Disgusting.
John (no smiley)
------------------------
Cake request for 3-year-old Hitler namesake denied
44 mins ago
EASTON, Pa. – The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview conducted in Easton, on the other side of the Delaware River from where the family lives in Hunterdon County, N.J.
"There's a new president and he says it's time for a change; well, then it's time for a change," the 35-year-old continued. "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did."
Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.
Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.
"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said. About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell.
"If we're so racist, then why would I have them come into my home?" he asked.
The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name." He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated.
Campbell said his ancestors are German and that he has lived his entire life in Hunterdon County. On Tuesday he wore a pair of black boots he said were worn by a German soldier during World War II.
He said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically. But he said he would try to raise his children differently.
"Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice."
If they had already been denied two years in a row, why call again? Stupid people. There are some things we can't leave in the past, or we might not have a future.
Quote from: Newsman on December 17, 2008, 05:27:40 AM
The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
I seriously feel sorry for these kids.
For those unfamiliar with some of the more notorious figures of Hitler's regime, one of them was Heinrich Himmler, which sounds fairly close to the Hinler name used for one of the other children.
World War II Nazi history is an area I've studied a fair amount (for thise who don't know me, I was a history major in colege.)
John
If I was a supervisor at the bakery, and someone called me with that request, I would deny it too. My reaction would be that it was a joke, that no parent would be stupid enough to name their kid that.
You're right, Mini, I can't believe any parent would be that stupid. But still... it's a name. Would someone refuse to write the name "George" on a kid's birthday cake because great uncle so-and-so robbed a bank? Probably not.
I guess I feel rather torn on this one. I understand why the bakery employees would refuse. I also understand why the parents would be upset. But it's their own stupidity that caused the scenario in the first place.
Like it or not, some names conjure up anger and hate.
My advice to the parents:
1) Don't be stupid and name your kids things like 'Hitler'
2) If you just have to name them things like that, buy a tube of icing and write their name on their cake yourself
Ruby
Some families save up money for their children to go to college.
This family will have to save up money for their kids to go to therapy.
The store is a private enterprise. If they refuse service to a customer, it's their right.
It makes me curious...I wonder, if Mr. Campbell had lived in the 1950's, if he would've expressed the same outrage if the store had refused to sell a cake to, say, a Jewish family.
As for the kids...that's pretty unfortunate. Maybe the kid will celebrate his 18th birthday by getting his name legally changed....
Quote from: Newsman on December 17, 2008, 05:27:40 AM
Disgusting.
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said. About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell.
"If we're so racist, then why would I have them come into my home?" he asked.
umm.. lol am I the only one that sees this...
What Parents would let thier 'mixed' Children go to Hitlers birthday party? - lol
QuoteAs for the kids...that's pretty unfortunate. Maybe the kid will celebrate his 18th birthday by getting his name legally changed....
That's what I thought Dwezel (sp) and Moon Unit Zappa would do. They didn't
The name Hitler sends shivers down the spines of most people. The man was so evil that even Gentiles don't want to use it. It's not as if it's just a name you don't like. It's a name that's associated with pure hatred and evil. There's a big difference in just not liking a name and a name associated with 30,000,000 dead Jewish people and there were almost as many Christians/handicapped and anything else the evil empire thought was not pure. We only hear about the Jews, but my friend's parents were Catholic and were sent to concentration camps just because they weren't Lutheran.
I know pics can be deceiving, but the one pic I saw of the husband, wife and child could have come out of a late 1930's propaganda pic from Nazi Germany.
John (no smiley)
by Lakisha Bostick; Eyewitness NewsHOLLAND TOWNSHIP (WABC) -- A story that gained a lot of attention after a family in New Jersey couldn't get a supermarket to make a birthday cake for a little boy named "Adolf Hitler," is back in the news.
Only this time, it's because 3-year-old Adolf and his two younger sisters were removed from their parents' home.
Holland Township police say Adolf and his two younger sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, were taken by state Division of Youth and Family Services.
The three siblings were removed on Friday, but police say family services has not told them why.
State workers didn't tell police why the children were taken, police Sgt. John Harris said. A family court hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
Last December a bakery in Holland Township refused to spell out the name of 3-year-old Hitler on his birthday party. A story in a local newspaper prompted an outpouring of angry online responses directed at his parents, Heath Campbell, 35, and his wife Deborah, 25.
