Whose Kids Are They? The State vs. The Parents

In the Presbyterian Church, the denomination that must suffer my sinful presence, it is often said that “I know who I am, because I know whose I am.”  We have reached the stage of crisis when it comes to families and children.  The question is whose kids are they, the state or their parents?

For a great many years, I have been told by the wise and profound that I was overreacting to whatever the latest progressive insanity was at the time.  Had I the chance to do things again, I would scream louder.  To hell with good taste as defined by progressives.

Every institution of longstanding trust and respect has been turned inside out, often using illogic to allow for seemingly contradictory things to be united under the progressive flag.  Schools became locations where social justice took priority over basic learning.  Churches turn themselves inside out to be more open and welcoming.  I am all for it.  Anyone should feel at home there.  However, that does not require me to start from the vantage point that someone’s sexuality is more important to worship than their faith.  The examples abound.

My largest concern today in terms of culture and primary responsibility is the children of the United States and their parents.  Either parents “own” the primary responsibility for raising these kids, or the state does.  It is not hyperbole to argue we are at a critical inflection point.

Lest you think this is an exaggeration, Mary Rooke of the Daily Caller hit the nail dead on the head: “if we let this go, there’s no going back.”  She highlighted three hideous examples of where the state has arrested parents for allowing their kids to be kids.  Helicopter parents are hell bent for leather to use the power of the state to determine what is right and proper for all children and for all parents.  We are not talking about the school curriculum.  We are talking about what defines us as a society. 

In Gaston County, North Carolina, a seven-year-old was hit and killed by a 76-year-old driver.  The child and his 10-year-old brother were walking together (without parental participation) two blocks from their home to get a sandwich.  The parents were arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter and child neglect.  Bail was set at $1.5 million.  They took a plea deal at the end of June.  They both received suspended sentences, one for 2.5 years, the other for three years.  To add injury to insult, they must attend parenting classes along with paying court costs and lawyer’s fees.

This is a game-changer.  Will parents have the responsibility to teach their children what they consider to be right and wrong?  If parents think their boys, 10 and seven, can handle walking two blocks safely, in a pretty slow-moving part of the country, should the state prosecute them if something goes horribly wrong?  Do we want the next generation of children to be one where the helicopter parents get to decide for themselves and everyone else?  

By the way, the state’s record leaves a bit to be desired.  80 percent of Americans favor a law to prevent biological males from competing against biological females.  80 percent.  Still, progressives insist on continuing to allow biological men to compete against biological women in the name of “transgender rights.”  How about doing something in the name of sanity?

There, appropriately, are already more than a few legal standards we have collectively decided to be the line of demarcation when it comes to child safety.  Are we really at a point where parents allowing children to be children, to grow into independent, self-reliant, and resilient adults, is illegal?  Will there be unfortunate, even tragic, events if my point of view prevails?  Yes.  Do we want laws against parents exercising reasonable judgment, as has always been the case for centuries?  

The other choice is putting the helicopter parents in charge of all of us with the force of law and at the discretion of the state.  Who favors gender affirming health care for minors without parental knowledge or consent?  Not me.  Sign me up for having the parents decide.  The last thing we need to do is encourage more neediness (you know that entitlement stuff) and dependence on the state to call the balls and strikes.  Strong children make strong parents.  The issue is whether the risk outweighs the downside, even when the downside is not zero.

Remember this:  There is a reason that every society that has succeeded was centered on the concept of stable families (as however defined by that society).  It works.  What do you think?