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

[K_Z]

Charlie, I understand you're upset about something, but I'm not really sure what that is.

This case has always had a very strong element of religion in it, and religion touted as an excuse and divine justification for child beating, by the words of HS in his posted sermons. The parents confirm that every single time they speak or write. In fact, they appear to be unable to speak, or give any comments in writing that do not include a lecture about their interpretation of something in the Bible, peppered with Bible quotes.

They have completely moved away from MMS justification in their comments, and away from the "homeschooling persecution" comments, if you read and listen closely. Their recent comments fully center on the divine authority of them as parents that has been "robbed", and the need for unquestioning obedience of their children. They have made this about religion. The authorities don't care about religion. They only care about whether or not there is abuse, neglect, or an unsafe environment. The justification for abuse doesn't matter. The parents DO think their justification for their unacceptable acts toward their children is divinely commanded, and at great odds with the laws of their state. That is a very legitimate issue for discussion, IMO.

 

[Charlie09]

Well, actually some of us seem to believe that children have rights existing apart from the rights of their parents. I, for one -- and I have been much criticized for this belief: I believe that older children have a right to hold religious beliefs and even engage in religious practices that are not those of their parents. So you see, I very much support religious choice and freedom for everyone, even teenagers. You will find no criticism of any particular religion from me. I have a religion and I adhere to it and have strong, strong, serious beliefs about my right to practice it.

I respect the rights and dignity of every human being. My religion requires this. And children are human beings!

So other people's religious rights end where your religion dictates it?

 

[daisytrail]

So other people's religious rights end where your religion dictates it?

I don't see where you get this from my post. I said, quoting myself: "I support religious choice and freedom for everyone, even teenagers." Is there something about my post that caused to extrapolate that I meant the opposite of what I actually said?

 

[Charlie09]

I don't see where you get this from my post. I said, quoting myself: I support religious choice and freedom for everyone, even teenagers. Is there something about my post that caused to extrapolate that I meant the opposite of what I actually said?

But at some points, parents have the right to be parents and make the final house rules. So your religious rights, don't trump mine just because you feel a child is entitled to be an independent person in a dependent relationship.

 

[Charlie09]

Charlie, I understand you're upset about something, but I'm not really sure what that is.

This case has always had a very strong element of religion in it, and religion touted as an excuse and divine justification for child beating, by the words of HS in his posted sermons. The parents confirm that every single time they speak or write.

They have completely moved away from MMS justification in their comments, and away from the "homeschooling persecution" comments, if you read and listen closely. Their recent comments fully center on the divine authority of them as parents that has been "robbed", and the need for unquestioning obedience of their children. They have made this about religion. The authorities don't care about religion. They only care about whether or not there is abuse, neglect, or an unsafe environment. The justification for abuse doesn't matter. The parents DO think their justification for their unacceptable acts toward their children is divinely commanded, and a great odds with the laws of their state. That is a very legitimate issue for discussion, IMO.

I think my frustration is actually pretty clear - there are outrageous allegations on this thread with zero credibility, but the stand in "conversation."

 

[daisytrail]

But at some points, parents have the right to be parents and make the final house rules. So your religious rights, don't trump mine just because you feel a child is entitled to be an independent person in a dependent relationship.

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.

 

[daisytrail]

My religion or what church I go to. It has always seemed rude to me, so I am not likely to start doing it to others. I was brought up not to discuss sex, religion, or politics. I still do not discuss the first with people whom I do not know well. I discuss religion only in places like bible study as a rule. I don't believe in judging people's souls at all or personal choices except in those matters where harm to others comes into play. As for politics, I discuss usually only in a particular context where I am assured of substantive rather knee-jerk responses or in certain threads or forums expressly designed for such discussion.

I am interested in discussing the welfare of the Stanley children and the rights of children in particular.

 

[K_Z]

I will add that, IMO, by the time a minor has become a teenager, they have the "right" to have and develop their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs (religious and otherwise). Parents might put limits on the expression of those beliefs until age 18, but they cannot "command" teens what they can think, observe, believe, and reason, IMO.

Certainly we all know that teen brains, judgment, insight, and ability to project consequences are not fully mature until the mid to late 20's. Teens of normal intelligence, who do not have mental illness, are able to be held accountable for their actions in criminal cases, in the same manner as adults. The job of a parent or trusted adult is to guide teens in their development toward independence, not "command" them to "believe" a certain way, not to "command" teens to believe exactly as the parents do, like little automatons or clones.