----
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6603498
I sincerely hope that child services reasons involve undisputed proof of abuse.
Because if they are pulling these kids out of their home because their parents are uneducated bigots, then there's some serious trampling of basic rights being perpetrated by the state.
Sad.
nobody has brought up the swastika.
If it's "just a name" then they wouldn't want a swastika on the cake too. But they are trying to keep that name AND the idea inseparable. Plus, they didn't just pick random other famous names for their other children, they picked the same hateful category of names. THAT reveals right there what they are really about. They are trying to push buttons and be controversial and then act innocent. They are abusing the idea of "tolerance" as so many do. Why not name their kid after Budah, or Jesus Christ, or some other crazy unused name? Or make one up like the dumb movie starts that name them after random bio objects.
And why NOT put the name on themselves? or the swastika. It's for attention.
I say they are playing games at a child's expense.
Don't sound like they are a happy couple. But who knows, with the landlord living right next door. A lot of possibles. be interesting as to the outcome.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 15, 2009, 04:31:11 PM
I sincerely hope that child services reasons involve undisputed proof of abuse.
Because if they are pulling these kids out of their home because their parents are uneducated bigots, then there's some serious trampling of basic rights being perpetrated by the state.
That was my first thought, too.
Well......They made it back into the news.....
Quote
Adolf Hitler taken by US child services
A young boy named Adolf Hitler has been taken away from his parents and put into temporary care.
The three-year-old boy and his two sisters - JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, 1, and 8-month-old Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie - were removed from their home by New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services.
So far no officially reason has been given for the intervention, and local police say they have not received any reports of abuse or negligence.
The parents were to attend a hearing regarding their children on Tuesday, but it was apparently postponed.
Mr Campbell, reached at home, declined comment.
The boy's parents, Heath and Deborah Campbell, have insisted they are not racist - even though their home is decorated in swastikas.
However, Mr Campbell has said: "My experience has been that other races have been rude to me in the past.
"But that doesn't mean my children will feel the same way. If they want to hang out with black kids, then so be it."
And they insist their children's names are just "unique" and see nothing wrong in naming their young son after the Nazi dictator.
"I don't necessarily think that Hitler was a bad, or evil person," Mr Campbell said recently. "The way I see it, he put his country first."
The family hit the spotlight when news leaked that a local supermarket refused to make a birthday cake with Adolf's name on it last December.
At the time, Mr Campbell said: "They are only names.
"Why should that be a problem? This is America, supposedly the land of the free. "I should be free to call my children whatever I want without repercussions.
"People say, 'You're crazy, Hitler killed all of those people.'
"But my response is, 'You're living in the wrong decade. Hitler's gone.'
"Just because my son is called Adolf Hitler it doesn't mean he will grow up bad.
"My children will be raised in a peaceful environment and they will be free to make their own decisions and choices about everything, including race."
He added: "I think it's a good thing that he has that name.
"I'm pretty sure there aren't any other kids called Adolf Hitler or Aryan Nation living in America. I felt like naming them that so I did.
"And it will be easy to find them in a supermarket if I lose them.
"A lot of people tell me they like the names," Mr Campbell claimed.
Birth certificates for the three children confirm their unusual names.
He continued: "But anyone can see how much I love my children.
"They and my wife are my number one priority in life and that is all that matters. People should remember that."
Mr Campbell's wife of three years, Deborah, admits she has some doubts about what the future will hold for Adolf in particular.
She said: "It is a bit of a worry.
"But ultimately it's just a name. I could imagine some problems when he gets older. They are just kids, though."
And she said that she is no racist - because her own sister (who has a different father to her) is part-Indian.
She said the choices of names were a joint decision by the pair, who met four years ago.
Neither parent works because of illness - Mr Campbell, 35, a landscape gardener, suffers from the lung disease, emphysema, while his 25-year-old wife has been unable to work as a waitress in a fast-food restaurant for several years because of back problems, she says.
Adolf is named after the WWII-era Nazi dictator, while his younger sister Aryan, who will turn two in February, is named after the Nazi ideal of a 'master race', Mr Campbell said.
The eight-months-old baby of the family is named after Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS.
Mr Campbell, who says he has German ancestry, said he was raised to believe that people of different races should not mix socially, or be in relationships together.
