Racist or Not: Their Poor Children

[Brother Dad]

We should never give up the fight.  When my kids were in school.  We fought tooth and nail.  We had neither time or money.  But what I believe and stand for is too valuable to let time and money make a difference.   My kids were also taught to stand up for what is right.  They were exclude without harm from activities we felt to be wrong.  They were allowed to dress the way we believed.  They were allowed to be out of school when we had church events.  They were leaders in the student body. 

I have one son that attended a special school.  NC School for the Deaf.  We had to fight tooth and nail there as well, maybe a little more.  I served as Vice President 2 years, President 4 yrs and Treasure 2 years on the Parent Staff Organization.  U made trips to Raleigh to address the legislators.  I was active in the community.  This helped my child, other children, the school and also brought attention to the ?Church where I was Pastor.  There were sacrifices on our part but it was worth it.   

[Sis]

Fine for a preacher who makes his own hours, but the majority of people would be fired if they took that much time off work to attend to such things.

[Brother Dad]

Fine for a preacher who makes his own hours, but the majority of people would be fired if they took that much time off work to attend to such things.

I worked a job my wife worked a job.  We had a small Church that we started.  It took sacrifice on our part.  Just like day care.  I worked at night my wife worked during the day so we could watch our own kids.  It wasn't easy but it was worth it.  The places I worked respected me for standing up for my kids.   

[Brother Dad]

Fine for a preacher who makes his own hours, but the majority of people would be fired if they took that much time off work to attend to such things.

I worked a full time public job until  Feb. 2007.  My youngest child finish school in 2000. 

[Sis]

Well, wlhat I'm saying is some people can't take the time off without threat of losing their job. I'm done.

[Newsman]

Been gone a bit, but want to respond to the 'what if' comparison to Apostolic dress codes in our children:

I reject the validity of the comparison: an insistence on what the modern world might find too much clothing is not similarly comparable to naming children after figures in the Third Reich. The 'shock' factor is not nearly the same. For a (hopefully humorous,) comparison, it's like comparing bananas and coconuts. both grow from trees, but they are different trees!

It's just my opinion, and I know others have their own. But I won't back down from mine, unless I'm convinced that I'm wrong.


John 

[bishopnl]

John,

I think you have a too-rosy view of the world's opinion regarding Apostolic dress and values.  If the question is the social or mental abuse a child might receive based on the imposition of a parents values on their dress or their name, I humbly submit that Apostolics are mocked all the time for their values system.  I know it's been a while since you've been in high school--I haven't been in 10 years.  Yet I still remember being roundly mocked for everything from speaking in tongues to not owning a television.  If the state were following the same guidelines, they would have taken me away from my parents for putting me through uneccessary social and mental cruelty by raising me with values so far removed from the norms of society.

The comparison is completely valid.  You find the naming of children after figures in the Third Reich reprehensible based on your value system.  Other people have different values systems, and unless you are willing to have the state decide which values systems are legitimate, then you should rethink your position.  I don't care what you are convinced of. In this case, you are wrong.

Frankly, I would rather have parents who name their kids after Hitler than have parents support a government which retains the right to seize children based solely on government evaluation over the legitmacy of a parents values system or the naming of their child.  Such a government, in my opinion, is the same brand of evil practiced by the Nazi's, just not as extreme.

[bishopnl]

Btw, it goes without saying that this is hypothetical.  The state says that the child's names are NOT the reason they were removed from the home.  I'm only responding to the assertion that such a move should receive support if that was the only basis the state had for taking the kids.

[Chérie]

i agree with nate on this one. albeit, i would rather the state error on the side of caution, and "oops we made a mistake" and return the kids than to not intervene at all.


i did get an opinion from a social worker who worked in child protective services - my dad - he said that this whole case was just "stupid".

[Newsman]

Nate, and Lady Sis,

   I just want to make certain you know I'm not slamming you, just disagreeing on the situation.

   This is one that has made me think of what I believe is right. I've debated this on another forum, as well. It has a low percentage of religious people, yet even there, the preponderance of opinion is children should not be able to be taken from the parents for their having received Nazi names. I've been in the distinct minority there, also.

   Also, I'll admit to not knowing what it was like growing up Apostolic, as I didn't get into the church until I was an adult.

   Yet, in the quest to defend others rights so our own won't be taken from us, are we willing to become political bedfellows with this type of Nazi-loving family? Right is right and wrong is wrong, and if we defend the fundamentally wrong, we become wrong ourselves by adoption into it.

      
John 

[Sis]

There's a woman in our church whose daughter quit church. Among other things, the teachers in her school told her it as ABUSE to not have a TV in the house for her to watch. Furthermore, these same teachers told her it was ABUSE to MAKE her wear dresses and skirts her whole life.

