You said “porn” twice.
The Orthodox are stricter than this. Not only could the kid not eat pork, he or she should not eat off of any plates which ever had pork or meat and dairy mixed. You’d need paper plates and plastic throw-away utensils.
Clearly you can’t be expected to understand the subtleties. The child should ask for paper plates - if he doesn’t care all that much, it is not your place to understand everything about his culture.
A 12 year old is old enough to understand this stuff. I went to a kosher Boy Scout Camp at 12 and I sure did.
If a parent is really worried about a kid getting corrupted, it is their responsibility to ask another parent for rules, or better, convince a kid that the rules should be upheld. My daughter had lots of Mormon friends. We had Coke and Sprite in our refrigerator, and of one chose a Coke instead of a legal Sprite I wouldn’t prevent it. That doesn’t mean you violate societal norms like offering a 12-year-old a beer or porn.
Ah like porn.
No one’s human rights are violated by not reading a particular book, listening to a particular song, or eating a particular sandwich. That is absurd. By your logic, it is unconscionable for a parent to have a curfew for their children. After all, they have human rights, who is the parent to limit their freedom?
And you can keep on waiting for an apology, you’ll not get one from me. You felt it necessary to point out that these Muslim parents wishes are not worthy of respect. I still think that is an unnecessary distinction to make, and believe you did so as an indictment of Islam. You may not admit that, but what other point was there in mentioning it?
It may be that no one agrees with me, and it may be true that no law is broken. I maintain that to intentionally and secretively encourage and aid a young child to go against their parents reasonable wishes is wrong.
It’s at least as logical as the case you’re making.
Why do you keep phrasing this conditionally, as if it were possible that maybe a law is being broken in this situation? There is absolutely no law being broken here, and there’s no “maybe” about that. The idea that there might be a law that prevents an adult from giving To Kill A Mockingbird to someone else’s child is ridiculous.
Because I don’t believe that something being strictly legal means that it must also be morally correct.
I know this is an edge case, and doesn’t really apply to the vast majority of children, but I know a lot of gay adults who would have given anything to hear, at twelve, that the way they were feeling was okay, and that they didn’t have to be ashamed of it.
Some of them very nearly gave everything because they never heard that.
So if you think it’s immoral, it must also be possibly illegal? We know you think it’s immoral. It is definitely legal. The two things are not connected.
You are the one who has insisted that no laws were being broken. I agree, and admit that.
Miller, I did say reasonable request. That being said, I am not sure that discussing sex with someone else’s 12 yo (without their knowledge) is reasonable. That’s pretty young. It would indeed be an edge case, and a tough one, I’m sure.
I’m a pretty hard-core atheist as well (my wife would say I’m an aggressive anti-religionist) and I gotta say it’s burning me up to agree with the Mad Monk. The matter is really not even a religious issue. It’s a matter of parenting philosophies, and the concern about the content of reading materials need not have religious underpinnings.
If your family was strictly carnivorous, would you want your daughter’s friend’s parents to be taking the kids to The Enlightened Cafe [they serve only vegetarian meals] without letting you know? If your daughter’s friend’s family was strictly vegan, would you be taking the kids to Strictly BBQ Sam’s without letting the other parents know?
–G!
R_E_S_P_E_C_T
Find out what it means to me!
. --Aretha Franklin
. Respect
The quip is often cited:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
But that’s really a badly simplified mis-quote
The proper ethical behavior is really
Treat others as they would like to be treated, with the reasonable hope of having them reciprocate.
I didn’t say anything about discussing sex with children. “It’s okay for boys to like other boys,” is not a discussion about sex. “You’re not going to burn in hell because you want to hold hands with Tommy,” is not a discussion about sex. “I’m gay, and I have friends and family and a partner who all love me and accept me,” is not a discussion about sex.
I’m also curious as to what you think is so “tough” about that particular situation. It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
Gay is a sexual orientation. Do you really think discussing being gay is not in any way discussing sex? And nice changing my quote. You are being, to put it nicely, facetious.
Right. I think here is where we’re seeing why there is such a difficulty being rational about this.
Coming from someone who apparently thinks that any mention of religion with a child is about bashing the beliefs and values of the parents, I I don’t know why I am surprised to see this here. Sad, yes, but I really should have expected it.
I think we have enough of a knowledge base for me at least to consider this conversation done. You are not arguing from rationality, but from belief, and there’s no convincing a belief.
Well, Lasciel, at least I have not resorted to lying. And at no point have I mentioned my own personal beliefs, so, whatever.
No, but they are being violated when a parent mandates that a child adheres to the rules of religion he or she does not uphold. I do understand that this is a difficult distinction, where the boundaries are not always clear. But I think it’s something we can always work towards: how to respect the rights of your child while also being a parent and laying boundaries, and of course living by those rules yourself. It’s perhaps a complex situation, but the boundaries become a little more clear in actual examples. I don’t think anybody really thinks that a child’s freedom of religion extends to “staying out as late as I want”, whereas there is a little more clarity when parents are actively denying a child the right to believe what they want.
I absolutely never said their wishes are not worthy of respect. Every one of your ridiculous accusations I then need to point out that I never said that, I do not think that and I never would express such a sentiment. If you believe I am indicting Islam you are very much mistaken. I already told you why I mentioned it. Like I said, I could’ve said “the parent’s religion”, but their religion is Islam so I said that. Being so offended by the simple use of the word Islam is, frankly, rather suspect. Other posters have mentioned “evangelical” and “mormon”, yet “Islam” is offensive? :rolleyes:
Nope, but if you feel compelled to bring their religion up in your defense of going against their wishes it belies your claim that religion is irrelevant.
Human rights are not violated, not beliefs prohibited with the denial of any one specific book, song,or food. Why do you insist a child’s human rights are being denied if I expect people other than their parents (actually, including their parents) to be aboveboard in their dealings with them?
Children do have rights, I insist that parents also have rights to raise their children as they see fit. I believe they have the right to do that without underhanded attempts to disregard their role as parents.
My apologies for screwing up your quote. It was a cut-and-paste error, and not an attempt to make it appear that you had said something you did not. ETA: I’ve fixed the mistake in my last post, so it now says what it was supposed to.
And yes, “gay” is a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and sex are two different things. You can discuss one without discussing the other.
Emphasis added in an obvious manner.
:rolleyes:
Thank you Miller, for fixing the quote and apologizing. You did make it appear I said something completely different. I’m sure you understand my dismay. Again, thank you for your correction.
I still think discussing sexual orientation is a conversation walking a fine line from discussing sex. It is an intimate personal matter that people don’t take lightly. Ideally, children should be able to talk to their parents, and unfortunately thats not always the case. I still say its a tough call, and exact circumstances and conversation might make it reasonable or not.
O Lasciel, aren’t you clever!!
Actually, the bolded portion is what I was responding to, and I don’t know if you noticed, but this is IMHO. Your opinion is just that, and everyone has one. Mine just differs from yours.