Main > Everything Else
Land of the free?
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on March 07, 2005, 09:26:36 am ---
Here's an interesting little twist.
"A 6-year-old boy who often talked too much in class was suspended from 1st grade at Schaumburg Christian School last week after his mother refused to spank him."
You'd think you'd *also* have the right to not spank your kids. Go figure.
To me this is another example of a member of the "moral majority" forcing their opinions on someone else.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for giving us the story. Seems to bolster the "sometimes your kid requires a spanking" argument. Wait a minute, let's see what mom HAS done.
--- Quote ---"But she can't bring herself to spank Chandler and uses alternative disciplinary measures instead, such as time-outs and taking away toys."
--- End quote ---
Bravo mom, bravo. Seems to be working out just swell, too! How old was this boy? 6. Well, she's well on her way to turning out another kid like the one in the first story, it seems.
The "moral majority", of which this woman obviously felt she belonged to since she was choosing THAT school out of ALL the private schools in Chicago to send her kid to, didn't "force its opinions on someone else". She was free to exercise HER opinion that she wouldn't do it, and to that end, when disagreeing with their opinion, removed her child from the institution.
Your story also lays out the fact that when enrolling their children, parents are apprised of the school's stance on this matter:
--- Quote ---
" At Schaumburg Christian School, a ministry of Bethel Baptist Church that serves about 1,300 preschool to 12th-grade students, "parent-administered corporal punishment" is part of the disciplinary system for pre-kindergarten through 6th-grade children. The parent/student handbook states that "When this becomes necessary, parents will be asked to administer this form of punishment."
Parents also sign a "statement of cooperation" that lists parent-administered corporal punishment among its disciplinary guidelines."
--- End quote ---
This kid was acting in a manner that in their eyes, required expulsion. If the kid were in a public school, that's what would have happened. The administrators of THIS school had a solution to avoid expulsion.
The lady SHOULD be upset that her kid, as "bright as he is", was going to be EXPELLED!
The woman pays to have her child in a school where rules are different. She pays for the right to have options available to her not available in the public school. This includes disciplinary action. It's not "forcing your views on someone" when they're paying you for the priveledge of alternative methods. It's called "not understanding that other people have paid for the priveledge, and expect the school to act on their behalf for your bratty kid".
Dartful Dodger:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on March 07, 2005, 09:26:36 am ---You'd think you'd *also* have the right to not spank your kids. Go figure.
To me this is another example of a member of the "moral majority" forcing their opinions on someone else.
--- End quote ---
If you bothered to read about this case you'd have seen that before her kid was allowed in the school, the mother signed papers to agree to spank her kid if the school called for it. The school didn't want to force the mother to spank the kid, so the kid was suspended.
To me this is another example of Mr C posting nonsense.
shmokes:
It's not a case. It's an event, reported by a newspaper. Maybe the school came highly recommended or was encouraged by her church leader and, thinking that the corporal punishment thing would probably never actually happen to her she signed her kid up. Maybe there's a ton of literature and information in the contract and, like the vast majority of poeple, she didn't read over everything thoroughly before signing. It's not like she sued them. She just pulled her kid out of that school. I'll grant that the school's policy is legal, but nobody's contesting that. The reason it is publicized is because the policy is so retarded, not because it's illegal.
People who spank their kids should be castrated and moved to an unpopulated island.
fredster:
Shmokes,
You don't have kids do you? Do you also have a degree in child psychology Dr. (Shmokes) Spock?
When you and you little lady have a child, come back and talk to us in about 10 years and tell us that.
I could say - People <DON'T> who spank their kids should be castrated and moved to an unpopulated island - Before they have children....
It's not necessary until the child either endangers himself or others, but there are cases it's necessary. When you get old enough to have your own, you'll see.
Magnet_Eye:
--- Quote from: daywane on March 06, 2005, 09:59:13 am ---That is our National anthum like it or not. Show some respect to the flag and worship who ever you want because the flag stands for your right to do so.
I am having my own battles over a flag
Heritage not hate.
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. As my post said, the Pledge was ALTERED by Eisenhower in 1954, man! It used to NOT have "One Nation Under God" included. Nor did money have "In God We Trust", that happened in 1955.
It used to read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Then because of the war and all in 1942 it was changed to emphasisze the USA:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
So yeah, all this "under god" crap is only the past 50 years. Our nation has been here with money and a pledge longer without the mention of god than with it.
I feel they should put it back the way it was before the Eisenhower presidency. Just my opinion, man.
:P