‘Muslim Patrol’ vigilantes forcing ‘people to stop drinking and women to cover up’ in London

[Istakhr]

No. Not in the US. Part if Free Exercise of faith is raising your children in that faith. When they are of age they can choose what they like. I do not practice the faith I was brought up in.

Why can you use a reward/punishment system to make your child live according to your ideas and not your wife?

Why should your child not be able to ask government to protect him/her against your faith?

You are basically saying you should be given authority over beliefs of another human being, why is your right to free exercise of faith more important than your child's same right?

Can a christian legal guardian of a mentally ill orthodox jew force him to eat pork and why should your legal powers as a child's parent be more broad than other forms legal guardianship?

[James Arryn]

While I am making random observations no one is noticing, it is also interesting how these kinds of stories serve as social Rorchach tests. People on each side of the argument bring their own set of perspective on prejudices. People look at the exact same story, and different things jump out. For some, this is about civl liberties. For others, religion. Gender. Race. Etc.

The subjects of this story can be ascribed to belonging to several different groupings, but people identify them most with the group they take most issue with, be it Muslims, extremists, zealots, men, immigrants, or whatever. They are all of these, and more, but the primary motivation or cause for their actions is selectively attributed based almost entirely upon e prejudices the reader brings to bear on prejudice.

Like, for me, it is about social and/or political orthodoxy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

We'll just take your route and quickly devolve to "State is mother; State is father".

My children are my responsiblity not because I'm an agent ofthe State but because they are my children and I love and will care for them knowing them better than any stranger with a checklist ever will. Families existed long before the State did.

Further, your idea is pretty fucking scary in terms of State micro-managment of people's lives. It will fail on practical terms. Try to institute your system of regulation and see what follows.

For that matter look at "State boarding schools" in the US, Canada, and Austrailia for aboriginal children (to raise them the "right" way as opposed to the "traditonal" way) for a laundry list of horrors and abuses.

[Istakhr]

Istakhr,

If your views hold why aren't children taken from their parents at birth and raised as wards of the State to prevent undo influence being exercised simply because X is their mother and Y is their father?

Because we can scientifically observe that natural parents are on average better at raising children than third parties? I don't see how this is an argument against not giving broad powers to parents or gives them any ownership over their children.

Can you explain how broad do you think parental exercise of authority should be?

Should a Christian be able to retaliate against a teenager for not saying grace before meal by cutting his/her allowance?

Can a muslim force their daughter to wear burka if she wants to leave home?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

If the parents aren't abusing their children, and takeing them to Church isn't abuse, the State should stay out of the picture.

You are coming at this backwards. My family doesn't exist at the sufference of the State. The State exists at the sufference of its people.

[Mr. E]

Should a Christian be able to retaliate against a teenager for not saying grace before meal by cutting his/her allowance?

Can a muslim force their daughter to wear burka if she wants to leave home?

Er...yeah? Unless there's physical abuse involved. I mean especially with the allowance thing. A parent can cut a child's allowance for anything they want. If they even get one. No, I'm not bitter.

[Merentha]

Because we can scientifically observe that natural parents are on average better at raising children than third parties? I don't see how this is an argument against not giving broad powers to parents or gives them any ownership over their children.

And this is, naturally, something you're prepared to both back up AND assert isn't caused by outside factors unrelated to the "naturalness" of the families?

[Istakhr]

snip

You are arguing against an straw-man. I am not arguing for state controlling the children.

Basically my personal idea is:

1- You should have somewhat broad authority (similar to current laws)to teach your child civility and tolerance for other religions and ideas and basic scientific ideas yourself or let the government do this for you in public school. (squirt gun example is addressed here)

2- You can teach anything you believe to your child as long as legal, but if your child rejected your moral values you should not have broad nonverbal recourse to correct them. If you can not love your teenage daughter enough to accept she does/doesn't believe in islam/christianity, you should not be allowed to punish/reward them to change their mind. This can be done in two ways:

a) Specifically if your child asks for government protection against your faith or ideology, government should oblige them by removing them from your home and appointing other legal guardians similar to cases of physical abuse.

b ) Adults should be able to sue their parents or legal guardians if they had used coercion as opposed to teaching to indoctrinate them to their faith/ideology during their childhood.