But he said he was not a racist.
He added: "I'm not a neo-Nazi. I have my beliefs and I have my experiences. My experience has been that other races have been rude to me in the past.
"I don't believe that people [races] should mix or have children together. But that doesn't mean my children will feel the same way. If they want to hang out with black kids, then so be it."
And while he would not go so far as to describe himself as a Holocaust denier, he does confess to having some doubts over the events that led to the genocide of approximately six million Jews.
Speaking from his small home, which is decorated with swastikas, Halloween decorations, and is littered with books on World War II, he said: "All I know is what I see on television and read in books.
"I wasn't there so I can't say who is telling the truth and who isn't. But I don't necessarily think that Hitler was a bad, or evil person. The way I see it, he put his country first."
The father-of-three wears boots that he says were worn by a German soldier named Daniel in World War II.
And he says he may one day move his family to Germany, where he believes the kids' names would be considered "more normal".
He said his beliefs have caused a rift with some members of his family - leading some relatives to disown him.
And he told how he previously had a stick-on / decal Swastika on his car. But he removed them after he was warned by an aunt that he could be putting his children at risk by displaying them.
He explained: "She said people might attack me because of that. So I took it off."
Mr Campbell, who also has several swastika tattoos on his hands and body, added: "To me, the swastika isn't a symbol of hate. It's just a work of art."
The family has hit headlines in the US this week after a local supermarket refused to make a cake for Adolf's third birthday.
Mr Campbell wanted it to include the words 'Adolf Hitler' but staff at the ShopRite store refused.
A spokeswoman for the chain, Karen Meleta, told the Easton Express-Times newspaper: "We believe the request is inappropriate."
However the family is furious at the denial, who say their son should not have to miss out because of his name.
The Anti-Defamation League has applauded the store's decision.
Barry Morrison, a director at the Philadelphia office of the anti-Semitism and anti-bigotry organization, told the publication: [They] might as well put a sign around the childrens' necks that says bigot or racist or hatemonger."
LINK (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/5262970)
He can't breath and her back hurts so they can't work, but they can pop out kids.....
:smirk2:
Quote from: minnesota68 on January 16, 2009, 04:52:16 PM"I don't necessarily think that Hitler was a bad, or evil person," Mr Campbell said recently. "The way I see it, he put his country first."
Speaking from his small home, which is decorated with swastikas, Halloween decorations, and is littered with books on World War II, he said: "All I know is what I see on television and read in books.
"I wasn't there so I can't say who is telling the truth and who isn't. But I don't necessarily think that Hitler was a bad, or evil person. The way I see it, he put his country first."
And he told how he previously had a stick-on / decal Swastika on his car. But he removed them after he was warned by an aunt that he could be putting his children at risk by displaying them.
Mr Campbell, who also has several swastika tattoos on his hands and body, added: "To me, the swastika isn't a symbol of hate. It's just a work of art."
Halloween decorations? I'm wondering more and more if there isn't some involvement with other things like the occult.
I don't know whether to think this guy is a complete idiot or he is really trying to play innocent while spewing such garbage and putting such a burden on his kids because of their names. Now they will either become bitter at those who react negatively to it and be drawn into those ideas, or they will struggle with horrible self esteem and friction with their parents.
Quote from: MellowYellow on January 15, 2009, 06:57:59 PM
And why NOT put the name on themselves? or the swastika. It's for attention.
I say they are playing games at a child's expense.
Exactly. I didnt think about that, there are plenty of ready made cakes at WM and places and you just go to the cake isle and get a tube of icing in the color of your choice, and put whatever you want on the cake. Why make such a big deal? The store has the right to deny anything they choose, so why not just do it yourself if it means that much to you to have your childs name on a cake.
ITS A CAKE. Why get in such a tizzy? Homemade cakes taste better anyway. Make it from a mix. LOL
I really do pity these children, and I hope that they have enough sense when they turn 18 to get their names changed to something like Thomas Paul or something better. That is if they are not corrupted by their parents by then.
They could have left the name off and just had it say, "Happy Birthday"
Quote from: Chseeads on January 16, 2009, 05:09:05 PM
He can't breath and her back hurts so they can't work, but they can pop out kids.....
:smirk2:
That thought occurred to me too. :smirk2:
QuoteThe three-year-old boy and his two sisters - JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, 1, and 8-month-old Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie - were removed from their home by New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services.
