Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > December > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWho’s at fault in child’s death?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The lead story in the Sunday paper returned to the tragic life of Nateyonna Banks, the two-year-old handed back to the woman who gave her life — and who now is accused of taking it. The story, by Craig Schneider, is an effort to find out how the child wound up back with the woman who birthed her, despite ample evidence that she was unfit.
As usual, the attention is on focused on the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. It’s misdirected. Truth is, no government agency can function as God or the loving mother and father a child deserves. In this instance, and in every instance where harm comes to a child, an investigation is necessary to find what when wrong so that procedures can be improved. But until we change the culture that treats children as objects of adult amusement or has adults with no more interest in each other than the clerk and customer at the dollar store creating life carelessly and recklessly, no amount of social worker ingenuity, compassion or diligence can protect children from the fate of Nateyonna Banks. We’re kidding ourselves in our outrage, pretending that the answer is better pay or smarter, wiser social workers, supervisors and judges.
As with public education, the model has to be reinvented to serve a nation where out-of-wedlock births in some populations now approach 70 percent. It is sad, but telling, that the lengthy story about what went wrong for Nateyonna Banks contained only one passing reference to the male at her conception. “The father is not in the picture.” That’s it. The father is not in the picture. The sky is blue. Sugar is sweet. The father is not in the picture. Not in the picture. Nor, evidentally, does anybody expect it or care, or anticipate that at some point he might have been an option for baby. He’s not in the picture. Truth is, the man should be tracked to the ends of the earth for child support. A government agent should be at his funeral rummaging through the corpse’s pockets to make certain he’s not taking a dime with him that should have gone to fulfill his obligation to the child he caused.
So we have a woman who never should have delivered a single child with three, two allegedly abused sexually and one dead. The key man is not in the picture. And we expect government to protect the children. How silly of us.
OK. Let’s form ourselves as the Georgia Child Protection Study Group. How do we redesign the sytem to protect the children? My answer is that we declare that from the moment of conception until adulthood, government’s first interest in the two adults and child is in protecting the child. When adults are charged with drug abuse or with abusing children, the children are taken and put in orphanages overseen by the state. They aren’t returned to the adults until the woman and man who conceived them offer proof in court that they’re sufficiently rehabilitated to have the children back. Adults who harm a child mentally or physically should be sterilized so they don’t create more lives to be damaged.
To the extent that two-parent families are not being formed to nurture children, government should assume protective authority, with all judgments favoring the interest of the child until he or she reaches 18. A child, once conceived, has a right to life — and a right to grow to adulthood without being harmed by adults in the household.
The Georgia Child Protection Study Group is open for suggestions.
Comments
By Political Foreskin
December 11, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
Did Bill Cosby write this?
By Mid-South Philosopher
December 11, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
I posted a version of this on a previous blog, and I think it got lost between the Iraq Study Group and the myriad of insults that some of the bloggers seem to enjoy heaping upon each other.
The recent event that has horrified “heart possessing” Georgians in the past few days…the unbelievably horrendous story concerning Nateyonna Banks and the TOTAL and COMPLETE FAILURE of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services to protect her and provide for her best interests.
Let me play “conspiracy theorist” a little this morning.
I would like to know just WHO is behind this and a number of other GROSSLY INEPT operations of this bureaucratic “disgust of humanity!”
Several years ago, then Lt. Governor, Pierre Howard was going to take DEFACS apart and improve it. Suddenly, that effort died on the vine. How come?
During the 2002 election and in the first days of his first term, Governor Sonny Perdue made a lot of his and Miss Mary’s “foster parenting” experience and vowed to make things better for Georgia’s foster kids. What happened?
Just who is behind the scenes insulating the bureaucracy of DEFACS from real reform? Where is the call for “accountability” in the affairs of DEFACS?
Well, we all know the truth.
DEFACS staff are UNDERTRAINED, UNDERPAID, OVERWORKED, and NOT THE SHARPEST KNIVES IN THE DRAWER. It goes downhill from there.
By jbmlaw
December 11, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Grim topic today; I agree with all Jim writes. The only responsible party is the killer. Why take a village when a hangman is sufficient? Mr. Newt proposed reinstituting orphanages years ago, and our leftist brothers shouted down the very idea as “Dickensian” or “too churchy,” but there is obvious merit to having an institutional long-term safe-place for threatened children.
The only serious weak practical link in the theory is the fact that the courts have to be involved. I think our courts do a reasonably satisfactory job with such quasi-criminal adjudications, better than with civil disputes, so this is a minor weakness only. On the other hand, perhaps there are some roles for the civil attorneys out there, hounding deadbeat dads. We need a change in law, a requirement that mom declare “someone” as the father of a child on the birth certificate, rather than the present standard of leaving it blank unless the father accepts paternity. We would need another change in statute, to permit bounty hunters some reward for tracking down the irresponsible dads. But by harnessing free-market incentives, the government could facilitate financial support for the destitute children.
My compliments: many interesting posts this weekend, but our friend PF was in top form, viciously funny.
By Mid-South Philosopher
December 11, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this
Further to the “Father Factor.”
Fathers have been and continue to be second class citizens in the family equation and many of them have embraced that role with an ardor.
Even in our post-modern legal system, the father is viewed as “guilty until proven innocent” and, as in the case with Nateyonna, a mother has to be a “murderess” before she is “really” unfit.
How do we return the “father” to a full equity with the family equation?
It will require a societal change. It has taken us 60 years to get here. I doubt we will see it change back in our lifetimes.
By harold
December 11, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this
Rampant “The father is not in the picture”ism is the real goal of the antiabortionists.
The antiabortionists wish everybody would get married and have happy babies and go to church and be good Republicans, but them’s aint the facts.
