www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News State taking family's livelhood away

Your generosity and pomposity are overwhelming, Dan. I don't believe that I asked you for forgiveness, that I perceive any need of it from you, or that I give a damn whether or not you do so.

Many years,

Neil

Your generosity and pomposity are overwhelming, Dan. I don't believe that I asked you for forgiveness, that I perceive any need of it from you, or that I give a damn whether or not you do so.

Many years,

Neil </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">That, of course, is why you need it so much and why I need to offer it.

Dan L

There is truth lying somewhere between the positions held by Neil and Jason. I believe it has to do with community responsibility that avoids the harsh intrusions of government and assists families in protecting their own children. I believe Mr. Doty needs some guidance from Church, neighbors, and friends regarding those electrical wires...but then again maybe the reason the sons safely made it through this test is precisely because Mr. Doty followed the safe practices. We don't know, but we can infer. Moreover, Mr. Doty seems to be giving his sons far more than most parents do these days. He is giving them a place to belong.

We live and have lived in a society that really has no place for children. A majority of our children have to try to survive in one parent or no parent families. It appears the state of Washington is trying to insure that seven children are reduced to that themselves and reduced to poverty.

Give Doty some advice about certain dangers, but give him credit that he is giving his children more than most ever will receive.

Dan L

Ok, yes there are instances when the state has the duty to step in: Abuse, cruelty, starvation, neglect etc... Cases where the civil liberties and life of the child are in grave danger. For instance this couple here recently in Florida arrested for starving their children and pulling out thier toenails with a pair of pliers. It was deliberate and it was malicious. I find nothing of the sort in common with what this man did with his sons. As I said in my previous post I thought the man acted foolishly in allowing his kids to ride on the top of a house going down the road and pushing up power lines. But i dont see any evidence of abuse or malicious maltreatment. At best he offended the agencies who regulate job safety. He certainly, imho, did not transgress any moral boundaries.

The progression in civilization you refer to is only about 75 years old. I hardly think that holds a candle to the way the world was run for the previous 1900 years.

I have been a child and therefore know what it is like to live in a childs world. As a child i experienced death a number of times. My cousin/best friend was run over by a loaded tar truck. I had several class mates who were killed in car accidents. Two of whom were run over. I'm no stranger to the death of children though i cannot claim to have witnessed all the things you have listed.

But I fail to see where this calls for a state that peers into the warp and woof of peoples lives and tries to rule their every move and thought.

I appreciate that we are talking about the death of a child. But is it really any differnt than the death of an elderly person? Perhaps the state should force families to care for their elderly at home to avoid the dangers of mistreatment and neglect that occur in nursing homes every year. Or perhaps the state might one day mandate that all persons that reach the age of 75 are to be terminated so as to minimize the suffering that comes with old age. Where does the power of government stop? Where would you have it stop? By what standard should it operate and judge?

This is more than just a question about a childs safety it is a question of civil authority. As i said before, criticize the man's parenting choices all you please but keep the government out of it.

Jason

Actually I *have* had to deal with a class of greiving 13 year olds because thats approximately how old i was when one of my classmates was run over and killed while exiting a schoolbus. What about bb guns? Should they be outlawed because they can injure or put out an eye? What about sticks? Should sticks be outlawed because some kid running down the street holding one stumbles and falls and stabs hismelf in the neck? Who should be sued when the neighbors child has a serious injury playing football in your front yard? Life as a kid is dangerous no matter what you do. Are you going to punish the mother of 3 when she is attending a dirty diaper and her 4 year old runs out in front of a car and gets hit? Priorities priorities. We can harp on them all day long but in the real world it doesnt work like that.

Since you leave this to me then i will tell you what i think.

I am amazed at how deeply people buy into the socialist swill. The world is oh so much better place than it was 50 years ago. We are so much safer and blah blah blah.

I think what has happened in the post WWII years in Europe is largely tragic. Centralization of government, now even more with the "EU". Doesnt it make you even wonder just a little bit about the goodness of your governments when they flatly refuse to put any mention of God in the EU constitution? And they disqualify people from holding positons of authority who belive that homosexuality is a sin? For pity's sake, why is that kind of government worth defending????? Prior to the WW's the heart of Europe was still deeply christian. After two major wars the faith of all europe was shattered and folks turned away from God and looked to the power of Government to save them. Thats where Europe is today and that is precisely where I do NOT want America to end up.

Living life takes risks and in America taking risks has made us the most powerful and successful and richest and most charitable nation in the history of mankind.

I think what Dan is talking about is precisely that liberty to take risks being aware of the consequencs of success and failure.

I like this response from another forum.

"If this bunch had had their way, Goliath would have been unopposed, Jesse's flocks would have been eaten, and Jesse would have probably ended up in jail for endangering his children in a dangerous work environment."

Dan L

Jason,

"I think what Dan is talking about is precisely that liberty to take risks being aware of the consequencs of success and failure."

Indeed so. I'm also suggesting that it is alright to be male.

Dan L

I have no problem with parents teaching children how to work. That's a good thing. But the power lines were a bit too much - and dangerous. Children do not have adult judgement and need responsible adult supervision. The one thing I have learned from teaching, is that kids are really good at finding new ways to hurt themselves.

Since the boys are still alive I should think your standard has been satisfied.