So far no officially reason has been given for the intervention, and local police say they have not received any reports of abuse or negligence.
So the parents name their kid Adolph Hitler, and the NJ Family Services responds by ACTING like Hitler...nice. I'd say there isn't a real winner in this situation.
I don't like the names. I think the parents are mental cases.
BUT I also don't like the fact that Big Brother will take your kids away because they don't like what you named your kids. I don't like Obama's name, arrest his parents.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 16, 2009, 10:08:17 PM
So the parents name their kid Adolph Hitler, and the NJ Family Services responds by ACTING like Hitler...nice. I'd say there isn't a real winner in this situation.
Apparently stupidity is grounds to have your kids taken away. :smirk2:
Hm. In that case, I know quite a few kids who could be taken away from their parents. Probably mine... someday.
*growl* Yeah, like you said--there really isn't a winner here.
It's just plain wrong all the way around.
:beret:
What troubles me is the thought that the NJ Family Services might use some sort of argument that the kids were being mentally or socially abused due to the parents choice of names or lifestyle.
If this is the case, every person involved with the removal of those children should be fired and never allowed to work for the state of New Jersey again.
Well, they're not saying WHY they did it. We can only assume at this point.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 16, 2009, 11:58:54 PM
What troubles me is the thought that the NJ Family Services might use some sort of argument that the kids were being mentally or socially abused due to the parents choice of names or lifestyle.
If this is the case, every person involved with the removal of those children should be fired and never allowed to work for the state of New Jersey again.
Why should something you don't know to be the case bother you. Maybe there really are things that they can discuss at this time. I would agree they should not be removed because of the parents personal views, but until I know more of the facts I don't feel I can be bother by the actions. But I know I can be bother by the fact they try to hide behind equal rights while embracing a cause that stands against them.
Anytime the government tramples upon the rights of its citizens, I'm bothered. In this case, I trust the state of New Jersey less than I trust the neo-Nazi's or whatever they are.
If we were talking about an Apostolic family the state had removed with no explanation and no report of child abuse, would you be bothered?
Quote from: bishopnl on January 20, 2009, 03:38:05 AM
Anytime the government tramples upon the rights of its citizens, I'm bothered. In this case, I trust the state of New Jersey less than I trust the neo-Nazi's or whatever they are.
If we were talking about an Apostolic family the state had removed with no explanation and no report of child abuse, would you be bothered?
I would be bother only if I knew the facts. I too am against Government interfering where there is no cause. I do not think the a person personal beliefs give the government a right to interfere. However I also realize these child protection workers have a job to do and many times get the short end of the stick. My statement is I am not going to be bothered until I get all the facts. The police say they have had to go the home on many occasions. So my statement has nothing to do with Nazis or Apostolics. It has to with facts. Not trying to say you are wrong for you feelings. You are completely within your rights to feel however you may feel.
I support the removal of the children by Family Services, even if there is nothing more unusual about the situation than has already come to light.
It's not about the right of parents to name their children, but when they give children names almost certain to cause the children hardship and at least mental pain, then they are committing child abuse.
No one reading enough WWII books (and I have read many, my B.A. is in History, and German WWII is a special area of knowledge for me,) without recognizing (even if one twists facts into thinking Hitler was some kind of admirable person,) that giving a child that name to carry is sure to cause them problems.
Hitler had a few qualities one could consider on the plus side-bravery (decorated in WWI, an often keen perception, the ability to convice others,) but he used them in a diabolical plan the likes the modern world, with the possible exception of Stalin, has failed to achieve. There were surely others as evil, but almost none that managed to realize so much of their plans.
Heinrich Himmler headed the SS for Hitler, and was possibly second in evil only to his master in the Third Reich. He donned a non-commissioned officer's uniform to try and escape near the war's end-but even then his arrogance had him wearing a senior SS sergeant's uniform, rather than a regular army (Wehrmacht,) or air force (Luftwaffe) one. To name a child Heinrich Himmler seems only because that was the most evil figure of the Third Reich name that the father hadn't already used in Adolf Hitler.
John
And next they won't like you naming your kids from the Bible. You know those Kool-Aid drinkers. They are the terrorists within. They bomb abortion clinics and they are all cults. We can't have their kids being named after Bible people. They will be ridiculed and made fun of by the other kids. They will be beat up on the playground.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
QuoteI would be bother only if I knew the facts.