Basically your freedom of religion should end where your child's begin.

[Istakhr]

And this is, naturally, something you're prepared to both back up AND assert isn't caused by outside factors unrelated to the "naturalness" of the families?

This is physically natural exactly the same way that a man and a woman having a crush on each other is natural. (Meaning chemistry of your body especially your brain)

Should a man in love with a woman get any special authority over her without her consent?

Natural family does not mean natural right to exercise authority.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

How do you plan to enforce something like that without incredibly intrusive regulatory authority being given to the State?

[Fragile Bird]

Well, frankly speaking, we have this process called "growing up". Once you are old enoiugh to be on your own you can reject every single thing your parents tried to teach you. Until you reach that age, though, our society recognizes parental authority and responsibility. Raising your children is done according to your beliefs, not somebody else's, although in any society the society expects certain basic standards to be met.

This is physically natural exactly the same way that a man and a woman having a crush on each other is natural. (Meaning chemistry of your body especially your brain)

Should a man in love with a woman get any special authority over her without her consent?

Natural family does not mean natural right to exercise authority.

I would say over 90% of the people on this board would disagree with all the premises in your statements as being fundamentally flawed.

[Istakhr]

Istakhr,

How do you plan to enforce something like that without incredibly intrusive regulatory authority being given to the State?

Non of my two examples need any new regulatory agency. Both can be handled easily by courts.

[Fragile Bird]

Lol.

[James Arryn]

Non of my two examples need any new regulatory agency. Both can be handled easily by courts.

Not for long.

Wait, allow me to ask a question: have you ever met a teenager?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Istakhr,

Because children, teenagers in particular, have never overreacted to parental constraints? You are giving rebelous teens a pertfect reason to lie about their parents.

May I ask how old you are and whether you have children?

[Hereward]

Without meaning to disparage your pain, I think broadly the problem you're looking for a solution to is "being a teenager". This can readily be remedied by waiting a couple of years and then paying your parents back by excessive drinking, the acquisition of tattoos, inappropriate sexual activity and moving the fuck away. Good luck.

[James Arryn]

Istakhr,

Because children, teenagers in particular, have never overreacted to parental constraints? You are givig rebelous teens a pertfect reason to lie about their parents.

Not even lie, necessarily. But one of the first ways we begin to solidify our sense of personal identity...usually in our teen years, though with me it was embryonic...is to overtly reject the beliefs/views/positions of our parents. it's a fairly natural process, because our views have piggybacked theirs for so long we need to be kinda extreme in order to figure out what belongs to us...and even though we are still mostly reflecting them in a negative form, it does enable us to later be able to disentangle something akin to our own perspective.

But, even if we lived in a world where such a thing were even physically possible (we don't), let alone rational, giving a legal venue to such a phase would basically mean the courts would stop.

[Istakhr]

James Arryn,

Teenager's themselves can not petition to court. A social worker should agree that coercive methods are used by parents, same as the case for physical abuse.

The second case is for adults suing other adults.

[Merentha]

This is physically natural exactly the same way that a man and a woman having a crush on each other is natural. (Meaning chemistry of your body especially your brain)

Should a man in love with a woman get any special authority over her without her consent?

Natural family does not mean natural right to exercise authority.

Well, first and foremost, are you asserting that someone who adopted a child at birth loves their child less than a family that birthed a child? And that this particular difference in love is responsible for a statistically significant difference in outcomes related to raising a child?

[James Arryn]

James Arryn,

Teenager's themselves can not petition to court. A social worker should agree that coercive methods are used by parents, same as the case for physical abuse.

The second case is for adults suing other adults.

But it's not the same as physical abuse...it is much more an issue of perspective, and the social working body would immediately become the government's largest and most active agency.