She shows up at church once in a while, with this mocking smirk on her face when she sees those of us who have long hair and dress like ladies.

The government has already been doing something, and has given it a name. Abuse. Now that it's been named as such, if they decide to take kids from their parents for not having a TV in the house, it wil be exactly the same.

And Dani, I agree with your dad.

[CDAGeek]

The government has already been doing something, and has given it a name. Abuse. Now that it's been named as such, if they decide to take kids from their parents for not having a TV in the house, it wil be exactly the same.

1984 anyone? 

[Sis]

They're LATE!

[bishopnl]

Nate, and Lady Sis,

   I just want to make certain you know I'm not slamming you, just disagreeing on the situation.

   This is one that has made me think of what I believe is right. I've debated this on another forum, as well. It has a low percentage of religious people, yet even there, the preponderance of opinion is children should not be able to be taken from the parents for their having received Nazi names. I've been in the distinct minority there, also.

   Also, I'll admit to not knowing what it was like growing up Apostolic, as I didn't get into the church until I was an adult.

   Yet, in the quest to defend others rights so our own won't be taken from us, are we willing to become political bedfellows with this type of Nazi-loving family? Right is right and wrong is wrong, and if we defend the fundamentally wrong, we become wrong ourselves by adoption into it.

      
John 

I don't regret my upbringing, but if the qualifications for state seizure of children are actions by the parents which result in mental or social cruelty towards the child, and the parent is aware that such actions will bring about such a result, then I don't see how Apostolics could be disqualified.  I just don't see how you can argue that in this case it's ok, but fail to see how the state can use this as precedent in other cases where the value system more closely matches your own.

As for becoming political bedfellows with Neo-Nazis:  I think you are confusing the issues here.  You and I both agree that the parents are in the wrong by naming their kid Adolph Hitler.  But an action based on our moral value system shouldn't be confused with an action based on our judicial/legal system.  I also believe that pre-marital sex and adultery are wrong, but I don't believe that fornicators should be locked up.  And defending someone's RIGHT to do something does not mean we have to defend the action itself.  Nobody is defending the parents for naming their child Hitler...but I do defend their right to name the child what they want, because their right to name their child what they want is intrinsically tied to my right to dress my child in the manner of my choosing, regardless of what the government thinks is appropriate.

And two disclaimers:  I know it's not personal, and appreciate your good attitude about it.  Even though I still think you are dead wrong.
and disclaimer 2:  It goes without saying that I don't think raising a child as an Apostolic is abuse.  I've voiced disagreement at times with certain traditional stances, but I certainly don't think that such a stand constitutes abuse of any sort.  

[Brother Dad]

John,

I think you have a too-rosy view of the world's opinion regarding Apostolic dress and values.  If the question is the social or mental abuse a child might receive based on the imposition of a parents values on their dress or their name, I humbly submit that Apostolics are mocked all the time for their values system.  I know it's been a while since you've been in high school--I haven't been in 10 years.  Yet I still remember being roundly mocked for everything from speaking in tongues to not owning a television.  If the state were following the same guidelines, they would have taken me away from my parents for putting me through uneccessary social and mental cruelty by raising me with values so far removed from the norms of society.

The comparison is completely valid.  You find the naming of children after figures in the Third Reich reprehensible based on your value system.  Other people have different values systems, and unless you are willing to have the state decide which values systems are legitimate, then you should rethink your position.  I don't care what you are convinced of. In this case, you are wrong.

Frankly, I would rather have parents who name their kids after Hitler than have parents support a government which retains the right to seize children based solely on government evaluation over the legitmacy of a parents values system or the naming of their child.  Such a government, in my opinion, is the same brand of evil practiced by the Nazi's, just not as extreme.

Hogwash, kids are picked on for everything.  I agree the comparison is not valid, but a mountain out of a mole hill.  I have to wonder if you have ever seen neglected or abused children.  I have, and know the need to rescue them from parents claiming they have rights to raise their children the way seem fit.  I worked in Public school until Feb. 2007.  The horror stories I read and hear are no where close to the truth.  The kids actually have quite a few rights.  I also saw kids respected for being consistent in what they believed and stood for.  Sure there were always thosse that mocked, but there were always more standing up for them. 

[Brother Dad]

i agree with nate on this one. albeit, i would rather the state error on the side of caution, and "oops we made a mistake" and return the kids than to not intervene at all.

I agree I would rather see the error in favor of the kids then to let something happen to them.

