Thread: Only parents can teach youngsters right from wrong

Originally Posted by timj219

Good kids come from bad parents all the time. They learn from other family members, friends, church, other community groups. Anyone BUT the government. Because in a free society, government does not dictate moral values. That's the hallmark of dictatorship. Even if freedom to teach your own morals to your children was not so important, government run schools are simply not equipped for or capable of such a job. The cure would be worse than the disease.

I don't think anyone is disputing that good kids come from bad parents ... and vice versa. But doesn't society dictate morals, as a whole? That is essentially what you are saying, but we do you believe that all other social aspects of a society (ie Church, etc) should have an input into moral-education, but not schools, especially considering that students spend far more time at school than they do at Church, or - dare I say it - with their parents, in most cases? Why should it not be seen as "complimentary" to their moral education, rather than as opposition to it?

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

But timj219,

Those 'voluntary community standards' provide for the agencies of local government stepping in (schools, social agencies, etc) when the parents completely are unable/unwilling to deal with the situation.

Only when that unwillingness or inability results in actions which impinge on the rights of others can they be addressed by government institutions. That is NOT the same as govenrment institutions encroaching on the right and responsibility of parents to pass on their moral values to their children.

Originally Posted by noahath

I don't think anyone is disputing that good kids come from bad parents ... and vice versa. But doesn't society dictate morals, as a whole? That is essentially what you are saying, but we do you believe that all other social aspects of a society (ie Church, etc) should have an input into moral-education, but not schools, especially considering that students spend far more time at school than they do at Church, or - dare I say it - with their parents, in most cases? Why should it not be seen as "complimentary" to their moral education, rather than as opposition to it?

All other social institutions are voluntary in nature. Parents can choose any of them or none at all. Public education is federally mandated. Obviously activities which are mandated for everyone cannot be allowed to impinge on the rights\ and responsibility of citizens to pass on their individual moral values ot their children.

In a perfect world government might be a "complementary" source of morals education - but in a perfect world we would need no government so I guess there really is no circumstance where this would be a good idea.

Look at what is happening on this thread. You and an aggressively ignorant homophobic religious fanatic are both supporitng the idea of government mandated morals education. What do you think the odds are that the two of you will both like the set of moral values that end up being the standard?

Originally Posted by timj219

Look at what is happening on this thread. You and an aggressively ignorant homophobic religious fanatic are both supporitng the idea of government mandated morals education. What do you think the odds are that the two of you will both like the set of moral values that end up being the standard?

Hmmm, very, very good point. Ok, I'll back away right now, LOL.

I agree, timj219, (#42.)

Although you'll find the standard of what 'impinge(s) on the rights of others' is an evolutionary process.