What you get is coat hangers or “The father is not in the picture.”
By Political Foreskin
December 11, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
You cant impose 1984-style controls over human beings simply on the tragedy of one case. Three words: Post partum depression.
Children are the collateral damage of the war between the sexes.
Ever hear of alchohol syndrome babies? Expectant mothers who take even one drink (or one cigarette) are harming their babies. Shall we sterilize them too?
There’s no remedy to child abuse that wouldn’t destroy our freedom. Fascism is the result when we seek to take risk out of our children’s lives.
If someone wants to kill themselves, we cant stop them. If someone wants to kill their family we cant stop them either, nor should we. Next you’ll be asking me to check in with my neighbors each night to see if he’s beating his kids. (I look the other way when he beats his wife already). When someone is broken, they’re broken, and they cant be fixed.
The amazingly visionary futurist and soothsayer Generalisimo Santa Anna said it best: “give no quarter, put everyone to the sword, especially that pesky Davey Crockett and his confounded hat”. (Santa Anna forsaw millions of baby boomer brats torturing millions of adults with coonskin caps in the 50’s. I was one of them, and I shoulda been killed for it. It’s only justice. plain and simple.)
Our greatest actor, Gary Cooper, weighed in on this too: “Seems to me folks got a right not to see no katzenjammers no how, no way. no sir… yep.”
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Jim,
We had a good weekend. I accused you of advocating eugenics for Friday’s comment, “[a]nd sterilize women and men who cause children to be born that they then harm, mentally or physically.” Two of your harpies defended you valiantly. It was touching to see how hard they tried diversionary tactics, claiming that this other person and that other person were guilty of advocating eugenics, but not Jim, not in a thousand years. They even tried to pull that old Republican bait and switch routine, “Diogenes, he just don’t define it right.” Their loyalty would have brought tears to your eyes.
Jim, any court ordered sterilization is eugenics. Plain and simple. If our current laws for child abuse are inadequate to keep such people behind bars until they are well beyond child-bearing age, then get your Representative or County Commissioner involved and get those laws changed. If the judges have inadequate sentencing guidelines, then get your Representative or Country Commissioner involved and get the sentencing guidelines changed. Once started, no matter how “noble” the cause, there is no telling how far such a heinous notion would spread.
I trust that all religious organizations would strongly protest such an intrusion on human rights, no matter which of the 1000 faces of God you worship. The accepted and usual punishment is imprisonment. Stay with the accepted and usual; don’t venture into the cruel and un-usual.
By Jim Wooten
December 11, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Morning all. I’m back from holiday — in this case the farm — for the duration. I did see Philosopher’s post over the weekend and it was, in large part, his ire that prompted today’s topic, in addition to the obvious fact that it’s a very timely issue. The normally mild-mannered Philosopher, whose post today reflects his comments over the weekend, exhibits the anger and frustration most Georgians feel.
I agree 100 percent with jbmlaw that state law should require that a father be identified at the birth of a child — and, furthermore, that having been identified requires him to submit DNA to the state for verification purposes. If he’s guilty, he’s required to pay child support and entitled to a say in matters affecting the child.
Agree with jbmlaw, too, that PF was often quite entertaining.
Thanks to all for some interesting and informative commentary for my vacationing enjoyment.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term “person” to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Something for you to ponder Diogenes.
By @@
December 11, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Ouch Jim, today you are an electronic “untouchable”. Many will be angered by what you propose, but when you come to the crossroad of decency within society, a path has to be taken.
Tracking down fathers sounds good, but getting blood out of a turnip is impossible. I’m assuming incarceration would be a last resort, and then the source of income is lost. Maybe the cost should be transferred to family members encouraging families to raise their children to be responsible with the first opportunity.
Many get into the field of social work for the right reasons, but knowing full-well that the pay is minimal. They’re idealistic, and I admire that. However, once they’re working, they become overwhelmed by the accumulation of all that has been allowed to become ugly within our culture.
Not only has our culture been allowed to deteriorate, but has been encouraged by excessive freedoms. Please note the word “excessive”. We have those freedoms which are fundamental and then we have those which are plunging us into chaos.
You could attribute little Nateyonna’s death to a myriad of causes, but I’ll offer only one. I’ll check in later to see what others have to say.
Education….the liberal approach of sacrificing education in the interest of self-esteem seems to have failed. There can be no self-esteem in having children you can’t support and children who become a fatal statistic in your frustration.
I regret to say that I am forced to agree with you considering where we are at this crossroad.
By getalife
December 11, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Yes, the wingnuts are dead set against abortion but what happens after the child is born is forgotten. They could care less as long as they can stop abortion.
Take blowing up babies in Iraq for example. They cheer it on like it is no big deal. Well, it is a very big deal.
BTW, I tried to get the wingnuts to admit that Iraq is a mistake and none would. It is painfully obvious and I have proved without a shadow of doubt, they are intellectually dishonest.
I rest my case.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Let your willingness to provide a solution to the problem overcome your righteous indignation and try to find some real answers. Historically, private-church supported children’s homes have been overwhelming more successful than state supported institutions. Get the Christian and Jewish congregations interested in this problem again.
From my perspective, the churches have been as overwhelmed by single parent families as the state and have turned their back on the problem, rather than work with State Legislators, juvenile judges, and DFACS to make some dent in the problem. The state cannot do this without the support and participation of the churches. Let the so called religious right put their support where it is needed.
The second solution is the obvious: make abortions available to all who want them — no questions asked. Give them good medical care and a good support network and reduce thereby the number of children born out of wedlock. It’s so obvious that you and all those who oppose abortions are also the ones preaching most about the woes of unwanted children.