[Brother Dad]

There's a woman in our church whose daughter quit church. Among other things, the teachers in her school told her it as ABUSE to not have a TV in the house for her to watch. Furthermore, these same teachers told her it was ABUSE to MAKE her wear dresses and skirts her whole life.

She shows up at church once in a while, with this mocking smirk on her face when she sees those of us who have long hair and dress like ladies.

The government has already been doing something, and has given it a name. Abuse. Now that it's been named as such, if they decide to take kids from their parents for not having a TV in the house, it wil be exactly the same.

And Dani, I agree with your dad.

I don't know what you guys put your trust in. As far as TV goes even other churches are seeing the need for a child not to have one.  I do not fear the government.  I trust God.

2 Tim 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

[Melody]

Of course we trust in God.  But it's a more powerful thing when it's said when ya actually have little ones being raised, and in this present age which is worse than the last century. 

I've seriously considered homeschooling before, the day may come when I actually do it.

[Brother Dad]

Of course we trust in God.  But it's a more powerful thing when it's said when ya actually have little ones being raised, and in this present age which is worse than the last century. 

I've seriously considered homeschooling before, the day may come when I actually do it.

I am not against homeschooling.  My kids were in public school and we spent a lot of time there making sure things were done right.  Either way parents must really step forth in this age.  Of course the lack of parental presence in the school is what has brought us to the place we are at today.  So in other word rather public school or home school, our kids need us.

[bishopnl]

Hogwash, kids are picked on for everything.  I agree the comparison is not valid, but a mountain out of a mole hill.  I have to wonder if you have ever seen neglected or abused children.  I have, and know the need to rescue them from parents claiming they have rights to raise their children the way seem fit.  I worked in Public school until Feb. 2007.  The horror stories I read and hear are no where close to the truth.  The kids actually have quite a few rights.  I also saw kids respected for being consistent in what they believed and stood for.  Sure there were always thosse that mocked, but there were always more standing up for them. 

Working in public school and attending public school are two different things.  I daresay the school employees at the public high school I went too didn't know the half of what was said or done there....and that includes all employees from the principal to the janitors.  So in terms of things that are "hogwash" I would include whatever knowledge you think you might have regarding the persecution of kids at school...since I think it's a pretty safe guess that there were a LOT of things that took place at the high school you were employed at that you never knew about.

And I was consistent in school, and I did earn the respect of some kids.  Other kids never grew up, and I continued to catch flak from them over what I believed and lived.  I wasn't harmed from it, but I'll never look a young person in the face and lie to them and tell them that living right doesn't sometimes mean taking grief from others.  Scripture bears that out, and I'm surprised that you, of all people, would indicate otherwise.

And yes, it's true that kids are picked on for things other than their manner of dress or their name.  And sometimes those reasons are also due to parental influence.  And I don't think in those cases parents should have their kids seized by the state either.  Those comparisons would be justified too...as would ANY COMPARISON WHERE PARENTAL INFLUENCE CAUSES A CHILD TO FACE SOCIAL SCORN BY HIS PEERS.  Just because a parent raises their child in a manner which might draw persecution from others does NOT mean the state has the right to seize that child from the parent.

As for wondering if I have ever seen neglected or abused children, I have.  I have also seen the state interfere, or attempt to interfere, in the raising of a child that was not neglected or abused.  I wonder whether you have ever seen the government trample upon the rights of its citizens and abuse its power?

And I trust in God.  My problem with the philosophy being espoused here is not the trust in God, but rather the trust in the state.  Trusting in God doesn't mean checking your brain at the door, particularly when the state is run by corrupt and godless people.

[Brother Dad]

Hogwash, kids are picked on for everything.  I agree the comparison is not valid, but a mountain out of a mole hill.  I have to wonder if you have ever seen neglected or abused children.  I have, and know the need to rescue them from parents claiming they have rights to raise their children the way seem fit.  I worked in Public school until Feb. 2007.  The horror stories I read and hear are no where close to the truth.  The kids actually have quite a few rights.  I also saw kids respected for being consistent in what they believed and stood for.  Sure there were always thosse that mocked, but there were always more standing up for them. 

Working in public school and attending public school are two different things.  I daresay the school employees at the public high school I went too didn't know the half of what was said or done there....and that includes all employees from the principal to the janitors.  So in terms of things that are "hogwash" I would include whatever knowledge you think you might have regarding the persecution of kids at school...since I think it's a pretty safe guess that there were a LOT of things that took place at the high school you were employed at that you never knew about.

And I was consistent in school, and I did earn the respect of some kids.  Other kids never grew up, and I continued to catch flak from them over what I believed and lived.  I wasn't harmed from it, but I'll never look a young person in the face and lie to them and tell them that living right doesn't sometimes mean taking grief from others.  Scripture bears that out, and I'm surprised that you, of all people, would indicate otherwise.

