I got into a discussion in political science class about two people from Winnipeg who were white supremacists and had their children taken away because they were teaching them neo-nazi and racist ideology.

This is the initial article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

A fellow classmate said that they have the right to teach their children whatever they want to because it's their house. He actually said that parents are entitled to indoctrinate their offspring with whatever they want simply because they live in their house and eat their food. He said that anything they didn't like that he taught them could be worked off in the teenage years. He said that a catholic family has the right to teach their children to be catholic. To tell them that god created the earth 6000 years ago and created man in his image and even that if you don't think this you will burn forever in Hell. I interpreted it as "I can do what I want no matter how much it harms others" and no matter how much someone it hurt it is "not my problem."

I was disgusted. But what does the Escapist think?

And before we get people being too angry, I just used Catholic as an example, he could have said protestant, it isn't the point.

Yes parents should be given free reign to teach their kids as they see fit. To arbitrarily limit that right is a dangerous precedent. Now this does not apply to an action(ie placing your kids in danger or causing them to cause harm to others), but mere indoctrination should not be something that is forbiden.

Indoctrination is fine unless the ideals you press will lead to others being harmed, like neo-nazism.

Parents should be allowed to teach their parents whatever they wish, even though I personally do not agree with indoctrination. You see, this case is really a question of picking between Scylla or Charybdis. Allowing the government to get behind the front door and to decide what is 'good' or 'bad' is a horrible situation. Having a minority of asinine twats ruin their children is certainly regrettable, but I personally prefer it to State Sanctioned Education.

I personally see this as a liberty that should not be infringed upon by the state. Although, I have to add that I personally feel that people should be allowed to be neo-nazi's, if they wish to be/are idiots. As long as they don't break the law.

Allowing the government to get behind the front door and to decide what is 'good' or 'bad' is a horrible situation.

See: Hitting your kids.

Oh wait, I don't seem to see any on-the-streets outrage at that. Huh. Odd.

Having a minority of asinine twats ruin their children is certainly regrettable

I was more thinking that the children ending up dead is more regrettable personally.

As long as they don't break the law.

Little late when the kid's already dead, don't you think?

Children should not be considered property.

Children are people too and should have certain rights such as the right to an education. Parents should not be allowed to deny their children those rights.

I think that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want... But whatever...

Though I think that it's pretty stupid to teach your child "that which is not".

Personally, I think that parents should have the right to teach their children whatever they want (note that I don't mean treat them however they want). However, I also think that children should have the right to tell their parents to go fuck themselves and find a new home. Kids don't magically gain the ability to think rationally when they reach an arbitrary age; it may take more or less time depending on the individual. The emancipation of children should be practiced much more often, but the fact that we treat teenagers, regardless of personal merit, like toddlers leaves us with a community of young adults that act like toddlers.

Also, every form of teaching a thought process is indoctrination, good or bad.

I would agree that parents have the right to teach their children what they wish, but not to indoctrinate them. Indoctrination is never acceptable. I think my philosophy teacher put it best "To indoctrinate someone is to deny them of their mental faculties" and this is simply not acceptable. Children should be given a balanced education and be allowed to form their own opinions. And ideological teachings should be left out of education until a time when a child is able to form its own opinions, instead of at a young age when they are very impressionable.

Children are annoying and the less they have to do with me the better. We can only hope that the mis-education will lead to either sterilization or early but "tragic" death of said individual. that way, the stupid ideas die out and the somewhat credible ideas hang about.

No, children are not property, not of their parents or the state.

I don't believe that people are "born evil". I think they overwhelmingly tend to be made that way by bad upbringing. It is not unreasonable for the state to intervene in particularly bad cases where the state can provide or arrange better care.

That said, bringing your kids up with objectionable ideologies probably can't be actionable in our society as it ends up with the state having to determine what is and isn't okay for people to believe in, which is antithetical to democratic society. The best you might be able to argue is that indoctrinating some ideologies might constitute incitement to criminal action, but I don't know whether that would pass muster in a court.

Kubanator:
Indoctrination is fine unless the ideals you press will lead to others being harmed, like neo-nazism.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Kubanator:
Indoctrination is fine unless the ideals you press will lead to others being harmed, like neo-nazism.

Then there could easily be a huge debate about what "harms." Do you really want to go there?

JayDub147:
Personally, I think that parents should have the right to teach their children whatever they want (note that I don't mean treat them however they want). However, I also think that children should have the right to tell their parents to go fuck themselves and find a new home. Kids don't magically gain the ability to think rationally when they reach an arbitrary age; it may take more or less time depending on the individual. The emancipation of children should be practiced much more often, but the fact that we treat teenagers, regardless of personal merit, like toddlers leaves us with a community of young adults that act like toddlers.

Also, every form of teaching a thought process is indoctrination, good or bad.

That was a masterful way of putting it. I don't entirely agree though with you're first sentence.

Children are people. So are the mentally handicapped, but some severe case of mental deficiency demand constant attention and supervision.

Kids are handicapped adults. They are still learning and maturing, and require guidance and/or punishment. Please note that I am not talking about beatings or severe abuse, spankings and time-outs did not leave any lasting "damage" on my psyche.

If a parent wishes to teach their kid that the sky is neon green, it's fine by me. Just because a kid raised neo-Nazis does not imply that the kid will be a "hater". I think there are an ample number of Escapists born into Christian families, indoctrinated, and became atheists or agnostic to prove that people have a mind of their own.

Summary: Children are not property, but handicapped adults that require supervision and teaching before maturing into capable members of society. There should not be any government ban on "indoctrination" unless the child faces harm, or will indisputably attempt to harm others.

So the child has no rights themselves?
Thats a scary thought.

JayDub147:

Also, every form of teaching a thought process is indoctrination, good or bad.

Not true.
Indoctrination punishes questioning, education rewards it. Not all forms of teaching are indoctrination and it is insane to claim that they are.

xXErasmusXx:
Children are people. So are the mentally handicapped, but some severe case of mental deficiency demand constant attention and supervision.

Kids are handicapped adults. They are still learning and maturing, and require guidance and/or punishment. Please note that I am not talking about beatings or severe abuse, spankings and time-outs did not leave any lasting "damage" on my psyche.

If a parent wishes to teach their kid that the sky is neon green, it's fine by me. Just because a kid raised neo-Nazis does not imply that the kid will be a "hater". I think there are an ample number of Escapists born into Christian families, indoctrinated, and became atheists or agnostic to prove that people have a mind of their own.

Summary: Children are not property, but handicapped adults that require supervision and teaching before maturing into capable members of society. There should not be any government ban on "indoctrination" unless the child faces harm, or will indisputably attempt to harm others.

And the only way for them to stop being handicapped is to reach the age of 18?

Ordered liberty means the right to do what you want to the extent that it does not tangibly harm others. You can belong to a religion that believes in eating shrooms as long as you don't actually consume controlled substances.

So, saying one's child is "property" (Sui generous I'd write) is not the same as saying you can violate existing laws meant to protect the child as a human member of society.

I would hope you are outraged when you read of the government trying to outlaw parents engaged in home schooling for instance.

As long as it is confined to speech and belief, the government has to stay out of it. While there is much I would approve of for the government to do to stop bad parenting, invading a household and imposing governments' ideas of right and wrong think crosses a line.

You see, I hate the idea of parents indoctrinating their children with nonsense.

But why should the state decide what is nonsense or not? A quick look at well...reality.... would show that the state likes to suck as much as it possibly can at everything.

But then again, wouldn't that also mean that when a child is taken away because the parents are mentally or physically abusing the child, that is the state deciding? Although I agree with that decision, I'm reluctant to give them such power, because it could be abused. Where do we draw the line? It could be argued that instlling children a with a threatening and rigid version of the Christian faith could be a form of mental abuse. And in the extreme cases, I would agree with that.

A confusing case indeed.

Lonan:

And the only way for them to stop being handicapped is to reach the age of 18?

In case it wasn't clear, I was using a metaphor in order to make my opinion more accessible.