Overcome the hypocritical double standard that condemns unwed mothers but won’t allow them to get abortions with competent medical personnel. Take it one step farther: make good sex education available in the schools (and churches, for that matter) which deals with real issues, like birth control. Make birth control measures, not just condoms, readily available to all who want them — no questions asked.
Getting church support for children’s homes, making abortions legal, and making birth control easily available would be a good starting point.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher,
I imagine this is the earlier version of your comment.
How unbelievably full of yourself must you be to assume that it was missed because other bloggers were discussing other issues and not bowing to the brilliance of your comment?
Please remind me in the future that your posts must be greeted with some period of reverence before I resume my daily life, because the boredom your posts tend to induce tends to make me forget.
Perhaps you realize it too and it’s why you have to resort to so many capitalizations in a cry for attention, but if not feel free to post the same comment multiple times and blame those around you for not paying enough attention to you.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
RW
Quoting a portion of Singer’s comment which you quoted above: “My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”
Am I to understand that you support this statement?
By harold
December 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
why is there outrage about this one death of one person at the hands its mother under the watch of a government agency?
this happens every day with the DOT
so what
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
getalife,
The point of the article is care for the living and Iraq is a difficult situation but by no means a mistake.
In many ways Iraq is the key to our very survival and I don’t intend to turn my future over to people that would reelect William Jefferson all the while stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from other Americans while running through the streets screaming “Katrina, Iraq, Katrina, Iraq, give me money, Katrina, Iraq, you owe me a living, Katrina, Iraq…”
By Mid-South Philosopher
December 11, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
To RW-(the original)
Always delighted to make your day.
By Van
December 11, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
getalife,
You must have stocked up on liberal BS over the weekend. I know noone that cheers death of any kind.
How you can say this is beyond your normal cr*p.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Diogenes,
You would be hard pressed to find much of anything Peter Singer says that I agree with,
By Van
December 11, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
What I found disturbing in this one case, was that the case worker was overruled by a supervisor.
I can not fathom why, unless it is the same old BS, that the child would be better off with the mother - even when there is evidence that the childs live might be in danger.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
RW,
Then what is your position on this topic? Mine is very clearly stated in two places above. Any court ordered sterization is eugenics, period.
Churches must support children’s homes for them to be successful, abortions must be readily available, birth control must be taught in the schools (and churches), and birth control measures must be readily available to all who ask.
That’s my position. What’s yours?
By getalife
December 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
RW,
Care for the living?
All you care about is abortion and then to hell what happens to the baby.
Get real.
Difficult situation?
Yes, due to a mistake by your boy w.
Get real.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Mid-South Philosopher @ 10:07,
Though no response to your comment is needed, I felt this would keep you from repeating it later since other words will undoubtedly surround your comment soon, possibly making you feel that others simply didn’t grasp the wisdom of your verbiage.
Maybe you could ask Jim for a special font since you don’t think your message can stand on its own merit.
By getalife
December 11, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Van,
You are a warmonger. You can’t be pro life and love blowing up babies.
Get real.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Diogenes,
Are you asking for my position on the proper way to murder the child in Peter Singer’s example or the tragic case of Nateyonna Banks?
Eugenics is something that is done in an effort to modify the gene pool. Sterilization of child abusers is not eugenics,
getalife,
Yes, care for the living. Are you trying to say this two year old was simply aborted? Now you sound like Peter Singer the eugenics advocate. It’s difficult because it’s a clash of civilizations and it wouldn’t matter if the battlefront was Iraq, Iran, Australia, or the United States. The battle is being fought in all those places, but Iraq is the central front. Leaving Iraq won’t end the fight it will simply move it. Would New Orleans be more to your liking?
By Mid-South Philosopher
December 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Jim,
With regard to RW-(the original)’s suggestion that I be given my own “font,” I like the idea! I am too computer illiterate to get my system to use some of the more “esoteric” functions like italics, and font color change on the blog. Perhaps a dark purple trimed in gold would be nice. See what you can come up with. We must keep my fans like RW happy.
Sorry, Jim, I won’t “swap anymore spit” today, but he was just too good to resist.
By Dusty
December 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Could we consider all the suggestions made so far to the quasi Georgia Child Protection Study Group:
Jim wants orphanages, stronger father id laws for child support, & protective authority in some cases.
MidSouth wants stronger, better DFACS.
Diogenes declares human rights invaded.
RW in all kindliness sees no child, however disabled, as defective.
Harold presents the ideal but says it won’t work. That is: Everybody get married, have happy babies, go to church and be good (!) Republicans.
So what is my opinion? Perhaps it is a combination just like the ISG. Keep trying everything, set a time line and never “give up”.
I’d love to say that morality is the answer, but that can’t be imposed even when it seems to be the only answer to changing human nature in adults…. other than killing them.
I appreciate your outright assessment, Jim. Hopefully, it will bring at least one step toward the ever lost proposition of protecting all children from danger and despair.
By jenny
December 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
I spent years working at a local county DFCS. It was both the lost frustrating ang rewarding work I eer did. Rewarding because of the few families I really think I was able too help become stable and independent. Frustrating because I was like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the d** trying to keep the dam from beaking. I was over ruled on so namy of my cases where I felt that the children were at risk by supervisors who had no idea of the situation going on and were so tied to their desks they would not leave them for anything except days off. I was the one on the front lines. I was the one there daily monitering the situations. My judgement should have been respected and my opinions and advice heeded. It nevr was. The standard response was “where are you going to put them when you get custody? Do not take custody of children if you have no where to put them.” Yes the state makes a lousey parent but considering the alernative it may make the best and safest one.
By jenny
December 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Who is Peter Singer andhow did he and Iraq get into this conversation? One subject at a time please!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
December 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Jim,
I bet that we’re pretty close on this one…up until the end.