And yes, it's true that kids are picked on for things other than their manner of dress or their name.  And sometimes those reasons are also due to parental influence.  And I don't think in those cases parents should have their kids seized by the state either.  Those comparisons would be justified too...as would ANY COMPARISON WHERE PARENTAL INFLUENCE CAUSES A CHILD TO FACE SOCIAL SCORN BY HIS PEERS.  Just because a parent raises their child in a manner which might draw persecution from others does NOT mean the state has the right to seize that child from the parent.

As for wondering if I have ever seen neglected or abused children, I have.  I have also seen the state interfere, or attempt to interfere, in the raising of a child that was not neglected or abused.  I wonder whether you have ever seen the government trample upon the rights of its citizens and abuse its power?

And I trust in God.  My problem with the philosophy being espoused here is not the trust in God, but rather the trust in the state.  Trusting in God doesn't mean checking your brain at the door, particularly when the state is run by corrupt and godless people.

It is quite obvious that you have a very negative state of mind when it comes to government.  Neither do I trust the government, I just don't let that rule my life.  But also I know as far as you and I go, if I said the grass was green you would dispute me.  This does not bother me either.  I could but will not offer my reasons for why I knew more that went on in school then you think.  All this started because you judged a situation before having the facts.  My point was simply don't let things we don't know bother us.  There is enough evil in today's time we don't need to try and create more.

[bishopnl]

It is quite obvious that you have a very negative state of mind when it comes to government.  Neither do I trust the government, I just don't let that rule my life.  But also I know as far as you and I go, if I said the grass was green you would dispute me.  This does not bother me either.  I could but will not offer my reasons for why I knew more that went on in school then you think.  All this started because you judged a situation before having the facts.  My point was simply don't let things we don't know bother us.  There is enough evil in today's time we don't need to try and create more.

You are wrong on ALMOST every account.

I do have a negative state of mind about the current government--not government in general.  I believe that government is ordained of God to fulfill certain roles in society, but when it supercedes the role it was meant to fill, it becomes abusive of the God ordained power and responsibility it has been given.  I believe that in many cases, modern government in America has done this.  My distrust of government doesn't "rule" my life, but neither do I give the government the benefit of the doubt.  Ever.

I don't dispute you over everything. Actually, as concerns this thread, you disputed me, rather than vice versa.  I stated that the thought of potential abuse troubled me, and you immediately indicated I should give the benefit of the doubt.  LOL...you somehow have the idea I'm being deliberately contentious with you, and I assure you I'm not.  But neither am I going to agree with you just for the sake of being agreeable.  If I think you are right, I'll agree with you.  If I think you are wrong, I'll disagree.  Fair enough?

As for your final assertion, that this all started because I was judging without having the facts, again, you are incorrect.  I said I was troubled by the thought that the state MIGHT use the social/mental abuse argument, and that IF that was the case, the state employees responsible should be fired.  Might and if are hardly concrete words, and they leave plenty of potential for other possibilities.  I would rather be an informed and concerned citizen on the watch for government abuse than to trust that the state knows what it is doing.  I'm fine with simply disagreeing over philosophies, but I do hope that you'll stop insisting that I was incorrectly assuming something...I left wide open the possibility that the state may have a legitimate reason for removing the children, I only expressed concerns about the possibility that they might not.  Surely that's not so harmful, is it?

[Brother Dad]

It is quite obvious that you have a very negative state of mind when it comes to government.  Neither do I trust the government, I just don't let that rule my life.  But also I know as far as you and I go, if I said the grass was green you would dispute me.  This does not bother me either.  I could but will not offer my reasons for why I knew more that went on in school then you think.  All this started because you judged a situation before having the facts.  My point was simply don't let things we don't know bother us.  There is enough evil in today's time we don't need to try and create more.

You are wrong on ALMOST every account.

I do have a negative state of mind about the current government--not government in general.  I believe that government is ordained of God to fulfill certain roles in society, but when it supercedes the role it was meant to fill, it becomes abusive of the God ordained power and responsibility it has been given.  I believe that in many cases, modern government in America has done this.  My distrust of government doesn't "rule" my life, but neither do I give the government the benefit of the doubt.  Ever.

I don't dispute you over everything. Actually, as concerns this thread, you disputed me, rather than vice versa.  I stated that the thought of potential abuse troubled me, and you immediately indicated I should give the benefit of the doubt.  LOL...you somehow have the idea I'm being deliberately contentious with you, and I assure you I'm not.  But neither am I going to agree with you just for the sake of being agreeable.  If I think you are right, I'll agree with you.  If I think you are wrong, I'll disagree.  Fair enough?

