No, this is not another post about the FLDS situation. There are plenty of those already, including my own. It's true that the issue I want to discuss was brought to my mind because of the FLDS situation, but it really is a much broader issue: parental rights.
Generally I'm a supporter of protecting parental rights, but everyone must admit that there are limits. Clearly, no one has the right to inflict abuse of any kind on children. Child neglect also warrants intervention. But the FLDS situation has raised our awareness to some shades of gray that our society is struggling to come to terms with.
I don't know if the number of children who have been victims of abuse or gross neglect in the FLDS compound is 0 or 400. I'll leave that for the court to decide based on the evidence, and I hope that they make the right decisions in each individual case. But the media isn't satisfied to report on the evidence (whether real or imagined) and allegations of abuse. In addition, they have launched into a full-scale assault on their lifestyle. The implication of many media commentators, and talk show hosts such as Dr. Phil, is that even without specific abuse, the compound is destructive to children, and therefore the removal of the children is justified. This is based on the opinion, which I agree with, that the world-view and culture of the FLDS are misguided and socially destructive.
Now I've already focused too much on the FLDS in this post. As I said, I want to talk about a broader issue. To bring this closer to home to the mainstream LDS church, to which I belong, let's consider this quote from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
Mainstream LDS accept this as truth. But the feminist movement would generally disagree. They would see this statement as old-fashioned, discriminatory, and destructive. They might even go so far as to say that it is irresponsible to teach such a distorted world-view to children. Why should women feel any guilt for making the same decisions that men often make: to work instead of staying home with family? This view that used to be limited to extreme feminists is now generally accepted by our society. The distinction between the roles of men and women is diminishing, and is likely to continue to diminish as times goes on, causing the position of the church to become even more radical.
So how long will it be before they come for our children? How long will it be before Dr. Phil interviews an ex-LDS about what life is like growing up believing that women have the primary responsibility to nurture children, and the audience gasps. After all, says Dr. Phil, parents at least need to have a basic understanding of right and wrong.
Perhaps I'm being too sensational, but I hope you get my point. Here's the question: Where do we draw the line? How wrong is too wrong to be parents? How many lies do you need to tell your children about the world before you become an unfit parent? And who gets to decide if what you are saying is lie or truth?
In short, where do the rights of parents end?
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Religious Rights and Responsibilities
Today I heard about two news stories involving the rights of the religious. Let's just say it's not a proud day for the faithful.
First, a pharmacist who believes birth control is sinful refused to fill a prescription, and then refused to transfer it to another pharmacy. This pharmacist was sanctioned by the Pharmacy Examining Board, and a court recently (and rightly, in my opinion) upheld the sanction.
Secondly, and tragically, a girl died as a result of untreated diabetes because her parents refused to take her to the doctor and instead relied on prayer alone.
The rational of the religious in both stories is that it was their religious right to do what they did. They were only following their conscience, and doing what they believed was right. We can't force people to do something they believe is morally wrong, can we?
No, we can't. In the United States, we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit, and part of that right is that we should not be forced to do things that we find morally objectionable.
However, some in the religious community, over-eager to solidify this right, seem to have forgotten that with rights come responsibilities. Although I think he was wrong, the pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill the prescription, and even refuse to transfer it if he truly had moral objections. However, in practicing his right, he also needs to be held responsible for his decision. He was responsible for making sure his employer understood his moral stand, and his employer should have had every right to terminate his employment as a result of it. If I take a job as a waiter, and then refuse to serve someone alcohol because I am a Mormon (and I don't think I would refuse, for the record), then I'd fully expect my employer to fire me, unless they were gracious enough to try to make other accommodations. It would be the responsible thing to do to tell my employer of my convictions before accepting the job, as the pharmacist should have done. I have the right to practice my religion as I see fit, but if my religious convictions conflict with my professional responsibilities, I should not have the right to remain employed.
