Have you ever heard anyone say they have no regrets? I don’t buy it. Now, I don’t regret the trajectory of my life. I don’t regret where I am and the gifts God has given me. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t things I regret doing. Most of those are sins, either of omission or commission. I’m not going into that here. But there is one regret that I have just realized. In college, I worked on Barbara Walther’s campaign for State District Judge. If a couple wants to conceive viagra online india http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MOTS-06.18.16-Register.pdf a child. Remember, not all things can be buy viagra without rx controlled by you. it is better to let some things go so that goodness can get back on the track. You pfizer viagra 100mg can face lot of problems in the future. It viagra online prescription is important to understand the underlying cause for this condition. She is the judge presiding over the FLDS cases out of San Angelo, TX. I really, really regret my involvement now. Not that my sign posting and brochure handing out made that much difference, but it’s the principle of the thing. Principles like, in this country, we don’t remove 400 plus children from their parents, without trials, based on a fake phone call and presuppositions of abuse. That kind of principle.
I’m not going to blog it. More has been said better elsewhere, I’ve particularly appreciated the Deputy Headmistress’s commentary. And when I read stuff like this, while nursing my 16 month old, I get too agitated to type.
But, yeah, I’ve got regrets.
8 responses to “Regrets”
I have always known (well, ok, since becoming a mother) how insanely child-hostile American culture is. But the fact that there are not riots in the streets over this just cements it for me.
But, Laureen, they’re OTHER. They DESERVE to have their children taken away from them. Not because of any proven crime, but because their belief system is repulsive to us. Man, if they’re gonna start taking children of weirdos, I’m in trouble.
What about the FLDS leader who was convicted of forcing a 14 year old girl to marry and have sex with a 19 year old man?
I agree that this situation has been handled badly and it raises serious issues about civil rights and not to mention the problem with the rest of us to accept it without question.
so my question is, to you good libertarians, what is the governments role in the protection of children? And does the government have the right to regulate relationship between men and women based on age?
Sis,
To that guy, he deserves JAIL. Where, in fact, he is. To the forced removal of over 400 children from their parents based on a fake phone call? The fourth fricken amendment.
If there are abusers, they should be prosecuted. But thus far, the states argument is that the religious system and beliefs–not specific acts– are abuse. The government has a a role to protect children from actual abuse. And thus far, parents passing on their belief system–however repugnant they may be to you or me–is not abuse. Doesn’t that scare you that this seems to be the state’s argument? “We think your religious beliefs are inherently abusive, so we’re taking all your children away, nursing babies and all. I don’t want the state deciding whose beliefs are and are not acceptable.
The state has the duty to protect children from criminal acts. The burden is on the state to provide evidence of a crime. Thus far, they haven’t put out anything other that, “They look young.” And of course, that fake phone call and invalid warrant.
I don’t think this is a libertarian issue. Surely you wouldn’t want the state to think they can remove your child because, for example, they think “forcing” a child to be a vegetarian is “abuse.” Right now, it’s all about beliefs. No EVIDENCE OF A CRIME has been presented. Sis, you’ve done research on what happens when the state decides people are “undesirable.” How does this not freak you out?
It does and maybe I wasn’t clear about the serious issues it raises about our civil rights. Not that (my big regret) the Bush Administration hasn’t already striped most of them away.
I trying was using the issue to understand the larger issues of the governments role in protecting children from their parents. I honestly wanted to know what you thought given your belief system.
I’ve thought alot about this in regards to immigration populations in Europe where there is this big push to be a multi-cultural society. But what if some of those people from some of those cultures routinely forcing their 12 or 13 year old daughter in to a marriage with a man in Pakinstan or wherever and then come back to Europe (once the visa are gotten) live life like nothing has happened while her 40 year old husband forces her to have sex. What the role of the state? Its seriously all I want to know. You said question the culture so I am.
Did you hear about the 8 year old in the UAE (I think it was) that after being beaten and raped by her very old husband went to the courts and filed for divorce. She got it but the judge ordered her parents to pay the guy, I guess for lost property.
For the record, yes, after all the crap I’m getting about the choices I’ve made for my unborn child, I think about these issues a LOT. I never know cloth diapers and a home birth would be so controversal.
Ah, sis, bummer. You need to “Pass the bean dip.” I shall demonstrate.
Busybody: Don’t you know that cloth diapers are depriving your child of ritical wemaxes for their woosels!
Sis: We are comfortable with our decision vis a vis the wemaxes and woosels. Would you care for some bean dip?
But yes, there is tension between parental rights and need to protect children, particularly when cultures are changing (or colliding.) It’s a complex issue. You should blog it. BUT the burden of proof should be on the state, particularly when it comes to tearing children from their parents. I think the fundamental unit of society is the family and that should be protected. I think that gov’t involvement into families should be limited and based on absolute need. Not just when the greater culture is uncomfortable with the choices of a minority culture.
But it’s complex. It needs more than a comment box, huh.
That’s why our system of government can only stand on a virtuous society. There is no “check” sufficient to protect liberty in a society that is at its foundation corrupt.
A lot of the liberty we have given up is due directly to the fact that individuals have refused to control themselves.
I thought it interesting listening to what the state was telling foster parents…the children can’t watch television, play video games or listen to the radio. Or be exposed to the color red.
Can you imagine trying to enforce that on foster families?
Dana, you are absolutely right that we can only sustain liberty if we are virtuous. The flip side of that is that if we aren’t virtuous and must be controlled by the state, we our putting ourselves in the hands of a powerful government consisting of people like ourselves, i.e. not virtuous. And that is a frightening proposition.
I still can’t believe there was no alternative to housing these children than to spread them across the state, splitting up families, etc.