As for your final assertion, that this all started because I was judging without having the facts, again, you are incorrect.  I said I was troubled by the thought that the state MIGHT use the social/mental abuse argument, and that IF that was the case, the state employees responsible should be fired.  Might and if are hardly concrete words, and they leave plenty of potential for other possibilities.  I would rather be an informed and concerned citizen on the watch for government abuse than to trust that the state knows what it is doing.  I'm fine with simply disagreeing over philosophies, but I do hope that you'll stop insisting that I was incorrectly assuming something...I left wide open the possibility that the state may have a legitimate reason for removing the children, I only expressed concerns about the possibility that they might not.  Surely that's not so harmful, is it?

Excuse me for misunderstanding you.  I too would become concerned if it turns out the state abused their power in this case.

[Sis]

Just because someone has an opinion about a subject, doesn't mean they think about it 24/7. It just comes up and someone wants to talk about it, then clairify their position doesn't mean they have it on their mind all the time. It's just that it's the subject at the moment.

I don't want to argue, but I worked as a teacher in the school system, and I'll tell you what goes on among the kids isn't the only thing unknown to janitors or parents. I heard it all and didn't agree with much of it, even if I wasn't saved yet. I resented the laughing and the putting down of parents behind their backs. Staff tends to laugh at the do-gooder parents who come to school and try to get involved. They are put down.

I worked at a school in a poorer neighborhood, the teachers kept telling themselves that those parents don't care about their kids. It was automatically assumed the lower the income, the less parents cared.  I had to remind them once in a while that the teachers in THEIR kid's schools were saying the same thing about them. They pushed it back and continued their put downs of parents in that neighborhood.

They knew parents wouldn't like some of the things taught in the classroom (I taught in Title 1 remedial room, not the classroom).  When they knew a parent would be coming into the classroom they would just stow the stuff the parent would object to and teach math or something. Then when there weren't any parents around they'd teach their sex-ed or whatever.

Yeah, I know that a parent could demand their child not be taught a sex-ed class, but they would incorporate it into any other subject to get around that. During social studies, for example, they would include things about a woman's right to choose, and all that.

They would make fun of parents who objected as people with their heads in the sand and immature to REAL life.......

I could go on and on but let me tell you, as a parent coming into the classroom, you don't know what's taught the rest of the time. As a janitor you would know even less. I was even left out of a lot of it being down the hall from some of the classrooms.

But I'm not going to beat my head against the wall here, I'm done.

[Brother Dad]

Just because someone has an opinion about a subject, doesn't mean they think about it 24/7. It just comes up and someone wants to talk about it, then clairify their position doesn't mean they have it on their mind all the time. It's just that it's the subject at the moment.

I don't want to argue, but I worked as a teacher in the school system, and I'll tell you what goes on among the kids isn't the only thing unknown to janitors or parents. I heard it all and didn't agree with much of it, even if I wasn't saved yet. I resented the laughing and the putting down of parents behind their backs. Staff tends to laugh at the do-gooder parents who come to school and try to get involved. They are put down.

I worked at a school in a poorer neighborhood, the teachers kept telling themselves that those parents don't care about their kids. It was automatically assumed the lower the income, the less parents cared.  I had to remind them once in a while that the teachers in THEIR kid's schools were saying the same thing about them. They pushed it back and continued their put downs of parents in that neighborhood.

They knew parents wouldn't like some of the things taught in the classroom (I taught in Title 1 remedial room, not the classroom).  When they knew a parent would be coming into the classroom they would just stow the stuff the parent would object to and teach math or something. Then when there weren't any parents around they'd teach their sex-ed or whatever.

Yeah, I know that a parent could demand their child not be taught a sex-ed class, but they would incorporate it into any other subject to get around that. During social studies, for example, they would include things about a woman's right to choose, and all that.

They would make fun of parents who objected as people with their heads in the sand and immature to REAL life.......

I could go on and on but let me tell you, as a parent coming into the classroom, you don't know what's taught the rest of the time. As a janitor you would know even less. I was even left out of a lot of it being down the hall from some of the classrooms.

But I'm not going to beat my head against the wall here, I'm done.

For the record I was not the janitor not that anything is wrong with been a janitor.  I was involved directly with he kids in their behavior.  And also money is not a factor as to who is involved with their kids and who is not.  There were parents from all economic levels involved and the same for those uninvolved.  I will alsop agree a parent will never know what is going on all the time.  But an involved parent will know more than an uninvolved one.