The issue with the diabetic girl is a more sensitive topic. Did the parents have the right not to take this daughter to the hospital and pray instead? If I'm consistent with my previous argument, I'd say "Yes, and they are responsible for what happens as a result of that decision." But I just can't bring myself to say that a parent has the right to allow their child to die needlessly. Perhaps I could say: Yes, but they must be held responsible for their decision, which should have meant their legal custody over the girl should have been terminated, and social services should have taken her to the hospital.
Just as the pharmacist doesn't have the right to a job, these parents don't have the right to be parents if they make decisions that directly result in death for their child, whether those decisions are based on religious belief or not.
Religious people, including myself, should learn from these mistakes. Let us strive to learn true principles, live by them, and then take responsibility for them.
Matthew 26: 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
First, a pharmacist who believes birth control is sinful refused to fill a prescription, and then refused to transfer it to another pharmacy. This pharmacist was sanctioned by the Pharmacy Examining Board, and a court recently (and rightly, in my opinion) upheld the sanction.
Secondly, and tragically, a girl died as a result of untreated diabetes because her parents refused to take her to the doctor and instead relied on prayer alone.
The rational of the religious in both stories is that it was their religious right to do what they did. They were only following their conscience, and doing what they believed was right. We can't force people to do something they believe is morally wrong, can we?
No, we can't. In the United States, we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit, and part of that right is that we should not be forced to do things that we find morally objectionable.
However, some in the religious community, over-eager to solidify this right, seem to have forgotten that with rights come responsibilities. Although I think he was wrong, the pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill the prescription, and even refuse to transfer it if he truly had moral objections. However, in practicing his right, he also needs to be held responsible for his decision. He was responsible for making sure his employer understood his moral stand, and his employer should have had every right to terminate his employment as a result of it. If I take a job as a waiter, and then refuse to serve someone alcohol because I am a Mormon (and I don't think I would refuse, for the record), then I'd fully expect my employer to fire me, unless they were gracious enough to try to make other accommodations. It would be the responsible thing to do to tell my employer of my convictions before accepting the job, as the pharmacist should have done. I have the right to practice my religion as I see fit, but if my religious convictions conflict with my professional responsibilities, I should not have the right to remain employed.
The issue with the diabetic girl is a more sensitive topic. Did the parents have the right not to take this daughter to the hospital and pray instead? If I'm consistent with my previous argument, I'd say "Yes, and they are responsible for what happens as a result of that decision." But I just can't bring myself to say that a parent has the right to allow their child to die needlessly. Perhaps I could say: Yes, but they must be held responsible for their decision, which should have meant their legal custody over the girl should have been terminated, and social services should have taken her to the hospital.
Just as the pharmacist doesn't have the right to a job, these parents don't have the right to be parents if they make decisions that directly result in death for their child, whether those decisions are based on religious belief or not.
Religious people, including myself, should learn from these mistakes. Let us strive to learn true principles, live by them, and then take responsibility for them.
Matthew 26: 42. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Car or Doll?
"Car or doll?" the woman asked after I ordered the happy meal for my daughter. "Doll" I said without thinking. I have a daughter; of course she wants the doll.
After dinner we gave her the doll without even looking at it. Today I was cleaning up and found it on the floor and saw it for the first time. It was one of those Bratz dolls wearing a halter-top and a mini skirt. I've seen the Bratz toys before, and I was shocked the first time I saw them in the toy store. I was even more shocked that they were being peddled to 3-year-olds.
The happy meal bag says "Toys for kids under 3 available". How about toys for kids under 18? Are those available?
Lesson learned: Next time someone asks me "Car or doll?", choose car.
After dinner we gave her the doll without even looking at it. Today I was cleaning up and found it on the floor and saw it for the first time. It was one of those Bratz dolls wearing a halter-top and a mini skirt. I've seen the Bratz toys before, and I was shocked the first time I saw them in the toy store. I was even more shocked that they were being peddled to 3-year-olds.
The happy meal bag says "Toys for kids under 3 available". How about toys for kids under 18? Are those available?
Lesson learned: Next time someone asks me "Car or doll?", choose car.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
