‘Grok friend, NH State Representative George Lambert, started an FB thread based on this wee bit of wisdom (more emphasis on "wee" than on "wisdom") from the Concord Monitor as their editorial discussed their version of the ramifications of the NH House passing two bill:
- HB 429 – AN ACT permitting a child 16 years of age or older to withdraw from school with parental permission
- HB 542 – AN ACT prohibiting a school district from requiring that a parent send his or her child to any school or program to which the parent may be conscientiously opposed
So, what was the part of the bill that caught my ire (along with many others)?
Both bills’ prime sponsors apparently have nothing against schooling, since both are engineers. The legislation instead arises from an antiquated notion of children as the chattel of their parents, who are the sole arbiters of what is best for them.
Right – "antiquated notion of children as the chattel of their parents"! Knowing the definition of "chattel", especially the most negative one, my immediate response was:
"as the chattel of their parents" – as opposed to being the chattel of the State? Certainly, a Progressive thought that has decided that the State knows best.
Indeed, the Concord Monitor DOES have the rep as being left of center, sometimes more left than center; I also believe that if one called them "Progressive", they would not take it as a slur. But to take the point of "slave" or being mere property with respect to one’s children? Please!
If you don’t know what "chattel" is, here is the Free Dictionary definition:
- Law . a movable article of personal property.
- Any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land.
- A slave.
So, does the Monitor REALLY believe that parents think of their children as…
…being of no better value than the rug on the floor, the battered chair in the corner, or worst case, slaves to be ordered about, willy nilly, at the parents bidding? Certainly not a Progressive attitude, I’d say, but a most Regressive one!
But what does concern me is the last part of that paragraph: "who are the sole arbiters of what is best for them". The flip side of that statement is that ONLY the State (for there is no other absolute entity that would dare take that on) should be the sole arbiter of a child’s well-being. Sure, there are times that the State needs to step in for the well being of children (via DCYF) – but that is not for the vast majority of families (and DCYF has made its own huge problems even as it holds itself up to the gold standard). I will also grant that sometimes parents need assistance with their children (thus, it pains me to see that the NH CHINS program is looking at budget cuts – but that is for another post).
I do take exception to the Monitor’s stance that, when read in toto, it seems that their Progressive philosophy show – that they just do not trust parents nor their belief system. By their own words, they say that parents do not know their children well enough when, at 16, to allow them to drop out of school (yet, the Monitor has no problem with the State assisting underaged, minor girls obtain abortions – essentially allowing for underaged sexual activity or, in some cases, possible statutory rape?)
It also shows that the Monitor does not believe, as JR Hoell pointed out in his sponsorship of the bill, that parent SHOULD have the ability to decide what is right and wrong for the State to teach their children with respect to morals. With the present moral atmosphere in schools (or, to most traditional value folks like myself, NO moral atmosphere), the Monitor is essentially telling parents "your views don’t count!".
And the MSM keeps scratching their heads, wondering where their former readers, listeners, and eyeballs have gone to?
This post will not resolve the argument of "are parents in charge of their offspring, or have they, by dint of the Educational – Industrial complex and by Progressive laws and rules, been made mere breeders for the State?" Are they really the nucleus of society, or just wards of the State themselves – allowed just so much responsibility or freedom, until they cross that special line that Progressives set (and seemingly move all the time) – and then their leashes get yanked?
