AR - Fully-Armed Sheriffs Remove 7 Homeschool Children from 'Prepper' Family

[MyBelle]

I have no idea what your religion is, nor have I asked you, nor will ask you. I have never said that parents do not have a right to be parents or make house rules. To me, house rules consist of things like curfews, chores, and standards for general cleanliness. I did say that teenagers, and I do specifically mean teenagers, have a right to have views of their own, words of their own, thoughts of their own, and that among those views, words, and thoughts should be included beliefs about religion. Unless you are teenager, I fail to see how my beliefs should affect your life in anyway whatsoever, and I confess myself baffled as to why you would try to personalize this or mischaracterize what I actually said.

In America, there is a separation between church and state. Parents do have the right to control what religious beliefs their children are exposed to whether it be in public schools or from someone knocking at the door with a brochure. I don't anticipate this will change anytime soon and until it does, those poor teenagers will just have to suck it up.

JMO

 

[808paradise]

Many parents are more interested in guiding their children and enjoy watching them become their own person than in controlling them. I pity children of parents who are so afraid of the unknown that they stifle any individuality or personal growth.

 

[Charlie09]

Many parents are more interested in guiding their children and enjoy watching them become their own person than in controlling them. I pity children of parents who are so afraid of the unknown that they stifle any individuality or personal growth.

where is that happening?

 

[daisytrail]

In America, there is a separation between church and state. Parents do have the right to control what religious beliefs their children are exposed to whether it be in public schools or from someone knocking at the door with a brochure. I don't anticipate this will change anytime soon and until it does, those poor teenagers will just have to suck it up.

JMO

And as apples are not oranges, the wall of separation has nothing to do with a debate over whether or not children have rights. These are two separate things in my opinion. What the wall separation means is that there is no particular religion taught in public schools. It means that textbooks should be secular in nature so as not to favor one religion over another. To me, as far as I can tell, you seem to believe religion gives certain people almost all power over their children. Do you think it is wrong for a grown man to slap his daughter in the face, and do you think the Stanley's religious beliefs should give them that right? I don't. Do you? So leaving aside, whether or not children have any right to choose their religious beliefs, do you believe that parents have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

 

[MyBelle]

Many parents are more interested in guiding their children and enjoy watching them become their own person than in controlling them. I pity children of parents who are so afraid of the unknown that they stifle any individuality or personal growth.

Many parents are also too focused on their own selfish priorities so they make excuses for their failures as parents. Controlling who has access to our children and what they are being exposed to takes a lot of effort and care and some parents are just too lazy to bother. I pity their kids.

Public schools do control who has access to the children in their care and I think the majority of parents like it that way.

JMO

 

[Charlie09]

And as apples are not oranges, the wall of separation has nothing to do with a debate over whether or not children have rights. These are two separate things in my opinion. What the wall separation means is that there is no particular religion taught in public schools. It means that textbooks should be secular in nature so as not to favor one religion over another. To me, as far as I can tell, you seem religion gives certain people almost all power over their children. Do you think it is wrong for a grown man to slap his daughter in the face, and do you think the Stanley's religious beliefs should give them that right? I don't. Do you? So leaving aside, whether or not children have any right to choose their religious beliefs, do you believe that children have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

why is this becoming personal?

 

[daisytrail]

why is this becoming personal?

My post was directed a My Belle. It was based upon things she has said throughout this thread.

 

[daisytrail]

Apparently so. I have never heard of this so-called "right" for teenagers to engage, without their parent's permission, in any practices, whether it be religion, politics or sports. That seems to be a new "right" invented on a soapbox.

JMO

This which was said to me upthread.

 

[MyBelle]

And as apples are not oranges, the wall of separation has nothing to do with a debate over whether or not children have rights. These are two separate things in my opinion. What the wall separation means is that there is no particular religion taught in public schools. It means that textbooks should be secular in nature so as not to favor one religion over another. To me, as far as I can tell, you seem religion gives certain people almost all power over their children. Do you think it is wrong for a grown man to slap his daughter in the face, and do you think the Stanley's religious beliefs should give them that right? I don't. Do you? So leaving aside, whether or not children have any right to choose their religious beliefs, do you believe that children have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

In order to acquire a religious "belief" one has to first be exposed to it. Parents do have a right to control what their children are exposed to. The government acknowledges that right by requiring public schools to have permission slips signed for kids to attend school assemblies if they cover such issues as birth control or drugs. I don't want a religious cult approaching my daughter at a mall and trying to "recruit" her just as I don't want some molester to approach her which is why we had ground rules.

I don't know that Hal Stanley has slapped any of his children in the face nor does it matter to me. I have not seen any reports that any Stanley child was physically punished to the level it is abuse. Arkansas statute allows corporal punishment. Not sure why you refuse to accept that fact.


JMO

 

[daisytrail]

In order to acquire a religious "belief" one has to first be exposed to it. Parents do have a right to control what their children are exposed to. The government acknowledges that right by requiring public schools to have permission slips signed for kids to attend school assemblies if they cover such issues as birth control or drugs. I don't want a religious cult approaching my daughter at a mall and trying to "recruit" her just as I don't want some molester to approach her which is why we had ground rules.

I don't know that Hal Stanley has slapped any of his children in the face nor does it matter to me. I have not seen any reports that any Stanley child was physically punished to the level it is abuse. Arkansas statute allows corporal punishment. Not sure why you refuse to accept that fact.