I'm bothered that we DON'T know the facts. And I could be bothered by the facts themselves, if and when they come to light. When the state seizes children, I think they have a responsibility to state why they did so.
QuoteIt's not about the right of parents to name their children, but when they give children names almost certain to cause the children hardship and at least mental pain, then they are committing child abuse.
This is EXACTLY the argument that I'm referring to when I say I'm bothered by the actions of the state of New Jersey.
Suppose, for a minute, that the case in question dealt with, say, an Apostolic girl who had been removed from her home because her parents were forcing her to wear a skirt to school, which subjected her to ridicule from her peers. Are Apostolics engaging in child abuse when they tell their kids they have to dress in a manner different from other kids, thus subjecting them to hardship and mental pain?
I don't think so. It's the right of a parent to raise their child as they see fit, teaching them the beliefs and values that that parent holds dear. If that means teaching your child that pants are for boys only, and girls shouldn't cut their hair, then that is your right. If it means teaching your child that Nazi Germany was a great place and Hitler had the right idea, then I may not agree with you, but that is your right too. And if we are to pick and choose who gets to keep their kids depending on which set of values we hold dear, how can we get upset when the state does the same thing?
I'm against the state arbitrarily deciding that a parent only has the right to teach the kids a set of values that the state deems proper. I don't know that that's the case here, but I am not willing to give the social workers the benefit of the doubt. When the state comes and takes children away without any explanation, I fear that it may be abusing it's power.
Children being seized merely because of their name and their parents beliefs...it's one thing to name your kid after Hitler. It's another thing to act like him. And if the state is using the same argument you are here, then in my opinion, the state's actions are a lot closer to Hitler's than the parents are.
The point is no one said they were removed because of their names. They said it was a dangerous environment. My point is why get all upset at the CPS when you don't know the story. Without all the facts I can only vote in favor of the kids. If the police had to be called to the home on several occasions because of domestic fighting, then they may have a real case. Why get upset over something you don't know about.
We give up more of our own rights, then the government takes away from us. For instance prayer in school. I know this from working in a public high school. Prayer was never really taken out of school. We believed a lie and gave it up. What was taken out of school was school staff leading kids in prayer. The student may prayer in school. Most high schools even have a prayer club that meets every morning for devotions. The school must by law allow them a room for this purpose. student led prayers are very common on high school campuses. We misunderstood a lie listen to the devil and gave up our right to arm our kids with Bible studies and tools to reach the lost. Yes the students may even teach a Bible study as long as they are not disrupting class time. The students can organize a meeting with a preaching speaking as long as the staff does not organize it. There is still religious freedom in our schools. and I don't know how you feel about, but I don't want a teacher that knows nothing about the God I serve trying to teach my kids about God.
My oldest son who is now 28 started a Pentecostal Prayer Club at the public high school he attended. They already had a Christian prayer club, but because of the difference in belief the school had to provide him a space to hold his prayers and Bible studies. To be unlearned in what the laws really say can cause us to lay down and become defeated.
If you don't believe what I am saying ask any lawyer or call the school system in your area. As the ACLU which we all dislike so much. You will find that what really happened is the court in powered the Church to teach our children the truth and send them to school loaded and ready to reach the lost without the school interfering.
Any way all to say we need to always get the facts before we stress out over it.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 20, 2009, 04:44:20 PM
QuoteI would be bother only if I knew the facts.
I'm bothered that we DON'T know the facts. And I could be bothered by the facts themselves, if and when they come to light. When the state seizes children, I think they have a responsibility to state why they did so.
Why should we know the facts before it goes to court? Their are law that protect the parents privacy. There are thing the officials can not disclose until they are in the court room. Many times the police and other law enforcement look bad because they can not discuss their side while the criminals can spout off their side.
The police said that they had never received reports of child abuse. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but at this point, DFYS is not saying what their reasons are.
As for why we should know, I think it's important because depending on the reasoning, it could set a dangerous precedent. And all parents who might be affected by the reasoning of DYFS are owed an explanation of what reasons a state might give in seizing a child and separating him/her from his/her parents.