I agree wholeheartely that it is not the government’s job (federal or state) to look after the children of people who should not be having them. But I do believe that the government does bear some responsibility to help relive those parents of their duty should they show a gross pattern of neglect or harm with regards to the kids.
That said, one option would be to normalize and promote the adoption of these children by homosexual couples.
Say what you like, but who better to take care of battered and abused kids than adults who are very sympathetic to such situation? Get them out of foster care and into a family.
“Leave it to Beaver” it ain’t, but it’s better than “Oliver Twist”.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
RW (1032),
That’s the clearest answer I’ve ever seen you give to any question. Afraid of putting up a coherent opinion with which someone (or several someones) might disagree?
Although for you that was a major essay, it still doesn’t state your position, does it? Mine is there for all the world to see, as it usually is; yours is hidden behind every form of misdirection and obfuscation known, as it usually is.
And that is why you are a demagogue.
By jbmlaw
December 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Dear Getalife @ 9:50 and Diogenes @ 9:56, while I think abortion is inapposite for the topic of the day, I think most of the conservative bloggers would agree that we endorse leftist abortions, both before and after birth, it is just the conservative ones we deplore.
More seriously, Diogenes, I agree with your first paragraph @ 9:56, and I support government grants to religious groups for operating orphanages, a rare deviation from my opposition to government participation in anything positive. I hope you would not deem mandatory participation in religious services at such orphanages as “establishment of religion?”
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Mid-South @ 10:35,
Now that was more like it! I have vastly improved your posting already, but your request for a purple and gold font is out of the question. My High School days were spent at the Academy of Richmond County and seeing more purple and gold would be traumatic.
By getalife
December 11, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
RW,
My goodness, you have bought into w’s bs 100%.
Yes, the new domino theory. I guess you have learned absolutely nothing about the old domino theory in Vietnam.
It was bs and it is bs. You and fakelaw have that mental illness really bad.
Get real and seek help.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw (1049),
Church operated children’s homes tend to be more successful than state run institutions in part because of the religious ethos; in part because of the love and care they receive. In the past, the state has always chosen not to support private children’s homes with public funds, but judges sympathetic to the child can make a considerable amount of different in the disposition of a child.
Once the institution exists, the judges are the critical factor. Although my opposition to religion in politics is very clear, I am of the opinion that Jesus was a major philosopher and that his two main tenets: “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are universal truths and need to be taught to everyone.
We the congregations of the Atlanta area need to get our churches interested in and dealing with the problem of homeless children.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Dio,
Your inability to understand commentary that doesn’t agree with your predisposed position isn’t my problem, it’s yours.
I simply asked a question, but I guess that was too deep for you.
If your query was about Peter Singer’s method of murdering the baby, I don’t prefer a method for murder. My choice is for life whenever possible.
If your query was in regards to the young Banks child I believe that the mother should have had her ability to bring more children into the world terminated.
jenny,
When we are discussing the life of a child the topic will have to shift to a more broad discussion than just the one child in Jim’s column. It’s the only way to properly determine the proper course of action for an all encompassing solution, so the views of a Peter Singer that is trying to modify the human race through eugenics or how the lives of our children are affected by war are extremely relevant.
By ChrisD
December 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
The pathetic loser mother should be shot by a firing squad. The DFACS agents who failed should get the same as an example to other lazy, PC agents who might do the same sorry job resulting in the death of a child.
By ChrisD
December 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
For now on, anyone who looks like this mother (like she’s coming off a crack or heroin binge) should have their kids taken away. It’s as simple as that.
By Sophie
December 11, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Diogenes — Your comment “the so called religious right.” Did you intend for it to be disparaging to evangelicals?
Have you ever heard of Truett Cathy’s Winshape Foundation?
Don’t forget that these type of programs can NEVER BE FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENT due to the separation clause.
My church and many other churches support Mr. Cathy’s Winshape Foundation through annually designated contributions.
We eat his sandwiches AND donate. You sound like you eat the sandwiches and drink the liberal kool-aid.
What a joke you and your kind are.
I laugh at government solutions and those people who support them, then I move on and support worthwhile causes through my church while people like you complain.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
That comment at 10:49 might be an attempt at humor, but I find it appalling. Please speak for yourself when you give your views on abortion.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Arthur C. Brooks in Who Really Cares (2006) shows that religious people tend to be more generous than “liberal,” (non church going) people. This is an often quoted study in support of the conservative argument that “liberals” are not worthwhile.
The point is that the churches are organized and can fund projects in which the particular congregation believes. Children’s homes fit into this category. If several churches get their hearts into a children’s home, miraculous (I use the word advisedly) things can happen.
State funds are not needed. Let the state spend its money on sorely needed education.
By JK
December 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
“Starting Point” from Diogenes at 9:56. Well said; repeat daily.
Overcome the hypocritical double standard that condemns unwed mothers but won’t allow them to get abortions with competent medical personnel. Take it one step farther: make good sex education available in the schools (and churches, for that matter) which deals with real issues, like birth control. Make birth control measures, not just condoms, readily available to all who want them — no questions asked.
Getting church support for children’s homes, making abortions legal, and making birth control easily available would be a good starting point.
By Curious Observer
December 11, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Ah, yes, let’s hunt that father to the end of the earth and search his pockets if he turns out to be a corpse.
Wooten is a prime example of the Southern male’s fixation on sex, as discussed in Cash’s The Mind of the South. It goes like this: If somebody else is having sex and creating babies, it ain’t my duty to contribute to support those babies.
Never mind that the child conceived through a union of unmarrieds is innocent of any wrongdoing. Never mind that the child is automatically a citizen. Let’s let the church or somebody—anybody—take care of the child. But whatever you do, don’t use my taxes to support the product of somebody else’s sex.
