was required.Now, everyone agrees that
sometimes abuse is blatant enough to justify intervention.I'm
pretty confident the Scottish have the ability to decide for themselves what the
appropriate line is. I'm also confident that lawfully disciplining Jr.
with a 2 x 4 will not make a re-appearance here in the US.
The bill may be good in many ways. But if it has a provision for a
"guardian" assigned by the government to supervise the care, nurturing
and development of a child then everyone should oppose that provision.Esquire writes of an over=reaction by the editorialist. But what could be
more of an over-reaction than a government program that assigns a guardian to
oversee the care of children? There are some parents that struggle and fail in
their role. But does that mean that all parents must work with a guardian to
raise their children. This is a huge over-reaction by government and Wilf, who
supports it.I unapologetically and strongly disagree with any
legislation that weakens the right and ability of parents to lead their
families. Think of it this way. Many people die each year because
of car accidents. So should the government place a "guardian" or a
driving supervisor in each car to help reduce driving accidents?
@RanchHand,"Christian Homes" can not be neatly stereotyped.
There is a wide variety of Christian Homes. Some are strict, some are not.
Some accept the ways of the world.. some do not. But there is a wide variety.
Don't just assume every "christian home" is whatever stereotype you
have.=========Re: "Christians are ALWAYS butting
into everyone elses business"...And Government Humanists and
Atheists DON'T do this???Theres a LONG list of things the
humanists in Government have been trying to ram down our throats (whether we
like it or not, whether it goes against our personal beliefs or not)... -Pay for your birth control-Accept Humanist definition of
"Marriage" (not the traditional definition)-Christian children
must learn what YOU want them to learn in school, eat what YOU want them to eat
in school, do what YOU want them to do....What I'm saying is...
Not only "Christians" but into everyone elses business and try to make
others observe their faith, accept their beliefs, and do things their way (IF
you can call "Humanism" a "faith").IMO... The
Radical-Left today is like the Religious-Right that controlled government back
in the 1980s.
"...concerned about the 'named guardian' for each and every child
in Scotland who would have access to any and all police and health records of
the family of each child..."The Parents are the "named
guardians" of their children, just as we are here in the US. Only when
parents are found to be unfit due to abusing their responsibilities as parents
is a non-parent named as "named guardian" - just as we do here in the
US.Bishops and Stake Presidents in the Church are required by law to
report child abuse to the proper authorities here in the US and in most
countries elsewhere. Does that threaten the rights and responsibilities of
"the traditional family"?LDS Family Services is involved in
child custody cases, adoptions, and various family challenges where they have to
mediate between parents, the rights of children, guardians (including a
"guardian ad litem" in some cases). Does that cast doubt on the role of
family as fundamental to society?Just because family is fundamental
to society does not give parents carte blanche power and authority over
children, nor does it render children non-entities with no rights.
As is often the case, whether this bill is good or bad or something in between
depends on how it is implemented. I'm all for protecting parental rights,
but the state has a responsibility to defend the defenseless.
Whenever I hear someone start talking about a "War on _____," I
immediately tune out. Such a person is not interested in actually discussing a
matter practically and rationally; they only want to inflame or dig in their
heels. All of Tornado Mama's examples are suitably alarming on
the surface, but (1) we don't know all the details of each case, and (2) of
all the cases that Child Welfare investigates and intervenes, these are a drop
in the bucket. With the size of the popluation we're talking about,
exceptions are unavoidable. Of course there are going to be a few unfortunate
cases of overreach. These are the ones you read about, not the thousands of
cases that are handled with sensitivity and logic.The alarmism is,
in this case, just another "slippery-slope" argument, which you can make
when discussing virtually every law on the books. I think everyone would agree
that there ARE cases when the state should step in to protect a child from its
parents' "relgion." Should JW parents be allowed to deny their kids
life-saving transfusions? I say no.
@ 2 bits, my point was that the editorial was an overreaction. Based on what
I've read, I stand by that. I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary and have
learned that a lot of stuff put out there is an overreaction. There is usually
more to the story than presented in the editorial, and that seems to hold true.