According to this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html) news story, a DFYS spokeswoman says that the childrens names are NOT the reason. Which is good. But then, the spokesman for the police said:
"DYFS has their reasons and they normally don't release any information, so we kind of have to go on faith with them," Harris said. Police were not told what the agency was investigating.
I don't like going on faith when it comes to the government. You seem to be comfortable with that. I'm not. I suppose we'll just have to disagree....I'm not out to prosletyze you to my particular brand of politics, I was just making the observation that it bothers me. You asked my reasons and I've given them. I'm not asking you to feel the same way, I'm just telling you why I feel that way.
As for giving up rights, I agree...people do give up their rights. I think the reasons many times are the same reasons being given here...trust that the government will do the right thing, and usually when rights are taken it starts with the rights of someone whose beliefs are generally deemed socially unacceptable. But it never ends there. That's my take on it.
As for prayer in public schools, if I had my way, there would be no public schools. So the issue of prayer in them would be irrelevant. But I've certainly never been under the impression that prayer wasn't allowed even by individual students....students in our school had a Bible study in the school library prior to the beginning of the day, and prayer was said at our graduation. Apostolic kids weren't required to participate in classes like gym if their religious convictions were against it, and the school itself offered a course in studying the Bible as a work of literature.
I was using the point of prayer in school because I hear so many people say that they took God out of the schools. When in reality they took God out of their homes and replaced him with TV, internet, and video games. I am glad at least someone understands that prayer was not taken out of schools. What would happen if we as Apostolic Christians realized the power the supreme court gave us back in the 1960's. If we would equip our children with the tools to take the message to our campuses.
What would happen if we shut down public schools altogether and let the state quit indoctrinating kids?
;)
QuoteWhat would happen if we as Apostolic Christians realized the power the supreme court gave us back in the 1960's.
I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I confess, I don't think the Supreme Court has given us anything. I think the Supreme Court in it's current form has been warped constitutionally and is more interested in taking rights away from Christians rather than giving them rights. When we consider the right to prayer in a public facility a right that the courts "gave" us, rather than our God given right and right as an American citizen, something is seriously wrong with the government. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
QuoteAs for giving up rights, I agree...people do give up their rights. I think the reasons many times are the same reasons being given here...trust that the government will do the right thing, and usually when rights are taken it starts with the rights of someone whose beliefs are generally deemed socially unacceptable. But it never ends there. That's my take on it.
They have a pattern to take them away. First they harp on something that can be scary. Use Abortion, for example, they talked and talked about women having to carry babies to term that were handicapped, from rape or were dead. They had movies with that propaganda in them. About how horrible it was for women in back allies and practitioners using coat hangers. They usually take quite a bit of time to get people to see the horror in the situation.
Then when the time comes, people are all for abortion becoming legal for "the sake of the baby" and "the health of the mother". In reality when the Roe V Wade went through, it was for any reason, not just for the health of the mother like people thought.
They use fear and propaganda to get people to give things up "for their own good."
So we have a story about these kids for two months then they go in and take the kids. We are supposed to be with them. Poor kids with parents like that. UGHHHHH
Not only do people give up rights, there are teachers in schools that won't allow things like prayer in schools citing the first amendment. The first amendment says, they have no right to interfere with our practicing our religion. The whole thing bothers me.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 20, 2009, 10:19:58 PM
What would happen if we shut down public schools altogether and let the state quit indoctrinating kids?
;)
QuoteWhat would happen if we as Apostolic Christians realized the power the supreme court gave us back in the 1960's.
I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I confess, I don't think the Supreme Court has given us anything. I think the Supreme Court in it's current form has been warped constitutionally and is more interested in taking rights away from Christians rather than giving them rights. When we consider the right to prayer in a public facility a right that the courts "gave" us, rather than our God given right and right as an American citizen, something is seriously wrong with the government. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
The fact is the court took the prayer out of a complete ungodly group and said that the teachers could not indoctrinate our students with their beliefs. The power was taken from the teacher and given to the students to prayer and teach Bible studies. If all we do is sit around and belly ache about the government and never look for a way to use their rulings to spread the Gospel we are just whiners.
We already had a right to pray in a public facility, but the government stop the teachers from trying to teach our students about their views of God.
My point again is use what we have to spread the Gospel.
We will sit and complain about what the government is doing or will we try to do something to change it.
Well, a few things that happened to people I knew...