Gorfias:
Ordered liberty means the right to do what you want to the extent that it does not tangibly harm others. You can belong to a religion that believes in eating shrooms as long as you don't actually consume controlled substances.

Using shrooms tangibly harms others?

An example I would have agreed with more would be "you can belong to a religion that believes in forced human sacrifice, but you can't actually forcibly sacrifice humans."

But from reading the rest of your post it seems you are speaking more along the lines of giving children shrooms, which is much more understandable. I agree with the rest of your post though.

If a religious family can teach their religion to their children, then it should be the same for everyone no matter how disgusting.

One could also argue religion causes as much harm as the neo-nazis.

Religion in the extreme (As in, John Borough Baptist Church extreme) is as bad as the neo-nazis as they are also an extremist group. However we don't see religious extremists getting their children removed.

In a free world, you have the right to believe what ever you want, It is the acting upon corrupt beliefs is wrong, not believing in them.

As a mother I do not think of my child as something I own. I do think that making decisions for him till the time he shows he is capable of making sound ones on his own is needed because children do need guidance.

Now I may be lucky and have it where before he is 18 he shows enough maturity to where I only need to be a beacon of advice for the things he wants in his life. But until he is legally allowed to do certain things I feel its my responsibility to make decisions affecting him. As I would with any child I had. I know it comes across as "I own him" and many parents make the mistake of thinking that. I do not my child is not a slave but he is an extension of myself and someone I would hope grows up to be a part of this world in a positive way. I think as a parent I must make decisions for him till he is an adult that will help shape that but it does not make me feel I own him. I dont think I could ever feel that way about another living breathing creature period.

I watched an episode of 'wife swap' the other week (the american version), where this father was brainwashing his daughters into believing that their only woth in life was to be servants of their husbands, and that they would be raped by Satan if they dated someone their parents didn't pick out for them.

I was horrified. These girls were home-schooled, so had no outside knowledge to realise that their bullying nazi father was talking bull. The wife that swapped was a feminist who taught her daughters that they could to anything they wanted, and you can imgine she was horrified too. Not only his daughters, but he had also raised his son to believe that women were wothless, to the point where he refused to do any chores becuase they were 'womans work.' He actually took his daughters out of the programme because he didn't want her teaching them 'dangerous' things (like the fact the women can vote, perhaps?)that were unchristian, continually telling her she was going to hell for being a bitch. The kicker was that the feminists husband was a priest.

My point is that this indoctrination is sick, but doesn't always wear an easy label like 'neo-nazi.' The Nazi's hated EVERYONE, not just jews, blacks and hispanics, but slavs (people from the baltic states), gypsies, homosexuals, indians, the list goes on. By that definitian, all extremeists are Neo-Nazi's, no matter what their origin.

Children are people, and people should not be property. A parent should be able to teach their child ideologies that they think are right, as long as said child has acess to other people and situations that might challenge those views. For example, my primary school was quite religious, having hymn singing every friday assembely. Despite being there five days a week, it didn't stop me from forming an opinion that they were full of shit. If the parents weren't physically harming their children, or mentally or emotionally abusing them, I see no reason why they should be taken away. Watched closely, perhaps, becuase that's what social care is for, but the last thing any country needs is more children in the foster care system.

xXErasmusXx:

Lonan:

And the only way for them to stop being handicapped is to reach the age of 18?

In case it wasn't clear, I was using a metaphor in order to make my opinion more accessible.

I think we misunderstand each other. You were related children to those who are handicapped in some way. I said that the whole concept of "children" revolves around 18, and that the only cure for their mental disability (using you're analogy) is to become 18.

"If a parent wishes to teach their kid that the sky is neon green, it's fine by me. Just because a kid raised neo-Nazis does not imply that the kid will be a "hater". I think there are an ample number of Escapists born into Christian families, indoctrinated, and became atheists or agnostic to prove that people have a mind of their own."

And why should they have to prove they have a mind of their own? They're doing it to break free of their indoctrination.