It is no accident that DFCS is underfunded, understaffed, and incompetent. The majority of Georgians want it that way. And if, occasionally, a child is murdered or abused, well, it’s the fault of the state, which never should be in the business of taking care of the products of someone else’s sex.
It’s the Southern way, you see. And now, we’ll all march off to church to demonstrate our extreme piety. Whoever writes under the name God Hates Trash has it right.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
JK,
While you’re at it I guess you think it’s a good idea to tell your children they shouldn’t drink or smoke, but make sure they always have a cooler of 3.2 beer and a carton of low tar cigarettes.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
RW,
Your comment, “If your query was in regards to the young Banks child I believe that the mother should have had her ability to bring more children into the world terminated” is, as you well know, an evasion of the issues at hand.
As I suggested to Jim above. “If our current laws for child abuse are inadequate to keep such people behind bars until they are well beyond child-bearing age, then get your Representative or County Commissioner involved and get those laws changed. If the judges have inadequate sentencing guidelines, then get your Representative or Country Commissioner involved and get the sentencing guidelines changed. Once started, no matter how ‘noble’ the cause, there is no telling how far such a heinous notion would spread.” Stay with the common and usual: imprisonment. Don’t get into the cruel and un-usual.
That’s as clear as I can make my position. I never seem to be able to dumb down enough for you. You have yet to state a position, as it usually the case. And that is why you are a demagogue.
By Political Foreskin
December 11, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
If only RW’s mum had smoked…..
By Randy
December 11, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
This is unbelievable. Diogenes wants the churches to assume the cost of the failures of our government education.
He wants the government to do their part in education.
Government wants no religion in the government schools, but religion should pick up the tab for failed government education.
Unfreaking believable.
By getalife
December 11, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
RW,
What makes you think you can change human nature with abstinence?
Nevermind, you believe w and his new domino theory.
Geez.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Sophie,
Your comment: “Diogenes — Your comment “the so called religious right.” Did you intend for it to be disparaging to evangelicals?”
No, just trying to make it as clear as I can to which group I am referring. If you can suggest a workable alternative, I’ll be glad to use it. The issue of children’s homes is far too important to let petty differences over terminology interfere with the need. I don’t think you’ve read my posts clearly: I am strongly and repeatedly advocating church support of children’s homes (see my 1105 and 1118, for instance). There are several very successful religious supported children’s homes in the Atlanta area.
By Van
December 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
getalife,
You are so full of BS, your eyes must be brown, a dark rich brown.
If I was a warmonger, I would advocate a mass bombing of anything that moved in IRAQ, that has not been done, If I was a warmonger, there would be 10 times as many troops in Iraq, Al Sadr would be dead and a US general would be running that country.
If I was a warmonger, you would be humping 40-80 pounds of gear in the deserts of Iraq.
Be glad I am not a warmonger. In fact, I can not think of many people that have servered that like war and killing. Only the lefties that would not server would dare come out and say such vile things like we love to blow babies up.
You have out done your self. You have reached a new low.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Randy,
I really don’t understand your quibble. Historically, churches have supported the children’s homes and government supports the schools (observe Bush’s suggestion that No Child be Left Behind). If you have an alternative proposal, state it.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Dio,
There is hardly a difference between sterilization or imprisonment until someone is beyond child bearing age.
In the case of someone that has committed a crime that warrants imprisonment then certainly that person should be imprisoned, but that is just your typical obfuscation.
If the only objective is to keep the person from bearing another child then your idea of keeping them caged is a far more cruel and unusual punishment.
To the blog,
I’m sure there are several here that don’t agree with many of my positions and some that do. I would love to find out how many people here agree with Dio’s premise that I never take a position.
By getalife
December 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Van,
Yes my eyes are brown.
Truth hurt much?
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
RW
Boy! Are you a demagogue! Your comment: “If the only objective is to keep the person from bearing another child then your idea of keeping them caged is a far more cruel and unusual punishment.”
I believe that the charge is murder, a crime which usually carries a very heavy prison sentence, usually until well past child-bearing years. However, “cruel and unusual” you may think it, it is the customary and usual punishment for murder. If the penalties for murder are not severe enough to suit you, then get with your State Legislator and lobby to have the law changed.
By Randy
December 11, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Diogenes, I’m in favor of the church’s funding state homes. I’m in favor of anyone, even those church members, who harm a child being punished to the extreme.
Are you in favor of letting the church have religious influence in our schools?
Probably not, but I’ll let you answer without the usual liberal spin.
By Joseph A. Palermo
December 11, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
The founder of the “Chicago School” of economics, Milton Friedman, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and the military strongman of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, have all departed this mortal world. Friedman called for the most extreme privatization measures even in the impoverished Third World; Kirkpatrick was the intellectual guru for US-backed “authoritarian” regimes; and Pinochet was a practitioner of the Kirkpatrickian world view.
In the 1980s, during the dictator’s glory days, Kirkpatrick used to enjoy General Pinochet’s company with a quiet cup of tea in his private residence.
Pinochet, perhaps more than any other US-supported dictator, put into practice Kirkpatrick’s social theories and Friedman’s “free market” economics. In the name of “anti-Communism,” Pinochet liquidated the Parliament, censored the press, jailed and tortured his opponents, made mass arrests without due process, terrorized his own population, and then privatized nearly all of Chile’s public institutions. He gave back the copper mines and operations to Anaconda and Kennecott Copper, and the phone lines back to ITT. He presided over a 17-year dictatorship responsible for the murder or “disappearance” of tens of thousands of innocent Chileans. (He launched “Operation Condor,” which was responsible for assassinating his political opponents all over Latin America and the world, including the car bombing of Orlando Letelier and the 25-year-old journalist, Ronnie Moffet, in Washington, DC in September 1976.)