One student was praying over her lunch. The teacher came over and told her she was never to do it again. Prayer was no longer allowed in school. The next day she tried to pray without bowing her head and she was sent to the principal's office and didn't get lunch.
A student was going to a Bible study at someone's house AFTER school. He brought his Bible to school, quietly placed it in his locker and didn't bother anyone about it. The principal told him that he couldn't bring it back to school or he would get suspended. That they couldn't have one in school because of the first amendment.
A girl wanted to start a Bible study after school in one of the rooms. She was told she couldn't. Her mother went to the school board. They said she couldn't. Her mother went to the Burrean (Sp) league. They brought it to court and won that one.
The school system was selling off some of their buildings that they weren't going to use anymore. A Christian school wanted to buy it. They wouldn't say it to the Christian school.
We may SAY we have all these rights, but there are school systems all across the country that won't allow things that we are supposed to be allowed to do..
Check out www.EagleForum.org Look at the Education News Letter. You will find loads more.
Bro. Dad,
I'm not sure that teachers across the country were using the school prayers to proselytize kids to their particular brand of faith. I won't say that it never happened, but I have a hard time believing that was a real issue.
As for whining about the government, I agree. But I don't just sit and whine. I've written to both my Representative and US Senator expressing my feelings on various issues, and I've voted against both of them, too. At the same time, I appreciate people who voice their displeasure publicly, whether it's on a radio show, a blog, or this board, because it helps others become aware of issues facing citizens today.
That said, I think we're just going around in circles. If you think I'm an idiot because I don't trust the Supreme Court or the state of New Jersey, so be it. I don't feel like arguing about it.
Quote from: Sis on January 21, 2009, 07:55:29 AM
Well, a few things that happened to people I knew...
One student was praying over her lunch. The teacher came over and told her she was never to do it again. Prayer was no longer allowed in school. The next day she tried to pray without bowing her head and she was sent to the principal's office and didn't get lunch.
A student was going to a Bible study at someone's house AFTER school. He brought his Bible to school, quietly placed it in his locker and didn't bother anyone about it. The principal told him that he couldn't bring it back to school or he would get suspended. That they couldn't have one in school because of the first amendment.
A girl wanted to start a Bible study after school in one of the rooms. She was told she couldn't. Her mother went to the school board. They said she couldn't. Her mother went to the Burrean (Sp) league. They brought it to court and won that one.
The school system was selling off some of their buildings that they weren't going to use anymore. A Christian school wanted to buy it. They wouldn't say it to the Christian school.
We may SAY we have all these rights, but there are school systems all across the country that won't allow things that we are supposed to be allowed to do..
Check out www.EagleForum.org Look at the Education News Letter. You will find loads more.
The problem here Sis is the people do not know their rights. A teacher can not by law stop a student from praying over her lunch. They can not stop a student from teaching a Bible study. This is why people need to know their rights and stand up for them. None of these in the list are legal actions for a Schools system.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 21, 2009, 04:37:47 PM
Bro. Dad,
I'm not sure that teachers across the country were using the school prayers to proselytize kids to their particular brand of faith. I won't say that it never happened, but I have a hard time believing that was a real issue.
As for whining about the government, I agree. But I don't just sit and whine. I've written to both my Representative and US Senator expressing my feelings on various issues, and I've voted against both of them, too. At the same time, I appreciate people who voice their displeasure publicly, whether it's on a radio show, a blog, or this board, because it helps others become aware of issues facing citizens today.
That said, I think we're just going around in circles. If you think I'm an idiot because I don't trust the Supreme Court or the state of New Jersey, so be it. I don't feel like arguing about it.
I would never stomp so low as to think you were an idiot for your personal feelings about the court or the government. I don't trust government either. But if the Church would mobilize on issues instead of fighting over which one of us is smarter or stronger in God's Word we can see a change.
I am unsure of your age, but with your feelings you may seriously consider placing yourself in a position where you have a voice in what happens. Maybe you have I don't know, I know I have, gone to the State Capital. Address the floors when they are having meetings. Make yourself heard in a greater measure. May or may not change things you will go away feeling a lot better about what you did about it. If this sounds as arguing then I apologize.
