It's amazing to me how groups of people can look at other groups of people, and totally not get what they are about. But if it is amazing, it certainly isn't uncommon.
For a man who claims to lean toward Libertarian views, you certainly believe in lots of rules.
Not judging, mind, you, just pointing that out.
This I find to be an interesting comment. For all that has been discussed here, I'm surprised to hear this comment thrown on the table.
Take a note of the below. Emphasis is my own.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that favors individual rights, private property rights, and free markets. Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not initiate or threaten the use of physical force or fraud against another person or their property. Libertarians oppose most government intervention in private affairs, except in the defense of individual rights.
Libertarians possess an extreme antipathy towards infringement of civil rights such as restrictions on free expression (e.g., speech, press, or religious practice), prohibitions on voluntary association, or encroachments on persons or property except as a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behavior. As such, libertarians oppose any type of censorship (even for offensive speech), restrictions on gang membership (as distinct from gang violence), or pre-trial forfeiture of property. Furthermore, most libertarians reject the distinction between political and commercial speech or association often used to protect one type of activity and not the other.
Thus a libertarian may choose to associate with a group of people with narrow beliefs. A libertarian may choose to be a highly-disciplined individual. An libertarian may have and preach strong feelings towards certain actions, and share those beliefs with others. (They just would prefer to keep government out of it.) And one thing that should be readily apparent is that libertarianism cannot exist in a healthy way without extremely strong education and the development of a set of personal ethics that makes it possible to survive where there is no nanny state to save you if you totally screw up.
A libertarian then doesn't necessarily let an uneducated and underdeveloped child/adolescent do what (s)he pleases. And a libertarian most definitely doesn't want government telling them how to raise their kids.
This is where you differ with how you would manage your kids from how I would manage the kids I would never have.
You make me chuckle, Ian.
I would not pay my school to supervise my kid's private lives in a time and place that has nothing to do with school.
And that's your prerogative.
But your definition of "school" and my definition of "school" are entirely different. I want to send my kids to a place where they get a body/mind/spirit education of my
choosing. Not just any one, mind you, but one of MY choosing. And I support the right of others to do the same.
Ever tried to teach your own kid martial arts, Ian? I have. It's not as easy as you think. Number 1 son has rejected me as an instructor, but has managed to gravitate towards the best wresting coach in the state - at his own school. Fine by me!
It isn't necessarily my job to teach each and every lesson to my kids. I just make sure that SOMEBODY teaches those lessons. Smart people learn to delegate, and are never insulted if someone else is better at doing something than they are. Division of labor is a very good thing.
IMHO, a school has no business parenting outside of school unless that's part of a contract the parents entered into.
You argue best when you argue my point, Ian.
Parents who send their kids to Christian schools are more than likely entering a contract (of some sort) with expectations on the "outcomes" end. So if you believe in outcomes-based education, then you'd like to see the students living "Christian" lifestyles.
Whatever that is...
And WHATEVER it is isn't my business, so long as they are operating within the law. And from everything I see here, I have no reason to believe that they aren't.
You don't have to like the contracts that certain people enter in for the benefit of THEIR OWN children. And I suspect they wouldn't be seeking your approval. That's their prerogative.
I do NOT feel I would appreciate a school investigating my kid and expelling them for smoking tobacco, speeding, or any of the other things I would consider between myself, the kid, and any LEO that happened to be involved.
Funny you should say that, Ian. Perhaps you've missed out on a thread on my forum........... Hokie pride?
Here's a fellow who was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (served alcohol and other "favors" to young girls), reckless driving, possession of marijuana (while driving recklessly), more speeding and driving without a license after having plea-bargained an easy sentence, and finally was caught brandishing a weapon. He was the quarterback of the Virginia Tech football team, and was a Heisman Trophy candidate next year.
Only problem was, the school banned him from participating on the football team.
Do you think the school had a right to kick him permanently from the team, effectively ending his reason for going to the school in the first place? (To set him up for a high paying job in the NFL) Of course they did. And why? Because the behavior of Marcus Vick outside school and off the football field reflected poorly on the University. If the school had not taken action, Vick could have affected the value of a degree at that academic institution.
So when a Christian school has a student engaged in "un-Christian behavior" outside of school (whatever that is...), don't you think they would be stupid not to punish the student in some way? After all, that kind of behavior affects the reputation of the school, and reduces the market value of that highly-specialized education and the degree that comes with it.
If my kid knows that I'll help a school disrupt their education and jeopardize their future if they have sex underage (or with the wrong gendered person), then they're not going to ask me any questions or seek my help. And *I* believe that would do more harm than good.
You are entitled to that point of view, Ian. But in the case of Marcus Vick, many have felt that he got too many free passes. And this then led to a series of events that likely will land his butt in jail. Too bad... He just threw literally millions of dollars down the toilet. And because more than a few people let this young man down in his PRIVATE education on and off the field, the government now is about to step in and give him a PUBLIC education - behind bars. Oops!
But you are free to raise the kids you'll never have in a manner of your choosing. That's not my business.
In this case, your concerns about disease and pregnancy might be more likely to become reality if you discourage your kids from discussing sex with you and asking you about it by making it clear certain punishment would follow using the information in practice.
This I find highly insulting, Ian. You are presuming I don't discuss sex with my kids because my views are different from yours. How narrow-minded! How prejudiced your thinking! How uninformed!
To wit... Last night at Ruby Tuesdays, we had a dinnertime conversation with family (wife, 13 and 7-year-old sons) about why the name "Buster Hyman" was funny. (We are likely to get a dog from a fellow with the last name of Hyman.) I made number 1 son explain to us all why it was funny. He got most of the way there. He understood all the parts and when they disappeared.
This, BTW, from a family who would choose to discourage their kids from having sex as a minor. We NEVER have any fun, you know. My kids are sooo uninformed. And of course the only place they have to go for information is from kids on the street and such...
You'd be surprised at the kinds of mature conversations number 1 son and I have about choices, responsibilities, empathy, and consequences. And the threat of consequences for poor choices doesn't seem to stop him from talking to us or to his teachers.
Imagine that! Must be an anomaly...
Case in point: my little brother...
Focus on your own story a bit, Ian. The more you do so, the more you'll understand what I'm trying to communicate.