On September 11, 1973, General Pinochet led a military junta that ousted the democratically-elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. His co-cospirators among the Chilean military bombed La Moneda Palace; Allende went on the radio to call for his supporters to resist the illegal coup d’etat. Allende himself was murdered (though false stories of his “suicide” were sent out to the US press). The Chilean military declared martial law, imposed a strict curfew, turned the soccer stadium in Santiago into a vast execution hall, and sealed off the entire country from outside observers, including the Red Cross, for thirteen days.
When the dust settled, the US had a reliably pro-“free enterprise,” anti-Soviet dictatorship in charge of Chile. Pinochet soon established himself as one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. Milton Friedman’s acolytes descended on Chile, and ran the Chilean economy — the “Chicago Boys” they were called — and they used Chile as a laboratory for their “free market” theories. The model they imposed, which amounted to economic “freedom” combined with political repression, created growth for the rich few while impoverishing the less fortunate many.
Soon after the coup in Chile, information began to leak out that the Nixon Administration had ordered the CIA to engineer the coup that toppled Allende and installed Pinochet, and that ITT corporation had given the Nixon White House $1 million toward this end. The Church Committee report of 1976 exposed the embarrassing details of the operation, which included economic sabotage, political meddling, assassinations, financing of street gangs, and military coordination between the Chilean armed forces and the CIA.
Nixon’s National Security Adviser (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger was behind many of the machinations that overthrew one of Latin America’s longest standing democracies to be replaced by one of the world’s longest lasting dictatorships. It is one of the most sordid and sorry chapters in the history of United States foreign policy.
Friedman was responsible for the Pinochet regime’s economic theories, Kirkpatrick created the geo-political framework, Kissinger engineered the coup, and Pinochet provided the muscle. They were a great team that will not be missed.
By JK
December 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
RW, that’s retarded. Dispensing knowledge, perspective, and the tools people can use to protect themselves is not the same as dispensing smokes & beer. D’OH! Sorry Homer.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Randy (1158)
Let me call your attention to my comment at 1105: Although my opposition to religion in politics is very clear, I am of the opinion that Jesus was a major philosopher and that his two main tenets: “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are universal truths and need to be taught to everyone.”
Randy: I contend that “they are universal truths.”
By Sarah Caldwell
December 11, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
What did y’all do with Jim Wooten? The real JW that never met a government service he couldn’t wait to demolish. We’re supposed to believe he’s proposing this? I think he was abducted by aliens and Hilary Clinton wrote this article.
Nonetheless, it’s not such a bad idea. I’m an avowed bleeding-heart liberal, but people who create children (or any other obligation) for society to handle can not be allowed to do so unchecked.
Having children is a blessing for society, like job creation, but it’s not an unmixed blessing. No matter how many jobs are at stake, factories can’t go on spewing out polluted water that require public funds (taxes) to clean up. We feel, and quite rightly that the benefits we’re receiving from the plant aren’t worth the losses. We’d insist they clean up their act or quit operating—having children isn’t all that different.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom to procreate ends where my home and pocket are impinged. My own children received Social Security Survivors’ benefits after their father died (far more than he ever paid in) but we didn’t know that when they were born. We (and then I alone) also took care to see they were prepared to benefit the world into which they were born.
BTW, don’t kid yourselves that only poor people and their children do any impinging. If so many wealthier parents weren’t determined buy their children’s self-worth, instead of instilling self-worth through noticing real accomplishments and developing responsibility; we’d have fewer teen-related traffic accidents, less drug use and fewer crimes just for the thrill of it. That would save us all some money, too, as consumers and as taxpayers.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Randy,
I’ll go a little farther. I can think of no crime that deserves greater or more severe punishments than child abuse or child murder. That’s why sex education is so critical. The knowledge of how to protect oneself from an unwanted pregnancy is not just a matter of telling both parties to abstain. It’s a matter of telling students how babies happen, and what happens to the parents once they have a child to rear. We are failing our young people totally in this regard.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Diogenes,
Odd that you would miss the paragraph right before the one you cited. Could it be that you are trying to lie about what I said again?
Of course when the conviction is for murder or any other crime that calls for incarceration, that punishment should be given.
Your statement was that if laws were inadequate in keeping someone behind bars until they are beyond child bearing years then we should work to have those laws changed. That is purely an attempt on your part to keep the offender from reproducing and has very little to do with just punishment for their crime. Should an 18 year old abuser be given a longer sentence than a 40 year old for the same crime?
JK,
A mixed message is a mixed message no matter where you want to draw your liberal line.
By Randy
December 11, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Diogenes, Well here’s the facts. THEY AREN’T BEING TAUGHT TO EVERYONE. IF THE LIBERALS HAD THEIR WAY, THEY WOULDN’T BE TAUGHT TO ANYONE. Those who aren’t receiving the teachings are the ones who are plummeting our society into chaos, and the liberals promote THEM AS THE VICTIMS. LIBERAL POLICIES AS THE SOLUTION.
RW, Diogenes deals in surrealism. You deal in reality.
Diogenes believes that if HE believes it to be so, it is attainable.
Reality escapes him therefore avoidance of facts are something that he’ll continue to put forth AS HIS ARGUMENT.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Randy,
My wife claimed that I was pulling an RW and not giving you sufficient answer to your question.
I grew up with a prayer (a moment with one’s God) and a pledge of allegiance every morning in school. I think those important rituals. Do I think we need religious instruction in public schools? I want to proceed cautiously with this. I think instruction in the basic tenets of the major religions not out of place at about the 7th and 8th grade levels with all religions regarded as equal; however, I do not support religious “instruction” or advocacy for any one religion.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Honu,
It looks like you were right. :-)
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
RW
Boy! Are you a demagogue.