Dan L

exactly, what ever happened to good old fashioned common sense.
Much Love,
Jonn

Your generosity and pomposity are overwhelming, Dan. I don't believe that I asked you for forgiveness, that I perceive any need of it from you, or that I give a damn whether or not you do so.

Many years,

Neil </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Neil is correct. Dan's post was both presumptuous and sarcastic. I believe that Dan owes Neil an apology.

I recommend to Neil and everyone else that, when someone posts something offensive, they simply ignore it and report it to the moderator of that forum.

A) power lines, while insulated, are dangerous if, say, there is a problem with that insulation. Can a child of 11 recognize it from a distance, before grabbing it? B) Traffic lights weigh an average of 75 pounds each...ONE mistake in jusgment, or a sudden strong gust of wind, and the child would be unable to cope with the weight, and be knocked off the roof. Neglect most certainly should be charged, but since it did not result in harm to the children, those penalties are way out of line.

That being said, I'd also like to add that before 1900, there were FEW, very few, electrical or mechanized tasks that children worked at...and those they did, like the mills and factories, were so dangerous and harmful to the children, that they were legislated against. Helping on the family farm, prior to 1900, most often meant horses. OK, you can say that having a tiny child harnessing and hitching horses is dangerous...what if the horse had been stung by a greenfly and bolted? Well, it happened. I don't argue that. But if a child tumbled off the top of a farm wagon onto dirt roads, it would be spot on that no one was going 60 mph behind him to run him over before he could collect himself and get up. The fact remains that there are any NUMBER of dangers now associated with the sheer VOLUME of traffic, and the nature of the equipment.

Yes, fathers should be able to teach their sons about the family business. Prior to the age that the government has set for the operation of such equipment, though, that teaching should only involve riding with daddy, being told and shown how things work.

What parent among you would give their child permission to hang out on top of a pitched roof on your house?

Most would instantly think of the danger, and order the child down AT ONCE.

The fact that the child was riding on a MOVING house, to perform a service for his father, is not justification for allowing what most of the world considers dangerous. Had the article told me that the children were helmeted, in harnesses, and wearing insulated or otherwise protective gear, I would, I admit, be less concerned. This is, however, negligent.

No parent has the right to endanger a child. Period. They have to answer for the lives and souls of the children that God has entrusted them with to God Himself.

Sadly, we have FAR too many laws in this country...and most have come about to protect people from their own stupidity, and the stupidity of others. Perhaps if more parents had said to mill owners and factory owners in the 1900s that, no, none of their children would work without safety equipment, the law would not have stepped in. But the sheer poverty at the time guaranteed that there would always be a source of cheap, expendable labour...OK, so wee kiddies dies of black lung in mines, along with their parents...or got fossy mouth from match factory work...or got scalps torn off when hair got caught in looms...or got fingers amputated.

Well, back then, it was "part of life". We've had the sense to address that, in order to protect our nation's children.

A CHILD cannot make informed decisions based on studying industry statistics about dangers of a task. The child merely thinks how great it is to help dad, and get to go ride on the roof.

I am NO proponent of a nanny state...far from it..but children need protection. Now doubt their father did the same sorts of things when he was a child...back when the world didn't move so fast...But we can no longer use the yardstick of our own childhood without considering the true differences in the world that surrounds us.

Gaudior, who supports homeschooling, conservatives, and less government intrusion into the lives of the people, but in return expects the people to show a bit of sense.

John,

I'm completely at a loss. I'll make it easy for you and for me from now on.

Dan L

Nobody should have the right to take risks with somebody else's life. Our children are given to us to be stewards of them, not to treat them as property that we can do what we wish with them.

Tammy

forgive me one and all for being a yenteh, but I am still waiting for the counsel of the admin to be heeded. we all have opinions, such as they are. but when I read sarcastic and pompous opinions, I can't help but wonder about the age range of someone who would post such opinions. it sounds more like a thirten year old (ironic, since child labor is being discussed) than a grown man. the idea of children being injured or killed doing work intended for an adult is not maudlin, bleeding heart sentimentality, it is both Christlike and pragmatic to be concerned enough to speak out. Christlike, in that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave dire warnings in the Gospels about someone doing ill to a child. it is pragmatic, in that we have to protect children who are future workers, in that we will need their tax money to fund our Social Security. so what you will about Social Security, but it is but a continuation of age old customs to take for the young and able to take care of the old and infirm. it is a due repayment to those who brought them up, it is in Scripture, in one of St.Paul's letters to Timothy (I don't have a Bible here in my office, so I can't come up with number one or two). I have never married, but have helped bring up children who have for one reason or another are fatherless. it sems obvious to me, that it has been a part of God's pattern for my life,and I wouldn't have it any other way, it has been rewarding. I know what it is like to give my food to a child, and do without myself. to sit with a child who is ill, to lose sleep, you name it, I have done. granted, many of you have done that and more, but I presume that I have a taste of what you have had a full plate of. and like you, I wouldn't have it any other way. what ever happened to common sense, a little boy cannot do a man's job. if the children are one parent, parentless, what ever, then it is the duty of ALL of us to step in. if it comes from the churches, as it was once, then so be it. if from my taxes, then so be it. true, there is child abuse, we have seen it in all religious expressions, there is also abuse in "families", it is widespread, but thank God, there is still the vast majority of those of us who are adults, that a child can turn to us for any help conceivable. may it always be so. Amen
Much Love,
Jonn