Do you like overreactions instead of reasoned, fully-vetted, discussions?
It's a fair question.
Christians fear that this bill could take children away from Christian homes,
but I could easily see Christians taking children away from Muslim parents
because of the "deleterious" affect that Islam may have on the child.
Look what they did to Native American children in years past. Christians are
ALWAYS butting into everyone elses business and trying to make their own faith
the only faith.
I agree that legislation can have downsides if ill implemented or misused by
some. That can be the case when the government expands its authority. But the
basic idea of a "national guardian" in Scotland (wrong word, gives Big
Brother impression) is clearly to avoid or reduce the many tragedies that can
touch children: 50% of parents divorce, with all the drama for kinds, and often
each parent trying to win the child for him/herself; there is physical and
sexual abuse (most frequent within families and insiders); there is hidden
poverty and children may go hungry or not get proper schooling, and so on. For a
child to know there is a specific person to turn to in confidence is an
unmistakable advantage.If all parents would behave well, be
responsible, and have sufficient means, there would be no need for a
"guardian angel" (better word). So this DN editorial should
not immediately condemn this bill (which contains much much more than the
guardian issue) under the false pretense that it is undermining "the family
as fundamental unit". That is cheap rhetoric with another agenda in the
... Continued...Remember the parents in Utah convicted of
kidnapping... for taking their son out of the State when the State was going to
take their son from them, and force him to have Chemo he didn't actually
need (because the parents had disobeyed a doctor's order)?Remember the treatment of the children of FLDS families in Texas... all
because of a prank phone call from a lady in Denver pretending she was an abused
child?The case of the family in Boston is also very compelling
(Google it and read about it if you're not up on it).The point
is... The State can over-step (and the often does).... but it doesn't kill
the family, and the family isn't under attack. They are just well-meaning
people, doing what they think is best. People with a little government power
often run amock, but it's not a war on anybody.The main thing
to take from this is... no matter what they do... the family is still the
fundamental unit of society.That hasn't changed. Not even with
all these abuses. And it won't change. If we individually don't let
#1. I find it amazing that Esquire's comment (that he knows nothing about
the bill but he's sure the editorial is an over-reaction) having more than
twice as many "likes" than any other comment... is just amazing.Guess it just shows there are a lot of ditto-heads out there who find it
easier to just click "like" than to actually formulate a thoughtful
comment of their own.It's amazing when a comment that you
don't know anything... gets so many likes.==============I agree that the "War on the Family" is just like the rest of
the wars out there... the war on women, war on immigrants, war on whatever group
you can think of (to make them upset and get their vote)... is pretty much an
over-reaction to get printed, or to start contention, and get people riled
up.Back in my day the highly hyped attack-on-family was the
"test-tube-baby". Everybody said it would make fathers irrelevant...
but it hasn't.Same with this... it probably won't change
or threaten anything.We already have States that over-step their
bounds. Out of words. To be continued...
Parental rights are under attack. Legislation similar to that in Scotland is
being proposed in US Congress right now-- United Nations’ Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD would force
the federal government to ensure that all decisions for children with
disabilities are made in the best interests of the child. Basically, the CRPD
will allow courts to treat all parents of children with disabilities as though
they were abusive parents. Social workers will have the final say in decisions
that should reside with parents. But this isn't the only
attack on parental rights. Here are just three examples: David
Parker, a father to a kindergartener in Massachusetts, was arrested in 2005 even
after peacefully, patiently working with the school system to try to opt-out of
the homosexual curricula taught to his son. Justina Pettelier (16)
and Sammy Nikolayev (5 months) were taken into Child Services when their loving
parents sought a second medical opinion. This legislation and
current attacks on parental rights in America should be a warning sign to all
who value the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
That's why I support the Parental Rights Amendment.