Your comment: “Your statement was that if laws were inadequate in keeping someone behind bars until they are beyond child bearing years then we should work to have those laws changed. That is purely an attempt on your part to keep the offender from reproducing and has very little to do with just punishment for their crime. Should an 18 year old abuser be given a longer sentence than a 40 year old for the same crime?”
I think that if you will check my 855, you will see that what I said was “If our current laws for child abuse are inadequate to keep such people behind bars until they are well beyond child-bearing age, then get your Representative or County Commissioner involved and get those laws changed. If the judges have inadequate sentencing guidelines, then get your Representative or Country Commissioner involved and get the sentencing guidelines changed. Once started, no matter how “noble” the cause, there is no telling how far such a heinous notion would spread.”
I think that qualifies as a suggestion to Jim should he be dissatisfied with current sentencing procedures. I then advised him to stay with the customary and usual and not to venture into the cruel and un-usual.
You are better at twisting things than JD Stoner ever was. My goodness, are you one shifty demagogue.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Dio,
Bear with me for a moment, I’m trying to get over the shock that you are claiming to be male.
OK, Was JD Stoner a twister? For that matter who is JD Stoner?
Nice dodge to the premise, but I still say if you are advocating for a sentence that takes someone beyond child bearing years then you are really just finding a more palatable way to keep them from reproducing than you are for punishing them for the crime itself.
What practicable difference is there between sterilization and warehousing when your only goal is to stop that person from reproducing?
By JK
December 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
RW, I don’t think my message is mixed. “People have sex; it’s a strong biological urge that most people have. It starts in your teens. Here are the facts. Here’s why people do it. Here’s why some girls at school do it. Here’s why it’s a bad idea when you’re young. (Clue: there’s more to that explanation than ‘it’s a sin if you’re not married!’) Here are the facts. Here’s what people do to be more responsible. Here’s why it’s better to wait. Here’s how to protect yourself when you’re through waiting.”
It’s a free country. You fill your kids’ heads with whatever you want. I’ll empower mine with truth. Thanks anyway.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
JK (1119)
Thanks
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
JK,
I only said you were providing a mixed message which you are.
It’s very true that if you just ignore your children all their lives and then suddenly tell them not to have sex when they are teenagers you aren’t going to get anywhere.
I also tend to agree with what you said about what you should teach them which is what I did with my children. I do not agree that I should abdicate my responsibility to the government.
If a parent chooses to teach a child abstinence and then hands them a condom, they are either saying they don’t really believe what they are teaching the child or they are telling their child they have no trust in them.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Randy (1227)
Thank you for your observations.
By John D.
December 11, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
This is a societal problem not a government problem or a religious problem.
As long as segments of society believe producing offspring, even when unmarried, is their step into adulthood there will be these sad events.
Interesting to me how the liberal view seems to be “people should be able to do whatever feels good without consequence” and then when the consequences appear the “religious right” should step in and clean up the mess. Is this the same “religious right” spoken of with such disdain by most on the left?
The laws of our land have severe outcomes for people who continually cross the line society draws on many topics. Incarceration for life or even death is among the penalties miscreants pay for their actions.
Abuse the traffic laws and lose your license to drive, steal your neighbor’s property and lose your right to associate with people other than inmates, take a life and lose yours. What is so horrid about taking away the possibility for people to sire and abuse more children after they prove themselves incapable of parenting?
The Liberals champion abortion but sterilization is wrong? Let’s talk about a warped sense of values! If abortion is OK with you left loonies then why is stopping the need for abortion wrong? Because these sickos MIGHT someday develop into caring, loving parents? Making the decision to abuse a child should be proof enough to bring out the knife.
Please do not blame DFACS. If they take a child wrongly they are villains and if they do not take the child and are wrong they are villains. Government does precious little that cannot be better provided by the private sector.
The blame goes back to the decision to take prayer and morality out of the schools in order not to offend some sensitive types. Well I am offended by the lack of concern you Left Loonies have for the child BEFORE the incubator or sperm donor kills the child! The ability of those two to have a little fun and procreate is more important to you than the life of the child.
You Left Loonies want abortion on demand without question? What a totally stupid suggestion as a solution to this problem.
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
RW,
Again you rely on demagoguery rather than reasoned argument:
Your comment is “Nice dodge to the premise, but I still say if you are advocating for a sentence that takes someone beyond child bearing years then you are really just finding a more palatable way to keep them from reproducing than you are for punishing them for the crime itself.”
We are discussing the murder of a child, a crime that carries very heavy puhishment, including, in Georgia, the possibility of the death sentence. I am advocating nothing except that I advise Jim and others not to venture into eugenics. In part, I point out, I trust that our religious organizations would also be strongly opposed to such a notion.
I then suggest to Jim that if he is dissatisfied with the laws, he should lobby to have them changed. As far as your opinion is concerned, I’ve made it very clear that I am opposed to any form of court ordered sterilization. Did I dumb it down enough for you this time?
By Diogenes
December 11, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Got to go. Bye.
Jim, let me remind you one more time:
Getting church support for children’s homes, making abortions legal, and making birth control easily available would be a good starting point.
By JK
December 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
If a parent chooses to teach a child abstinence and then hands them a condom…
Ahh, okay. Here’s where we differ. I do not teach abstinence. I teach that it’s ultimately their decision, not mine, when they do what, (‘cause it IS) and they’ll have to deal with what happens next - (insert list of possibilities) - and that I hope they’ll be circumspect and make the right choices for THEIR lives, since they’re the ones who have to live with it. Therefore, a full explanation of implications, physical, social, emotional, is warranted. To omit information would be manipulative and thereby reduce my ‘cred, Dude. Mom = truth.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Dio,
Isn’t it time to turn the page on your word-of-the-day calendar?