I am very, very bothered by the ongoing scapegoating of the teens in this case, by the parent's own words. If those teens return home, I am very worried for their safety. The parents have signaled that they are "willing" to let the older teens "go", in exchange for getting the younger ones home. That worries me, too-- that love and acceptance and "home" is conditional on absolute submission to "whatever" the parent commands.

I agree with the poster above that it appears that it is MORE important to HS and MS to preach their "message" about parental authority being divinely bestowed and unimpeachable by man's laws, than the importance of working with authorities to solve the issues and get their kids back home. The *actual* kids do not appear to be their priority here, IMO-- the kids are the symbolic figures for preaching their ideas.

And IMO, I do find their religious ideas about parental authority, and beatings in the name of religion, to be profoundly disturbing, as well as profoundly extremist. I'm sad that kids have to grow up in such an isolated, extremist environment, where "love = beatings commanded by God". I'm sad that anyone could think that's a good thing. I think it's physical, psychological, and emotional manipulation and abuse.

 

[MyBelle]

So other people's religious rights end where your religion dictates it?

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

 

[MyBelle]

But at some points, parents have the right to be parents and make the final house rules. So your religious rights, don't trump mine just because you feel a child is entitled to be an independent person in a dependent relationship.

I'm betting our prisons are overwhelmingly populated with former teenagers who weren't required to follow house rules. I also don't know any teenager who can be forced to actually listen to a sermon rather than daydreaming through it.

JMO

 

[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

I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else in this thread, am I not? Discussions about "rights" are pretty useless unless the parties to the conversation acknowledge that there can be such a thing as a conflict of interests. I did request before from you that we just agree to disagree on this subject of children having religious rights. I hope you don't have a problem with this, as this is a belief of mine that I am entitled to continue to hold, whether its origins be religious or philosophical.

 

[Tugela]

I will add that, IMO, by the time a minor has become a teenager, they have the "right" to have and develop their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs (religious and otherwise). Parents might put limits on the expression of those beliefs until age 18, but they cannot "command" teens what they can think, observe, believe, and reason, IMO.

Certainly we all know that teen brains, judgment, insight, and ability to project consequences are not fully mature until the mid to late 20's. Teens of normal intelligence, who do not have mental illness, are able to be held accountable for their actions in criminal cases, in the same manner as adults. The job of a parent or trusted adult is to guide teens in their development toward independence, not "command" them to "believe" a certain way, not to "command" teens to believe exactly as the parents do, like little automatons or clones.

I am very, very bothered by the ongoing scapegoating of the teens in this case, by the parent's own words. If those teens return home, I am very worried for their safety. The parents have signaled that they are "willing" to let the older teens "go", in exchange for getting the younger ones home. That worries me, too-- that love and acceptance and "home" is conditional on absolute submission to "whatever" the parent commands.

I agree with the poster above that it appears that it is MORE important to HS and MS to preach their "message" about parental authority being divinely bestowed and unimpeachable by man's laws, than the importance of working with authorities to solve the issues and get their kids back home. The *actual* kids do not appear to be their priority here, IMO-- the kids are the symbolic figures for preaching their ideas.

And IMO, I do find their religious ideas about parental authority, and beatings in the name of religion, to be profoundly disturbing, as well as profoundly extremist. I'm sad that kids have to grow up in such an isolated, extremist environment, where "love = beatings commanded by God". I'm sad that anyone could think that's a good thing. I think it's physical, psychological, and emotional manipulation and abuse.

Something I think a lot of people get confused about, your children are not "yours" to do with as you please. They are citizens and individuals with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Society delegates responsibility for raising and providing shelter for the children to the parents, but parents do NOT have the right to enforce their views on the children or engage in extreme behavior, and if the manner in which they are raising those children is out of whack with what is considered convention, then society absolutely has the right to remove the children. It is a privilege, and a privilege that can be removed if the parents fail in their responsibility to raise the children to the standards expected by society. There is not and should not be any question about this.

The rights which have priority are the rights of the children, not the rights of the parents. Children are not personal property.

 

[Tugela]

But at some points, parents have the right to be parents and make the final house rules. So your religious rights, don't trump mine just because you feel a child is entitled to be an independent person in a dependent relationship.

They have the right to make house rules, provided that those house rules are not unreasonable.