I've considered more involvement in the political scene, but currently I just don't feel that's God's will for my life. I do what I can here...I've voted against politicians who abuse the Constitution and our rights and freedoms, I've written letters to several, and I am a donor to the Apostolic Coalition, which is essentially a lobbying group that represents a variety of Oneness Pentecostals. The head is Jeff Snyder, a pastor here in St. Louis.
And, of course, I pray.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 21, 2009, 07:40:18 PM
I've considered more involvement in the political scene, but currently I just don't feel that's God's will for my life. I do what I can here...I've voted against politicians who abuse the Constitution and our rights and freedoms, I've written letters to several, and I am a donor to the Apostolic Coalition, which is essentially a lobbying group that represents a variety of Oneness Pentecostals. The head is Jeff Snyder, a pastor here in St. Louis.
And, of course, I pray.
Good I am glad you are doing something and by no means get out of the will of God. But I feel a person with your passion could accomplish some positive things.
Quote from: Brother Dad on January 21, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The problem here Sis is the people do not know their rights. A teacher can not by law stop a student from praying over her lunch. They can not stop a student from teaching a Bible study. This is why people need to know their rights and stand up for them. None of these in the list are legal actions for a Schools system.
I know that. Some of them do, but when they try to fight them, they stick together and won't allow it. As a parent who taught in my daughter's school, I've heard more than once, "What the parents don't know won't hurt us."
Not all parents have the money or the time to take these things to court, which is what some of them have to do because they DO stick together, all the way up to the School Board.
I know we have these rights. Many parents know it too, but it takes time and money to fight it.
Quote from: Sis on January 21, 2009, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: Brother Dad on January 21, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The problem here Sis is the people do not know their rights. A teacher can not by law stop a student from praying over her lunch. They can not stop a student from teaching a Bible study. This is why people need to know their rights and stand up for them. None of these in the list are legal actions for a Schools system.
Not all parents have the money or the time to take these things to court, which is what some of them have to do because they DO stick together, all the way up to the School Board.
I know we have these rights. Many parents know it too, but it takes time and money to fight it.
There are agencies out there that will fight the cause for a Christian. I can not remember the name of the one I used to hear on the radio all the time. But they are there. The problem also is people would rather sit back and not rock the boat.
They are overloaded with cases and they will take the worst ones and the minor ones they have to let go. John Whitehead and the Burrean League is what most people think of first. There's too much of it. People are having trouble fighting it and just give up, or pull their kids out of school and either move them or home school them if they can.
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.
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.
Quote from: Sis on January 22, 2009, 09:23:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Sis on January 22, 2009, 09:23:14 PM
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.
Well, wlhat I'm saying is some people can't take the time off without threat of losing their job. I'm done.
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 :waving:
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.
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.
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".
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 :waving:
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.
Quote from: Sis on January 27, 2009, 09:14:50 PM
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? :biglaugh:
They're LATE!
Quote from: Newsman on January 27, 2009, 08:56:55 PM
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 :waving:
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.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 27, 2009, 05:47:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Chérie on January 27, 2009, 07:49:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Sis on January 27, 2009, 09:14:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: MellowYellow on January 28, 2009, 04:40:09 AM
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.
QuoteHogwash, 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.
Quote from: bishopnl on January 28, 2009, 05:35:49 PM
QuoteHogwash, 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.
QuoteIt 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?
Quote from: bishopnl on January 28, 2009, 06:36:21 PM
QuoteIt 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.
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.
Quote from: Sis on January 28, 2009, 07:44:17 PM
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.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/us/article_d58af77b-ea6a-5a49-a1e7-385165f0c0c7.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.stltoday.com/news/us/article_d58af77b-ea6a-5a49-a1e7-385165f0c0c7.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Read this update today, thought it was interesting.
I still have not heard of any concrete evidence that these parents are unfit, although the state insists that it is NOT because of the names of the children. Hopefully they actually have valid proof that the parents were abusive.
I love when people say "I'm not racist. I have black/white/asian/spanish friends/family!" Just because you're associated with people of a different background doesn't mean you're not racist. Obviously, these parents don't care that their children will be judged based on their decision to name them after someone like Hitler.
Thankfully when the Kids get older... there is a thing called a "Legal" name change... should they decide they want to do so. Some parents are dumb, and should not be allowed to name their own kids!! lol
That's what I thought Moon Unit and Dweezel Zappa would do when they grew up. They didn't.