JMO

BBM

What I have bolded makes makes clear to me that you and I have no basic premises from which to discuss child welfare. In other words, we to not agree on what constitutes child abuse. I believe slapping achild is abusive. Whether or not I am in agreement with Arkansas law does not matter to me. You have stated that you do not care whether or not Stanley slapped his daughter. I am taking you at your word. I do care. That comes from my personal beliefs which are supported by my religious beliefs.

 

[MyBelle]

why is this becoming personal?

Good question. I'm not sure why I'm being grilled on what I believe. My religion has absolutely nothing to do with this case. One thing I do wholeheartedly believe is in the concept of religious tolerance.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

Good question. I'm not sure why I'm being grilled on what I believe. My religion has absolutely nothing to do with this case. One thing I do wholeheartedly believe is in the concept of religious tolerance.

JMO

You are mistaken. I asking, not grilling, and I am asking about your beliefs about what constitutes child abuse. I have not asked you what your religious beliefs are. Is there any particular reason that I need to know; I do not think so. I am asking you about what you think constitutes child abuse. We can talk law until we are blue in the face, but would be both be wasting our time if we cannot agree on the basic premises from which to have a discussion. There is no need to discuss religion at all. You have a right to yours and I have a right to mine. Repeatedly, throughout this thread I have indicated my willingness to agree to disagree with you, and yet you keep engaging my posts.

 

[Yoda]

Match 11th is a motion hearing. Does anyone know what that would most likely entail? TIA

 

[MyBelle]

You are mistaken. I asking, not grilling, and I am asking about your beliefs about what constitutes child abuse. I have not asked you what your religious beliefs are. Is there any particular reason that I need to know; I do not think so. I am asking you about what you think constitutes child abuse. We can talk law until we are blue in the face, but would be both be wasting our time if we cannot agree on the basic premises from which to have a discussion. There is no need to discuss religion at all. You have a right to yours and I have a right to mine. Repeatedly, throughout this thread I have indicated my willingness to agree to disagree with you, and yet you keep engaging my posts.

I'm not mistaken. Here's what you asked me: do you believe that children have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

I replied that what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with the religious convictions of Mr. Stanley or anybody else. This case IS about the law.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

I'm not mistaken. Here's what you asked me: do you believe that children have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

I replied that what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with the religious convictions of Mr. Stanley or anybody else. This case IS about the law.

JMO

Then I shall trouble you no more in this thread by addressing you directly, but I do reserve the right to post generally or respond to others.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I'm not mistaken. Here's what you asked me: do you believe that children have a right to physically punish their children as part of religious correction?

I replied that what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with the religious convictions of Mr. Stanley or anybody else. This case IS about the law.

JMO

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Arkansas law does not provide a religious exemption when it comes to corporal punishment. A blow to the face is considered abuse. Blows elsewhere--presumably buttocks or legs--may not be delivered with a fist, nor result in lasting pain or more than transient marks.

The judge has determined that there was sufficient evidence of physical abuse to continue foster placement, and only allow supervised visits. That is pretty serious.

 

[Charlie09]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Arkansas law does not provide a religious exemption when it comes to corporal punishment. A blow to the face is considered abuse. Blows elsewhere--presumably buttocks or legs--may not be delivered with a fist, nor result in lasting pain or more than transient marks.

The judge has determined that there was sufficient evidence of physical abuse to continue foster placement, and only allow supervised visits. That is pretty serious.

The actual law -

Code Section 12-18-101, et seq. What Constitutes Abuse Specific incidents listed in 12-12-503 include abandonment, extreme and repeated cruelty; intentional, negligent, nonjustifiable conduct constituting physical, psychological, or sexual abuse; conduct creating threat of death or permanent impairment; intentionally and without justification disciplining a child by striking on the face or with a closed fist or shaking a child - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arkansas-law/arkansas-child-abuse-laws.html#sthash.9MFmPtTa.dpuf

that "without justification" seems to not be very concrete -

 

[MyBelle]

The actual law -


that "without justification" seems to not be very concrete -

indeed. In this case, we still don't know if there actually was a slap to any child's face. A neighbor may have been reporting purely bogus accusations because they were in a dispute with the Stanleys over something else...kinda like the stolen pig allegation that got the Hatfield-McCoy feud a burnin'.

JMO

 

[Charlie09]

indeed. In this case, we still don't know if there actually was a slap to any child's face. A neighbor may have been reporting purely bogus accusations because they were in a dispute with the Stanleys over something else...kinda like the stolen pig allegation that got the Hatfield-McCoy feud a burnin'.

JMO

I'm not advocating violence against kids, I do think sometimes physical consequences are a better deterrent than others, but it's up to the parents to decide what works best on each kid. And while I'm a huge parents rights advocates, with those rights, come responsibilities - parents have the responsibility to not be abusive if physical consequences are used.

I do also remember one time my dad reached out to grab at my brother's shirt - my face happened to be in between the reach, my dad's elbow and the shirt - Guess who had the bloody nose? The adorable 9 year old sister, not the 16 year old brother - but anyone who had been behind us at the gas station would have no clue what had happened in the truck that day, just the dad yelling at the son while trying to clean up the favorite girl's nose What we see isn't always the complete picture is my point.

I can appreciate the desire to make sure the home is safe, but sincerely hope the kids aren't put in danger in a foster home in AR. We'll see what happens next week.

 

[CathyinTexas]

The defense has filed a motion so they are meeting March 11 before the March 23 hearing that was set before. Does anyone here know what the motions is? I assume the defense attorney will argue there isn't just cause to remove the children? Is it possible the judge would return the children to the parents on that date? I am curious what our members here think will happen.