If you reach the point where the children are terrified of inadvertently breaking one of many, nuanced and ever changing rules for fear of being physically assaulted, then yes I would say that the bounds of parental responsibility has been long crossed.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Something I think a lot of people get confused about, your children are not "yours" to do with as you please. They are citizens and individuals with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Society delegates responsibility for raising and providing shelter for the children to the parents, but parents do NOT have the right to enforce their views on the children or engage in extreme behavior, and if the manner in which they are raising those children is out of whack with what is considered convention, then society absolutely has the right to remove the children. It is a privilege, and a privilege that can be removed if the parents fail in their responsibility to raise the children to the standards expected by society. There is not and should not be any question about this.

The rights which have priority are the rights of the children, not the rights of the parents. Children are not personal property.

Like others not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the rights of chidren vary based on legal actions in each state--and perhaps some federal laws. They have never been granted full legal rights as adults are. The cannot enter into contracts, nor marry. They are not recgnized as fully competent--developmentally or experientally--to make certain decisions, such as the commision of crimes or to engage carnally with adults. The focus of laws has been, I believe, more aimed at protection than granting of rights. However, such protective laws have tended to establish a right to freedoms from abuse, exploitation, trafficking, neglect, etc. Sometimes courts are involved--such as during custody disputes--and have tended to accord older children and teens more freedom to choose between various options, including religion.

 

[Charlie09]

They have the right to make house rules, provided that those house rules are not unreasonable.

If you reach the point where the children are terrified of inadvertently breaking one of many, nuanced and ever changing rules for fear of being physically assaulted, then yes I would say that the bounds of parental responsibility has been long crossed.

is that the allegation here?

 

[Charlie09]

Something I think a lot of people get confused about, your children are not "yours" to do with as you please. They are citizens and individuals with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Society delegates responsibility for raising and providing shelter for the children to the parents, but parents do NOT have the right to enforce their views on the children or engage in extreme behavior, and if the manner in which they are raising those children is out of whack with what is considered convention, then society absolutely has the right to remove the children. It is a privilege, and a privilege that can be removed if the parents fail in their responsibility to raise the children to the standards expected by society. There is not and should not be any question about this.

The rights which have priority are the rights of the children, not the rights of the parents. Children are not personal property.

and it is certainly your right to raise your children that way. there is nothing inherently wrong with food and shelter being the right and everything else being a privilege that can be taken away if household norms and rules are not followed. some households may even require a decent attitude.

 

[808paradise]

is that the allegation here?

We don't know the details of the allegations. However, there is far more evidence to support this theory than there is supporting the theory that this is a conspiracy of any kind. No matter how rude or condescending some people can be, it doesn't change the facts. CPS, LE and a judge all decided there was enough evidence to remove the children and to keep them. HS sermons and MS own writings give weight to the theory that the children are being mistreated as well. Whether YOU or any other poster believe children or teenagers have rights doesn't matter. CPS and the Judge seem to think they have the right to live free from abuse.

 

[K_Z]

and it is certainly your right to raise your children that way. there is nothing inherently wrong with food and shelter being the right and everything else being a privilege that can be taken away if household norms and rules are not followed. some households may even require a decent attitude.

BBM. These are very provocative words, and I can't agree with any of this post. It worries me that anyone could genuinely think these things.

IMO, anyone who thinks that the "only" rights a child should have is food and shelter, and "everything else being a privilege", should never become bio-parents, or be allowed to adopt, or be foster parents, or work or volunteer in any capacity with children. That attitude, IMO, is extremely dangerous for children's well-being, physically, and emotionally.

Children are people. Not possessions, or pets, or parental clones.

 

[Charlie09]

We don't know the details of the allegations. However, there is far more evidence to support this theory than there is supporting the theory that this is a conspiracy of any kind. No matter how rude or condescending some people can be, it doesn't change the facts. CPS, LE and a judge all decided there was enough evidence to remove the children and to keep them. HS sermons and MS own writings give weight to the theory that the children are being mistreated as well. Whether YOU or any other poster believe children or teenagers have rights doesn't matter. CPS and the Judge seem to think they have the right to live free from abuse.

The point is - we don't know what the allegations are, so it's all just opinion and hot air, until it's known what the judge's actual concerns are.

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully, please read my posts more carefully before you launch into a tirade at me about something else. I said the reports from ADULTS require more than just hearsay. I said nothing about the child's testimony. I haven't seen any media reporting that the Stanley children testified at the hearing so if that took place, please link. Thanks.

Maybe that's what you meant but it is not what you said. Also, I try to be polite and calm in most posts. I think calling my post a tirade is unfair.