UTT Blog Post # 5 - Parenting and the State
Parenting. Let’s take a look at this word. Parenting is defined as “the methods, techniques, etc., used or required in the rearing of children; the state of being a parent; parenthood.” Simply by definition of the word, it is made evident that the duty of raising a child is that of a parent’s. The dictionary does not say that the parenting is the act of giving life to a person or the act of providing for a child. Rather, it states that the “rearing of a child” is the responsibility of a parent.
At first glance the statement that “It is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home” seems like a logical one. Why wouldn’t society want a structured and standard way of raising children? It would be easy to argue that state involvement in parenting would equalize each child’s opportunity to achieve success. It could also prevent poor parenting and child abuse. Furthermore, governmental rules for parenting could foster both cohesion within and amongst families and, therefore, progress within society. This, of course, is assuming that the involvement of the state in parenting doesn’t eliminate the boundary that exists today between family and state. The other large assumption made in accepting this idea is that the parenting regulations instilled by the state will be beneficial ones which serve to help the growth of each child rather than benefit the government or country as a whole. Another challenge arises when determining/defining morality and punishment. Many families today subscribe to different religions and standards. Beyond this, we live in a society that promotes passive parenting, which could potentially make the legalization of truly effective punishment difficult. Instead of stepping beyond the boundaries of its responsibilities in taking control of parenting in society, the state should be allowed only to monitor household conditions so as to protect society’s children.
Many who distrust the actions and intentions of others quiver at the idea that the state not have a say in the way the family ought to operate. While I agree that it is important for a society to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its people, especially children, I also believe that giving the state the ability to manipulate the parenting process heavily blurs the distinction between the state and the family while encouraging a lack of responsibility amongst parents. Therefore, instead of looking only at the potential for success that state involvement in parenting could have, it is important to recognize the dangers of surrendering the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a parent – a position instituted by God – to the government.
Parenting. Let’s take a look at this word. Parenting is defined as “the methods, techniques, etc., used or required in the rearing of children; the state of being a parent; parenthood.” Simply by definition of the word, it is made evident that the duty of raising a child is that of a parent’s. The dictionary does not say that the parenting is the act of giving life to a person or the act of providing for a child. Rather, it states that the “rearing of a child” is the responsibility of a parent.
At first glance the statement that “It is in the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home” seems like a logical one. Why wouldn’t society want a structured and standard way of raising children? It would be easy to argue that state involvement in parenting would equalize each child’s opportunity to achieve success. It could also prevent poor parenting and child abuse. Furthermore, governmental rules for parenting could foster both cohesion within and amongst families and, therefore, progress within society. This, of course, is assuming that the involvement of the state in parenting doesn’t eliminate the boundary that exists today between family and state. The other large assumption made in accepting this idea is that the parenting regulations instilled by the state will be beneficial ones which serve to help the growth of each child rather than benefit the government or country as a whole. Another challenge arises when determining/defining morality and punishment. Many families today subscribe to different religions and standards. Beyond this, we live in a society that promotes passive parenting, which could potentially make the legalization of truly effective punishment difficult. Instead of stepping beyond the boundaries of its responsibilities in taking control of parenting in society, the state should be allowed only to monitor household conditions so as to protect society’s children.
Many who distrust the actions and intentions of others quiver at the idea that the state not have a say in the way the family ought to operate. While I agree that it is important for a society to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its people, especially children, I also believe that giving the state the ability to manipulate the parenting process heavily blurs the distinction between the state and the family while encouraging a lack of responsibility amongst parents. Therefore, instead of looking only at the potential for success that state involvement in parenting could have, it is important to recognize the dangers of surrendering the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a parent – a position instituted by God – to the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment