Yes.
Not at all. I think the treaty does nothing for countries in the West,
Then we shouldn't have to surrender our sovereignty to the UN and sign it. Let parents do the parenting.
where children already enjoy freedoms far outbalancing those of the treaty.
And the countries that don't provide these rights for children have signed it. I don't think we should have to be party to the sham. I think that refusing to sign is a more helpful act for American children. We provide all the necessities, plus much more, while still refusing to allow our children to see harmful material in the name of freedom. Several inhumane acts have been committed in the name of freedom such as torture, assassination, etc. Why should we add our signature to a document that may very well undermine social order?
America should sign it as a gesture, like all of the UKs, Germanys, Australias of the world.
I think that not signing it is a much more moral gesture. So many times nations sign these treaties with no intention of following through. By refusing to sign, we denote that our sovereign rights as a nation will not be subjugated to the massive bureaucracy of the UN, which, if you haven't noticed, fails at everything.
[quote[
I know as well as you do that Iran isn't going to take this seriously, and I'm sure the UN does too. The treaty is designed so up and coming countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Latin America etc start to implement compulsory education etc.[/quote]
Well, as a developed nation, we already provide compulsory education. And, through years of trial and error, we have figured out that a balance of school, church, and home education puts out the best and the brightest. Why risk that balance for the sake of a socialist left-wing agenda.
It's really for those guys in the middle. America doesn't need to sign it, it just should, because it looks like it doesn't care for children by not doing so.
I don't think there is nation in the world, or a reasonable person in the world, who could genuinely say that, as a whole, the human rights in America are lacking. People are free to become anything, and decide their own course in life. Signing this treaty takes away our freedom. It's almost as if you're asking to give away freedom so someone else can have some of ours. You have said in this debate that the rights of children in Western nations are better than asked for in the treaty. Why shouldn't those Latin America nations model their child welfare system after ours than a UN document?
But the treaty doesn't say anything about disciplining children at all, unless your idea of punishment is forcing them into prostitution or something.
The treaty bans corporal punishment. Simple as that. A spanking is corporal punishment. Sorry, but sometimes, I think it is necessary to show dominance as a way of maintaining order.
The discipline of children in this country today had absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of this treaty. The ways teachers act now and pre-treaty are exactly the same.
To say nothing of the actions of the parents. The implementation of the treaty starts at home. Schools receive children who are underdisciplined, without work ethic, and generally disrespectful of authority because this treaty restricts the parent's rights. The actions at school are manifestations of the lack of institutional control sponsored by this treaty.
Suspensions have risen, but when was the last time we had a murder in school? Far less recently than you.
That goes to the availability of guns. It has nothing to do with the charter.
When did I say we had no problems?
In the next sentence.
I said the treaty had caused no problems, and this still stands. Suspensions have risen because they work a lot better than just shouting at a child, as was the norm before.
That is, one a snap judgment on the effects of the treaty, and two a very debatable opinion. I feel that the effects of the treaty are long term, a generation od disrespectful kids, raising a generation of more disrespectful kids, and so on. Furthermore, I had video games, cable, a water bed, and a stocked full fridge. Both of my parents worked. A suspension would not have been that bad. On the other hand, a screaming authority figure reflects dominance, and that dominance seems to be getting lost on today's children. This is why boys paint their nails. This charter causes emos, and on that alone, the harms outweigh the benefits.
No, it says "Shadow" meaning the spokesman on that issue from the opposition party, who is obviously going to focus on the negative. Even if there is a lack of discipline, which I don't doubt there is in some areas, it has nothing to do with a UN treaty.
See above, and add the point that the treaty also restricts the rights of teachers. A child must always be heard....
This article is a classic example of media horse shit being reported as news.
As opposed to Amnesty International. Don't they praise Iran and Cuba?
They cherry pick sentences from the treaty thatwhen viewed in full context say that Children are free from persecution based on religion, to mean children can tell their parents to fuck off if they think they're going to church.
I agree, and kids shouldn't be allowed to tell parents to fuck off. A trip to church reinforces the lessons taught at home. It shows that respect is a universal premise. It shows that other kids live under the same rules. It provdes context for morals and makes certain practices more relevant to kids in a historical context.
Do you know why that is there? It is so there is a specific treaty that prevents things like preventing muslim children going to secular schools based on their faith, or in the extreme, it is a clear signal that genocide against children breaks this UN law. This means that when the war crimes trial is held after the event, the people have more chance of being punished.
Do you need a treaty to tell you that genocide against kids is bad? Does anyone think that the US is not already against the genocide of kids? In the nations where schools exist solely based on faith, this treaty is not being followed. Iran is an example of a nation where there is no choice in the schools where the children go. They are all faith-based. What is the point of this document here? Once again, the US hasn't signed this document and has outperformed the measured prescribed. Iran, who has signed, and is your shining of example of why the US should sign it, violates yet again.
I was forced to go to chapel everyday bar Saturday by my school, who acted in loco parentis, and there was nothing I could do about it. I'd like to you to find me one instance in any of the 193 countries where parents have been punished for taking their kids to a place of worship, barring instances where they have taken them into an illegal cult.
And did going to chapel force you into a life of right wing fundamentalism? I don't think so. You seem to be a freethinking young man. What is wrong about this chapel experience. Let me put it this way. This debate has been very respectful, as both of have had some sense of religious life in our time. This respect is a virtue reinforced by the church. Your parents made that decision when they sent you to that school. They knew what was best for you, and did a great job of deciding on their own.
We don't have violent schools. If you want violent schools, how about you look at the country were 38% of schools report at least one serious violent incedent a year. It's the one you're sitting in, by the way.
OK, so America is more violent than the UK. You're right. I have an idea, parents should be stricter, restricting mroe access to art, such as The Matrix which inspired the Columbine shootings. Oh, well the charter won't let them do that. If only we didn't sign it....
Wait we didn't!!! Go ahead parents, learn from real life and adjsut your parenting styles thus. Don't wait for the UN to tell you what to do. you proved my point for me.
Your response is a classic right wing one, to look at the immediate problem.
You judged the success of the charter based on one incomplete generation of children raised under it. I am examining future harms. Looks like snap judgments work on both side.
You don't have violent schools because there isn't any discipline, you have violent schools because huge swathes of your kids live below the poverty line.
The killings at schools don't happen in Compton and Harlem. They happen in suburban Colorado and Virginia. Poverty has nothing to do with it. New age, liberal parenting does. The parents of the Columbine killers confessed that maybe the could have stopped it before it happened by not giving their kids so much privacy. The charter gives children more privacy for abortions and information searching.
Violence isn't bread by a lack of discipline, if it was, then laissez-faire hippy kids of the 60s would be todays mass murderers.
The freedom loving hippies started more riots than I care to detail. The freedom loving French kids set that country on fire. A right wing protest, nationwide, had no arrests (The tea parties), while the WTO protests featured arrests, vandalism, and a pyrotechnics display that rivals the Tet holiday. These protesters, of course, are the children of the laissez-faire hippies of the 60's.
Violence is a reaction to poor socio-economic conditions, and as long as you blame the schools, and do nothing about the abysmal conditions in your poorest areas, you will continue to have violence in schools.
Do I need to give you more examples or can we move on? There is violence in the hood jsut like their is violence in suburbia. "Hey, there's a movie coming out with 63 murders. Let's go see it, as it is protected art under the treaty, and the R Rating doesn't matter because I get unrestricted access to any artisitic images I want." I'm sure this attitude wouldn't contribute to the violent American culture.
You can criticize the european way all you want, but we have a damn sight less crime than you and people in prison, and it isn't because we don't report crime or any other bullshit reason,
Although there is more legal behavior.
it's because if you are born poor in Europe you have a fighting chance of making something of your life,
And when you make something of your life, all of your money goes to people who don't choose to.
I am living proof of that. If you are born poor in America, you will remain poor because the rich get the good schools, the good health care and the good neighborhoods, and the poor get the projects.
We should definitely take more from the rich than we already do. After national and state taxes, the highest earners give more than half of their salaries to the state. Why should we be taking more. I told you that this charter is a false front for the secular humanist agenda to turn the whole world socialist.
If it allows for children to join cults, which it evidently doesn't, but if it did, it would also give them the freedom not to join a cult. I don't know about you, but I think that's a good thing, given how cults usually end.
Once again, the harms outweight the benefits. I will agree that it will protect children from cults, of course, the federal government already tries to shut them down, and has a much higher success rate than failure rate. By the way, the children were released in Waco, there were none at the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, and the children were removed from Warren Jeff's compound. We do pretty well at keeping kids out of cults already, and we don't need the charter to do so.
They wouldn't though. If this were the case, then I'm sure the British government would have stopped people from taking their kids to the mosques which are known to promote radicalism,
Except that much of Europe is so scared of offending Muslims (us too) that it would never happen. Furthermore, how many kids do you see exercising their religious autonomy and running from these mosques? I think that this illustrates how useless the document is.
but they don't because they can't. Children of 10 do have fickle desires, yes, and I'm sure any logical person would see it that way. You seem to be advocating rule by iron fist for 17 years 364 days, then bam, get out into the big world and make all our own decisions that I've been making for you.
The unfortunate fact of the world is that there has to be a dividing line. You can ask how everything is different because you are one day older. I reply, you have to decide somewhere. At some point there has to be a delineation in rights. It seems OK to say that it works for voting, so why not everything else? The treaty also bans trying someone as an adult until they are 18.
1. This means that the charter recognizes that 18 is is a good delineation age. What is the difference here? In America, social workers and psychologists can determine whether someone of sound mind committed an act. This keeps more criminals off the streets, which protects the common good.
2. Psychological studies over time have prescribed 18 as mean age where people can take full resposibility for their actions.
3. The younger you draw this line, the more harm you do to kids. For the most part, kids seek guidance from their parents far past the age of 18, so making this the bright line isn't that bad of an idea.
Personally, I think you have to gradually give kids autonomy as they get older,
And it should be your right as a parent to decide how much autonomy to give when. That is not for the state to decide.
otherwise they will be overwhelmed with choice at 18 and make bad decisions.
Nothing says parents have to stop giving advise.
I can only provide anecdotal evidence for this, but it might help. I went to a strict military school between the ages of 11 and 18. Unlike my peers, most ofwhom paid thousands while I went for less than living costs, I had a degree of autonomy outside of school. As a result, going out into the big wide world hasn't changed me in the slightest, whereas most of the people who left at 18 have gone out into the world, and failed hugely, because they are easily led. They still act as children because they haven't had any lesson in moderation, and have gone from a you can't do anything atmosphere to a drinking, drugging, single mothering, life of irresponsibility. Meanwhile, moderate Gareth can hold his alcohol, doesn't do drugs, and has never even gotten one girl pregnant.
Well, I don't think most parents would raise their children as strictly as a military school. And to turn one of your points back on you, that sounds as if it might be the schools problem. A parent can grant all the autonomy they want, but the key is that this is the parents decision, and the clauses forcing access to art and information, and religion take away the rights of parents to make these decisions.
No, it shows lopholes. If you folowed the treaty by the letter, it would change nothing in your legal system.
Then why show a sign of unity with Iran by signing when we would follow and tehy probably don't even know what it says?
However, your issues with the treaty stem from an interpretation of it that is wrong, and the only way that the things you have said would happen would actually happen is if somebody could argue loopholes. A system that allows something that is in essence very good to become a doctrine of governmental interferance in the trivial aspects of lifeis inherently flawed.[/quote]
Another reason America shouldn't sign. The possible harms of this document outweigh the benefits. Nations that would follow this treaty, already do, with or without it, and those that won't follow it sign it and disregard it. It is a worthless document, and signing sets up the possibility of the collapse of the social order. Not signing it, by your admission, provides the best life for children anywhere in the world.
What?! I will raise my children however I see fit.
I didn't mean you specifically, but yeah, this is what I have been saying.
It's funny how the childcare organisations, who study child psychology all say that corporal punishment has more negatives than positives, and that people who are violent in later life are more likely to have been smacked than people who don't, but whatever.
Speaking personally, I was smacked maybe three times growing up, and I still remember the lessons I learned. Furthermore, every child has been spanked up until the last 20 years. There has not been enough time for the laissez-faire parents to fully raise little serial killers yet. give it some time, then we will examine whether or not spanking caused nationwide epidemics of violence.
As a younger child, I was occaisionally slapped by my parents. My nephew has never been smacked, and is in no way worse behaved than I was. Smacking is the easy option. It's easy to hit a child, but the same effect can be acheived by just being stern and giving them time out etc.
Not always, not for all kids, and not for all parents.
I'll finish this later. Gotta go.----
Sorry for the interlude, I had to run an errand.
If spanking is so good, why is there literally no child pshycologist who recommends it. Ever seen Supernanny? Look at the effects she gets in like a week, without even a threat of smacking.
I could rail on child psychologists lefty leanings. And let's send SuperNanny everywhere. Or let's imagine taht the show is edited and her progress is short term at best.
Did I say go to church or don't go to church? I don't care if you go to church, or take your kids there.u think Britain is some sort of post-Apocalyptic hell hole. Partially because you are wrong, partially because you are entitled to your opinion. Neither does my government, or the french one for that matter, or Australian.
I don't view Britain as any kind of hell hole. I don't think the school day starts with a Mad Max style chase scene. I just simply feel that the breakdown in morals in the world has affected over there as well. Like I said, look at protesters on your side of the pond, and ours. The kids of the hippies, who you feel aren't violent, start all kinds of fires. This is an example of what can happen in a more state controlled society. These kids are the test cases, the one's who received this lefty style of raising kids.
I do preach tolerance, but that includes tolerating the intolerant. I'm not offended that you believe in God, but I would be offended, if as an atheist or muslim living in Utah and being taught creationism as is presented in the bible.
Not taught in our schools. If you're talking private school, I don't think there are many Muslim kids at St. Mary the Ignatius.
I hae nothing against teaching creationism, as long as it is shown that the evidence is categorically in favour of evolution, something I'm sure you agree with me on.
I agree, but now back to what we were talking about.
The rightist agenda of delibriately misinterpreting the views of the left is why it isn't taken seriously in your country. It has taken somebody relying entirely on rhetoric rather than policy to get a politician even approaching the left into your presidency, and even then only because the arse fell out of your economy, and the other guy was from the party of the most unpopular president since Nixon. (fact based on opinion polls, not conjecture)
I say lefties want to be socialists. Barack Obama bought the banks and the car companies. I don't think I've misconstrued anything, but thanks for your concern. But let's talk about the economy. It was built upon two bubbles, a housing bubble at a credit bubble. These bubbles were very interconnected. The swelling in these bubbles started under Clinton. Then, when Bush pushed the ownership society, the bubbles filled with some people who didn't deserve credit getting chance after chance, and then the bottom fell out. Both parties contributed heavily to this.
What an enormous leap of faith that is. The treaty says "children shouldn't be slaves", and you see "all must work collectively for Mother Russia".
I don't think children should be slaves. I don't need a treaty for that. My whole argument is that certain countries who have signed this document don't follow it and putting our signature next to theirs condones this behavior. I feel that an endorsement of the document is an endorsement of all the signatories, and frankly, some of them treat children with such contempt that their signature means nothing. I don't want to be party to this behavior.
Seriously, what are you on about? If signing the treaty is such a bad thing for competition, why has Fiat, an company from Italy that has signed the treaty just had t save Chrysler? It's as if they're competitively stronger.
Good single example. They bought it from Diamler, a German company.
It's preaches freedom to religion, which is in no way an advocation of secularism, if it was do you think Italy and Brazil, the most catholic countries on earth would have signed?
It allows for morals to swing on the whim of a child. Furthermore, it is another step to pull kids from God.
The treaty is designed to protect children from being persecuted, and your right wing media has bent it so far the other way that it looks like it is the dawning of a new Soviet pact for the entire world, when actually it is just to prevent bad things happening to kids.
Once again, why should we sign? Are there child slaves here? If we were to punish everyone who makes kids underage work, there would be a major backlash from the Hispanic population, thinking we are persecuting illegals. How do you even enforce this document? Iran doesn't have secular schools for kids, should we invade in the name of the children? There are child prostitutes in East Asia, should we carpet bomb Thailand. This is a woethless document, and it does more harm than good.
I have a high IQ. So does my brother. He went to school when Margaret "female Reagan" Thatcher was prime minister. We live in a fairly poor area, so the school wasn't very good. He got among the best results in school, but they were average results comparitively and was encouraged to leve school at 15 (it would be 16 but he is young for his year). He has had to work his way up through shitty jobs before joining the navy, he learned a trade, came out and spent 10 years climbing the ladder to where he belongs, given his natural ability, which is as a degree qualified level of engineer. He will be 36 by the time he has acheived this. If a rich kid of equal ability the same age as him had gone to a good school and then gone to university, he would be at the same level at 21. How the fuck can you justify that? Because his parents were poor, he's had to pay 15 years of his life for equality.
In America, these opportunities are open to everyone. Look at everyone's idol. Our President. I don't agree with him, but he rose to an elite position younger than anyone to do it before him. Bill Clinton grew up poor as well. Look at what you can achieve here, that apparently you can't achieve there. Why should we sign this again?
Fast forward 12 years. I grew up in a labour government. I was encouraged to do well, and given a lot of help to get into military school where I got incredibly good grades, compared to my brother, I was encouraged to go to university by government incentives, and am heavily subsidised now that I am here. I will leave university at 22 and be more qualified than my brother, but equally qualified as people my age who have my abilities, but greater financial means. If you can't see that that is fairer, we'll never get anywhere.
So it takes a UN Charter to do that there and it happens here without it? I guess that means we should sign it. Unless, of course, you are saying that the charter had nothing to do with that. I would then reply with, "And...."
I don't think we should get rid of the market, I do think we should give people a fighting chance to do well in it, which a right wing government has never managed to do. Where are your rags to riches stories? We have several.
I gave you our rags to riches stories already. But OK...Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Michael Dell, the entire NBA, NFL, MLB, etc.
You calling Berlusconi and Sarkozy socialists? What about the Canadian guy, I'm pretty sure he isn't a socialist either. The protesters were by and large complete morons, but that isn't what will destroy Aerica, and neither is the G20. America will destroy America when rich kids get everything given to them and become CEOs of companies, thus driving them into the ground.
Let's see about that. Our CEO's are Harvard business graduates. Many of them were even educated at Oxford. Anyway, CEO's are elected by shareholders, as are boards of directors. Maybe some rich kids get executive VP positions with basically no power, but their parents busted ass to make it easy on their kids, so let's let these few brats reap the rewards of their parents success without making a global disaster.
All of the American subsiduaries of Ford are fucked, being run into the ground by people who don't know what they are doing, but do know daddy throws a great lawn party. Volvo, on the other hand, is booming, because it is still run by Swedes, where everyone is given an equal chance, and the real cream of the crop rises to the top, rather than the cream of the richest.
The car companies are failing form years of lefties furthering anti-trust legislation and giving unions unprecedented power. Guts who screw in lug nuts get upwards of fifty dollars an hour, ridiculous pensions and full salary for five years after they retire. The steel workers union has made steel so expensive that most foreign car companies buy our scrap metal and make it into steel and then sell it to us so much cheaper than we can do it ourselves and still make a healthy profit. A toyota costs $5,000 to make in San Antonio, Texas with non-union labor. The equivalent Chevy costs $12,000 to make in Detroit. The left helps destroy companies as much as trust fund babies. Guess what, there are more union members than there are trust fund heirs.
I don't hate america. I hate that you seem to think that your country and its system is flawless, when in fact you have a worse healthcare system, worse educational system and are in more debt than the UK and various other European countries, but you seem to think that we are the ones in trouble.
All that I say is wrong with Europe is moral decay. I never said we were flawless ever. In fact, my whole last post was about how the flaws in the system give us reason to not sign the document. But if we could get back on topic....
School is compulsory in Cuba. But even if you are going to tell lies about Cuba, explain away the fact they have the best adult literacy rate in the world, if they have such a shit educational system. You don't learn to read by selling fruit.
Lies, research, whatever. Look, I'm not going to find the information again, but it was factual government information that stated there are kids who don't go to school because they are working. But let's move past this. There are lines around buildings for basic medications. The health care system was glamorized by Michael Moore, but subsequent trips have disproved several of his claims. But the issue isn't really school in Cuba. It was about how you used Cuba's signing as a reason that we should, even though Cuba violates the document grossly, most notably, the sections about restricting the free flow of information.
We don't need the UN to protect our children, the treaty changed nothing here. Iran isn't going to honour the treaty, but USA not signing it gives countries like Iran an excuse to build up hatred against you amongst its people. "USA doesn't care about children, they wouldn't even sign a charter banning child prostitution".
And signing this charter would stop Iran from rallying hate against the US how? This is irrelevant.
Yours are more violent.
I'vealready told you why they have a better educational system. Ask yourself this, is it in UNESCOs intrest to big up Cuba? No. Is it in WHO's intrest? No.
And since you told me. Unfortunately, you might be wrong. UNESCO is a branch of the UN, so showing how these countries have signed is a propaganda campaign to give this charter credence, when in fact it means nothing that they signed.
Exactly. A country that executes homosexuals and stones women can take the moral highground against you. That is how ridiculous you look internationally.
If you believe this, then your entire education system to be reexamined for more reasons than the charter. If you believe that tehy have the moral high ground onus because of this charter, then you must also believe that pigs fly and I have Ocean Front Property in Arizona.
Cuba is in a much better state than most other central american nations, no matter how you look at it. I'm not going to vouch for communism, but it works better than perpetual civil war, which is proably the alternative, given the state of its neighbours.
Negative one is more positive than negative three, but it's still negative.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I am using Iran as an example of a bad country that can say "well at least we signed the treaty preventing child prostitution, unlike America".
And I don't know how many times I can tell that this argument is a loser, and a pathetic attempt at a comparison that is so far off base it makes me wonder if you understand this topic at all.
When did I use anything but facts taken from their website, that are categorical facts? I didn't.
Amnesty International, by your admission, they talk out of their "arse."
This is true. Signing it is a token gesture, not signing it gives your enemies ammunition.
It is not a token gesture. It a sign that we condone their behavior. We, the US, must agree that Iran knows the proper way to raise children, so we sign this document along side of them." No sir. And besides, you said we do better than the charter demands here, so why sign it and say we were wrong? We do a great job of raising children here. They aren't hookers or slavfes, for the msot part they aren't hooligans or ruffians. They are kids, who do kid things, and learn kid ways.
Our enemies don't need this for ammunition. They have found plenty before the charter, and will find more far later.
What? If you think that teaching children tolerance of other cultures is socialism, then I proudly call myself a socialist. The treaty does no such thing, if it did, Thatcher wouldn't have had a part in writing it, Major wouldn't have signed it and neither would scores of other right wing governments around the world.
We have illustrated how this charter provides for bigger government, more intervention into peop-le's lives, and more state control. This is socialism, and if you want to associate yourself with this loss of freedom, than you go ahead.
I couldn't agree with you more, but I feel that we should at least try and give everyone a fair start, don't you?
If someone's parents worked hard to give their children advantages, it is unfair to take them away. Society will never be completely equal, but everyone is given plenty of opportunity to succeed. Some have to work ahrder, but the opportunities are there for those who reach for them.
I don't think everyone should earn the same, but I do think that it is the responsibility of the rich to ensure that poor kids get a start in life that is comparable to that of their own children, otherwise the gap will widen. It isn't fair that my brother should suffer because his dad was a failure.
The rich, in America, give almost half of their money to the state already. How much more bureaucracy do we need to pay for to give kids more advantages? It sounds like we need to more efficiently regulate the size of government, not jsut keep feeding the monster.
I don't, but you look at you're country through rose tinted spectacles. As someone that grew up poor, I couldn't be more glad to have grown up here rather than there, because if I was there, I wouldn't have gone to a decent school, nor as good a university as the one I go to.
I grew up poor as well. I went to a $35,000 a year college on a scholarship because I did well in a low rated school district. This school is a top 25 business school. I graduated with honors and now am a economic analyst. That is why I know why the economy is failing, and why you just spout useless hate on the right.
Not our education minister, our opposition education spokesman, who is exaggerating a problem to make the government look bad.
Number are numbers, and those numbers are submitted by the school districts themselves. Look at the rise in discipline problems. It shows evidence of a problem in this country. I jsut feel that sections of this charter lead to problems such as you have. It doesn't take a massive leap in logic. Not as massive as the one where Iran has the moral high ground on the US on anything.
I don't think smacking kids shouldbe banned,
The charter bans corporal punishment, or spanking.
but I don't think it is necessary. I actually think it is quite lazy parenting, because its easier than other methods, but each to their own, within reason. My girlfriend, who I will probably end up marrying, is pro-smacking, so there is a real likelihood that my own kids will be smacked.
Then raise your kids how you want. If my kids start acting out of line and uncontrollable, I will dominate as is done in nature.
As with many things, it's something I wouldn't do myself, but I'm not going to judge anyone who does do it, and think they should be allowed to choose to do so. Much like my views on abortion, in that respect.
An endorsement of this document is a judgment on parents who raise their kids in the church, even if the kids wants to stay home and pray to Tom Brady, a judgment on spankings, and a gesture condoning inefficient government and a socialist world agenda.