@Wilf55I am noting that you have sidestepped the issue of the named
guardian. The editorial already said that there were laudable parts of the bill,
which is all you have pointed out. But the concern is specifically about a
person outside of the family being named a guardian for children when there is
no proof that parents have done anything wrong. Is the editorial incorrect that
this is the case?
@Wilf 55 and @Esquire, I just did a search on this bill and found that it is not
just the extreme right-wing Christian groups that are concerned. While I myself
don't agree with government having as big a role as Wilf 55 thinks is
proper, according to what I read, there are many who liked all the provisions
listed by Wilf 55, but are concerned about the "named guardian" for each
and every child in Scotland who would have access to any and all police and
health records of the family of each child and be able to intervene if they
deemed it appropriate. Now if you could guarantee that the
"named guardian" agreed with you on your parenting skills and philosophy
maybe you would welcome the "free" advice. But what if the named
guardian for your child had differing opinions about the correct way to raise
your child and reported you each time they saw something they were concerned
with, would you still see it as a blessing? What if that guardian felt that
right-wing Christian values were the best and reported you for being too
permissive, would you still agree that the state knows best?
This editorial is downright deceptive in misrepresenting the "Children and
Young People (Scotland)Act".The Act is "to make provision
about the rights of children and young people; to make provision about
investigations by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland; to
make provision for and about the provision of services and support for or in
relation to children and young people; to make provision for an adoption
register; to make provision about children’s hearings, detention in secure
accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools; and
for connected purposes."There is nothing nefarious about this
bill, and it does NOT cast any doubts on the role of the family (nor the
"traditional family").The Bill is an update designed to
"make provision" for meeting the requirements of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC, or
UNCRC).Anyone who sees the deplorable conditions in which over 90%
of children in the world are living, supports these principles.This
editorial is either clueless or fanatic, or both.
@ Star Bright, I said I don't know anything about the bill. And I stand by
my comment, that this editorial is an overreaction. I'll rely on the good
efforts of Wilf55, who seems to be providing more objectivity and bona fide
information than this hand-wringing editorial.
Update of my previous comment. More information shows that the Scottish bill
contains many excellent provisions such as more free Early Learning for 3 and 4
year olds; protection for the most vulnerable small children; Free School
Lunches to all children in primary 1–3; better permanence planning for
looked after children by giving all 16 year olds in care the right to stay in
care until the age of 21; support the parenting role of kinship carers; provide
a single point of contact for every child at risk, etc.The
"opposition" seems to comes from extreme Christian right-wing groups who
cry foul for anything that they imagine threatens their fundamentalist view on
education. It's a shame that this DN editorial does not give an honest
view on the whole situation. And, again, Utah could learn a lot from Scotland
The highly touted 'traditional' family appears to be a disfunctional
system that often fails, and more and more is a terrible place to grow up in.
Instead of virtually guaranteeing every person the right to reproduce, we'd
be better off if kids were very difficult to have. I'm not surprised
government has to step in; someone has to do it.
This editorial misinforms the reader by taking the Scottish bill out of context
and imagining horrible consequences -- obviously as an endeavor to ring alarm
bells over other issues where the traditional family is "under attack".
All what is happening in Scotland is that The National Guidance for
Child Protection, published in 2010, was updated in relation to issues such as
Child Sexual Exploitation and Internet Safety. Additional notes aim "to
raise practitioner awareness of the increased vulnerability of disabled
children." The U.S., and Utah in particular, could take a lot of inspiration
from other advanced countries who spend much more on education and health care
for their children.
Maybe, Esquire, you might read he bill before you condemn the editorial.
It is seemingly well intention laws that are so broad and over arching that can
be easily manipulated by different groups to advance their perceived set of
values. yes both sides of the spectrum can hijack such laws.
I don't know anything about this Scottish bill, but I am betting that this
editorial is an overreaction.
Abrogation of parental rights is happening in the United States, at least in
Massachusetts, where the state denied Justina Pelletier's family from
removing her from state custody - when the state was not providing any medical
assistance. It turns out several other Massachusetts families were similarly
denied parental rights.