Looney Democrats

Phyllis Schafly, writing at Townhall.com, makes a case for restoring parental rights in the schools. Largely what Mrs. Schafly is writing about is the ability of parents to control the medical aspects. She talks about the rights of parents to control the healthcare of their children and to have some say in the "morality" that is taught to their children (specifically with regards to the teaching of matters involving homosexuality and sex ed, but also billingual education and other matters.) While I don't agree with everything Schafly has to say on most topics, I think she is spot on with this piece.

However, one commenter to the post, Loyal Democrat, wrote this:

Children belong to society - not parents
Schlafly's premise is flawed from the onset: the reality is that children do not "belong" to their parents, they "belong" to society. To rule that children are rightfully controlled by a parent is to adopt a policy of outright slavery, a policy that recognizes the ownership of people. Instead, each person belongs to the collective, and parents merely contribute another ant to the vast colony when they birth a child. Thus, the colony has the ultimate right to dictate what a particular member learns, does, and thinks because the new ant must function in a manner that benefits the entire colony, not just himself or some happenstance donors of a DNA sequence.

As Ms. Clinton pointed out in her blockbuster novel, it truly takes a village to raise a child, and the parents are merely the assigned custodian that is appointed by the village. This arrangement is satisfactory only so long as the parent recognizes the duty to bring the child up in accordance with the best interest of the village. Bringing up a good citizen does not include polluting young minds with thoughts and notions that are outside of the accepted standard.

Bearing all of this in mind, the reality sinks in to any caring parent: The child must be molded into the best member of the flock that they can be. This means that conformity and adherence to the accepted way of thinking is a must, and if a parent seeks to disrupt this citizenship training, then it is certainly within the right of the village to remove the incapable parent from the scene and replace the failed parent with a citizen that is more able to teach the proper ways of thinking. Renegade parents simply hinder the potential for the child to become an obedient member of society, therefore such a parent poses a threat to the child.

Fortunately, there have been massive advances in social engineering, and schools have begun to enforce their rightful role as the true parent of every child. As more of the blockades are removed from those that know how to best mold young minds, we will realize a future whereby everyone thinks just as they are supposed to, and everyone will support the ideas of those that have been placed in charge. Unproductive criticism of those that know what is best will be eliminated, so society will be able to benefit when our leaders are no longer challenged to justify their decisions. As a result, the nation will have the serenity of an ant colony, and individuality will finally be tossed into the rubbish heap of bad ideas gone awry. This utopia can be ours once we finally recognize just who the real parent is.

I almost don't know where to start, so I will start at the beginning. I will grant that children don't "belong" to parents, but they also don't belong to society either. Parents bring a child into the world and the parents are ultimately responsible for that child. Parents must provide care, food, clothing and shelter for the child. If they fail, the state can come in and take the child.

Taken to its logical end, Loyal Democrat's argument arrives at a place where America simply cannot go: the payment of parents to have children. If the child truly belonged to society, then I want the government to start reimbursing me for the food, clothing, the share of the house payment I make for my kids, the costs of healthcare and all the other expenses I incur for the raising of my child. I am not only sure, I am downright 100% positive that not even the most liberal Democrat is ready for that tax burden.

While the state can say that my child has to receive some sort of education, the state does not get to determine what my children will do with their lives. If my daughter wants to be a dancer, a doctor, or a drill sergeant, that is her choice and my responsibility to give her the opportunity to fulfill that dream. Society doesn't get to make that choice, that choice truly does belong to the child.

And the last paragraph is simply stunning in its utopian, socialist, mind-control, PC crap that it barely deserves mentioning. Make no mistake, if people like Loyal Democrat are in charge of the education of our children, that is exactly what you will get.

First, who decided that the schools should be the "real parent" of our children? I didn't and I don't delegate the role of parenting to the state and its schools. I expect the schools to provide my daughters with knowledge and the skills to acquire and use knowledge for a productive end they dictate for themselves. I don't expect schools to "parent" my children, that is my job.

Second, schools are not places of "social engineering." And these lines are just mindboggling:

As more of the blockades are removed from those that know how to best mold young minds, we will realize a future whereby everyone thinks just as they are supposed to, and everyone will support the ideas of those that have been placed in charge. Unproductive criticism of those that know what is best will be eliminated, so society will be able to benefit when our leaders are no longer challenged to justify their decisions.

Who decides what is the proper thoughts and since when did the United States not question its leadership? If we didn't question leadership, we wouldn't be having anti-war protests now would we? This kind of prattle seems much more suited to Cold War era Soviet Union schools than American public schools. These ideas simply fly in the face of 230-plus years of American political thought.

I sincerely hope Loyal Democrat is being facetious, but I doubt it. Loyal Democrat indeed, a better title would be Looney Democrat.