B.Schuss wrote:
paul386 wrote:
And what would the government inspect for? Allowed to continue on as normal otherwise? Guess what buddy, not your or the government has the right to tell someone how to live. The government does not have the right to stop someone from living how they want and raising their children how they want, as long as it is in the legal limits. You do NOT have to prove yourself to be legal, the government has to prove you to be illegal. One does not have to "earn" their freedom or rights. The government has to make a compelling argument to take them away.
You make me sick. Your concept of government has been shaped by the socialist programs in Europe and here in the US. The government has overstepped its boundary, everywhere.
With the way the word socialism is thrown around here, one could think this is the McCarthy era all over again. Jesus.
Let me ask you this then, paul. I realize the burden of proof is on the government, and that's a good thing. But how are you going to find out if laws are actually broken within closed compounds of religious groups such as the FDLS, if you have no way of getting that information ?
How exactly do you know that children aren't abused there, when no one ever leaves the compound, or talks with someone outside ?
How do you adress that problem ?
And guess what, of course the government has the right to tell you how to live. It's called legislation, and the laws set the boundaries for what is acceptable ( i.e. legal ) in society, and what isn't. If that's not the government telling its citizens how to live, then I don't know what is.
You are deluding yourself if you think that's not the case. Every society needs rules to live by. That's not socialism, that's common sense.
The question is not
if the government can make rules that regulate the life of its citizens, only
to what degree it should be regulated.
paul386 wrote:
All that means is that you are inconsistent and confused with your beliefs. Try thinking about things in generality, not in specific cases. One should always be able to sum up their political beliefs in a few sentences that has NOTHING to do with current events or specifics.
what ?! so you are saying that one should always follow a certain political ideology ( approach ), regardless of the problem that one is facing ?
Conservative for life, so-to-speak ?
That's insane. If history has taught us anything, wouldn't it be that no political ideology has the perfect answer to every question ? Wouldn't it be that sticking to a certain political belief, regardless of the consequences is the recipee for failure ?
Come on, haven't we moved beyond this kind of party indoctrination ? You call it being confused, and inconsistent, I call it keeping an open mind, and chosing the best possible solution to a problem, regardless of the any political ideology. I mean, seriously, why should I limit myself to one specific approach to a specific problem. Life is not a generality. It is a series of specific cases, and therefore each cases should be adressed individually, without regard for political dogma.
And with all respect, paul, this sentence here:
Try thinking about things in generality, not in specific casesis probably the most backward, closed-minded thing I have heard anyone say here for a long time. It's like you are stuck in the 1950's.
One can have a liberal approach to one issue, and be more conservative with regard to another issue. This is not inconsistency, or confusion, it's called having an opinion of your own, and not letting some kind of ideology or dogma decide for you.
-----------------
back on topic.
Of course freedom of religion is important. But that freedom should end when the individual rights of the children are being violated because of the religious beliefs of their parents. The state must have an opportunity to check on that, otherwise the laws are useless because they cannot be enforced.
In germany, we adress that problem as follows:
- no homeschooling. This is to ensure that a) all children receive at least a basic education according to unified standards, and b) all children get some exposure to "reality", and society gets to "see" them, and make sure they're ok.
- mandatory check-ups for small children by a state doctor. This was introduced after a series of abuse cases of smaller children, who were not yet in the school system. Parents are asked to visit with state doctors regularly. You may call this invasion of privacy, we call it safety precaution.
Because history has shown that abusive parents will almost always try to hide their child from the rest of the world, and not allow any contacts with the social environment, for example neighbours, or friends.
These mandatory check-ups were introduced to make sure the child at least gets to leave the house from time to time, so authorities can make sure it's ok. You know, the usual stuff. Is the child healthy, are there signs of malnutrition, any signs of physical abuse, what's its emotional state, is it apathic or lively, etc...
We take privacy very serious here in germany, but at the same time, we have had to accept that privacy must have its limitations when it comes to protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