"Summary: Children are not property, but handicapped adults that require supervision and teaching before maturing into capable members of society. There should not be any government ban on "indoctrination" unless the child faces harm, or will indisputably attempt to harm others."

You are not a handicapped adult at any age. A handicap indicates something which arose during you're life which reduces you're ability to be at or above the average. A 16 year old Olympian is not a handicapped adult unless he is in the Para-Olympics.

I consider indoctrination to be harm. Some parents want to watch an individual grow from birth. Some just don't want to die, and therefore make babies to continue their existence through indoctrination. Some think their beliefs are the best, and should indoctrinate their children with them.

It's just like Soveirgn making people want to think what he thinks. The crazed Salarian you talk to on Virmire who then attacks you is an exagerated version of how I view the effects of indoctrination. He was violent because he had an internal struggle of epic proportions. What we're referring to might be smaller scale, but it's the same thing fundamentally. People get inside you're head and make you want to think things you don't want to think. It makes you want to think things you don't want to think. The same is with parental indoctrination.

Lonan:

I think we misunderstand each other. You were related children to those who are handicapped in some way. I said that the whole concept of "children" revolves around 18, and that the only cure for their mental disability (using you're analogy) is to become 18.

Children mature. I did not intend to say that once a child reaches 18, a switch is flipped and the child is suddenly an intelligent adult. I've met "adult" 16 year-olds and I've conversed with childish 30 year-olds that require the guidance of parole officers because they are not capable of making wise decisions.

Lonan:

And why should they have to prove they have a mind of their own? They're doing it to break free of their indoctrination.

My point was that they have a mind of their own. The "indoctrination" did not make them Christian. The child from the article may not become a Nazi, despite any efforts by the parents.

Lonan:

It's just like Soveirgn making people want to think what he thinks. The crazed Salarian you talk to on Virmire who then attacks you is an exagerated version of how I view the effects of indoctrination. He was violent because he had an internal struggle of epic proportions. What we're referring to might be smaller scale, but it's the same thing fundamentally. People get inside you're head and make you want to think things you don't want to think. It makes you want to think things you don't want to think. The same is with parental indoctrination.

I think this is where we don't have a common understanding.

1)
In my family, I was taught that evolution was a lie, we went to church every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. We prayed before every meal. I was taught that homosexuality was wrong, that premarital sex was bad, and that all drugs and alcohol should be avoided like the plague. I was spanked if I was bad. This is indoctrination, of sorts.

2)
The other form of indoctrination is being tied to a chair, forced to watch a TV where a man repeats the same words over and over. Chants or phrases are played on a speaker while a child is sleeping. The parent repeats the phrase over and over "You are being punished because you are gay, you are being punished because you are gay," while whipping the child with a belt, even though the child has done nothing that could be considered "gay". This is another form of indoctrination.

If the "Nazi" parents are doing number 1, I don't care, the child can get over it if he chooses. It is not violent, it will not leave lasting psychological scars.

If the neo-Nazi parents are working with number 2, then this is a case for the government to step in.

I'm guessing that the parents are simply using number 1, and I don't have a problem with their use of it.

Kubanator:
Indoctrination is fine unless the ideals you press will lead to others being harmed, like neo-nazism.

Exactly. I don't think growing up as a good Catholic, good atheist, good Protestant etc will make you harm someone, unless you become extremist, but that's rare and an exception.

The line blurs when the welfare of the child comes into question. I recall a story where a man lost his children because he'd raised his kids to only speak Klingon, which would severely hamper them in their adult lives. When it comes to the children of white supremacists, whether or not to take custody of the children depends on how dangerous the environment becomes. There was another story where a couple had named their children Adolf Hitler ***** and Aryan Nations ***** (***** being their last name). They ended up losing their children not because of the names they were given, but because the couple were involved in illegal weapons dealing, a crime common in the neo-Nazi movement.

In the end, I think things should remain on a case-by-case basis. Sweeping legislation one way or the other will only complicate things.

I think people have a right to teach their kids whatever as long as it doesn't cause social issues, such as mental abuse or teaching them to hate another group. But it's kind of a case-by-case basis, as user_21937 said.