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
JK,
Ahh, okay. Here’s where we differ. I do not teach abstinence.
That isn’t where we differ and you would know that if you read the post you excerpted my comment from. Where we differ is that I don’t believe that you should just throw your hands up and not teach your child right from wrong just because it’s their choice.
By JK
December 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Why would you presume I don’t teach my kids right from wrong? WHA? Never mind, RW. No need to answer. I understand exactly where you’re coming from and where you’re trying to go: “Lib’ruls are bad and have no morals and are to blame for everything.” As the kids say, What-EVERRRRRR… Yap yap your non-point all day if you wish. BD will be along later to applaud how skillfully you throttled me. yawn! I have work to do.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
JK,
I’ll look forward to Buy Danish’s comments.
I guess you’re right that I overly generalized your comment and I really don’t care what you teach your children or how you go about it. I just wouldn’t want you teaching my children. Of course they are successful adults now so I guess I didn’t screw them up too bad.
By Taylor
December 11, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, These kind of tragedies have become all to common in today’s society. Our judiciary seems to be in conflict when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. Without that clarification, we are, I’m afraid, doomed to drastic actions.
That being said, I would agree with your assessment of what needs to be done.
I had read an interesting article regarding sexual promiscuity and the damage it has on a society. It is from an African publication, but, in no way, should it be misconstrued as an overall observation of the black community.
The article Uganda: Cheating Not a Prerogative of Men clearly states that it crosses all boundaries. I would have entitled the article. “The Sins of the Parents Should Never Be Allowed to Result in the Death of Our Children.”
By jbmlaw
December 11, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Dear RW @ 11:10, apologies, my goal was not to appall you, but rather was to appall our friends on the left, by highlighting an artificial differential. Our dear friend JK chides me regularly for my anti-abortion commentaries, so I thought I would have some fun with a Swift-effort. I spend half my day disgusting all I meet, so today I just shared with more than usual. Have a cheery afternoon, all – kill them-there babies.
By Corrections
December 11, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
John D. @12:59 “The blame goes back to the decision to take prayer and morality out of the schools in order not to offend some sensitive types.”
Prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional. Here’s what James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” has to say on the subject:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/mainpages/madisonarchives/constit_confed/rights/antecedents/memorial.htm
By Charlotte
December 11, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
The problem is not an out-of-wedlock birth. The problem is an ignorant, low-life parent who clearly is unfit raise her voice, much less a child.
My father died shortly after my birth. So would it have matter if my parents were married or not (actually, they were married)? I had a happy childhood and she did a great job of raising me. I went to law school and now I am married with a child of my own.
Quit blaming single moms for problem children. If you want to blame someone, blame fathers who choose to be absent.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
December 11, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
The Pope realizes that involuntary sterilization is not a good thing, but believes wholeheartedly in a systemcatic “euthanizing” of the redneck gene pool.
Offer a free lottery “quick pick” for life, and a free case of PBR per week to all native Georgians upon them reaching puberty as long as they submit to irreversible sterilization. This would greatly benefit all of humankind, and would be worth the cost, and make many a redneck truly happy. A win win for everyone!
By Political Foreskin
December 11, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Throw in a Klondike Bar, Pope, and you’ll get all the geldings you want. This is the south, man!
By Typical Georgia Redneck
December 11, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
If I want to use my child as a sex toy or a human punching bag, it’s my own damn bizness, not no gummint. My trailer is my castle, by Gawd.
Now where’s my dinner b-itch?
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I was neither asking for an apology nor commenting on your abortion views, merely asking you not to say that you speak for many conservatives here when you make such an absurd statement.
Since I’m a conservative and I’m here, that would include me and I would never hold or present a view, jokingly or otherwise, that a life born to a political leftist isn’t just as precious as any other.
By Gabby
December 11, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
I have no sympathy left for the Ms. Banks of the world. How can you turn back the clock on a society that’s been indoctrinated by liberal government education and then expect it to work any better than it already hasn’t.
When I have to make a choice between an irresponsible adult and a child, I say save the child and stop the adult from having more before then throw both parents under the jail.
If I could designate my tax dollars giving it to private or religious organizations to oversee orphanages for discarded children, I would. The Georgia Baptist Children’s Home serves the need. I would prefer them over government who is more of the problem and less of the solution.
President Bush’s faith based initiatives have been under attack by the Democrats from day one. Right now, they’re calling for an investigation of his effort to improve on government failings in arenas such as this.
By trailorparktrash
December 11, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
U got that right red. When I do meth , i do what i want to do.mind yur bizness
By Corrections
December 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Gabby @ “If I could designate my tax dollars giving it to private or religious organizations to oversee orphanages for discarded children, I would. The Georgia Baptist Children’s Home serves the need…President Bush’s faith based initiatives have been under attack by the Democrats from day one…”
President Bush’s faith-based initiatives are unconstitutional. Here’s what James Madision, the “Father of the Constitution”, had to say on the subject:
“…religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated maginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware N. J., &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.”
Letter from James Madison to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?mjmtext:10:./temp/~ammem_Xi8a::
By Gabby
December 11, 2006 05:37 PM | Link to this
Corrections, Government welfare programs are unconstitutional too.
The New Deal has been a miserable failure, so why am I still taxed for an unconstitutional failure to society?
By getalife
December 11, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this
Gabby,
Your money is going to Iraqi welfare.
Do you have a problem with that?
By Gabby
December 11, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this
getalife, That money is going for national security. A responsibility that IS my government’s.
No I don’t have a problem with that.
By RW-(the original)
December 11, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this
Diogenes,
I forgot to thank you for actually trying to state your case on an issue today and taking on the debate. I realize that you devolved back into lies and insults, but it was a good start.