Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:52:11 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: morals
              31 Aug 1992 15:04:59 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

>> OK, how about muslims.  Could a baby from a christian family
>> be adopted by a muslim family.  After all muslims think Jesus
>> was NOT the son of God and some on this list think even their
>> God, Allah, is a different God.  (And you guys thought you got
>> away with THAT.   :-)

> I would say this is a practice which should be discouraged.  If the
> child is very young the conflicting beliefs may not come into play,
> however, an older child will undoubtedly have to deal with a very
> traumatic situation.

So that you may think clearly, Robert, say the child is a
newborn.  What now?  Should a newborn from a Christian
family be adopted by a muslim family?  How about by a
atheist family?

>> So Robert admits that atheists are excellent worldly parents but
>> should not be allowed to adopt because *Robert* does not think
>> they should be able to.  If THAT isn't imposing (by force) your
>> own morals to others, I don't know what is.

> I don't recall admitting any such thing.  I said that atheists *MAY*
> be excellent *worldly* parents.  You're also the one that claims I
> somehow decided that atheists should be denied this privilege.  My
> objection is not based upon personal choice but *truth*.

You are right.  You did said "MAY" and I meant to quote you
correctly but I failed.  However, it seems to me that you
are giving us conflicting signals.  Should an atheist family
be allowed to adopt?  And if not -- and I assume your rational
is that they would be unfit parents -- why should they be given
the custody of even their own children?

> .....................................  Unlike birth into this unfortunate
> situation, adoption offers the option of control.

I think this is a red-herring.  Compared to abiding by the
word of God, the difference between not letting atheists
adopt and taking away their own children is just a small
nuisance.

>> I wonder if Robert would agree to the notion that minor children
>> of atheists parents should be able to hire a lawyer to sue
>> their parents in order to get out of a godless household.

> No, not unless the child's safety is at risk.  If the child has the
> wisdom to know s/he is living in a "G"odless household, the parents
> have failed to impart their misfortune upon their child.  In this
> case, the child will overcome the burden of ungodly parents anyway.

What is physical safety in comparison to safety of the soul?
I say it is worse to be a child of "loving" atheists than
being children of abusive God-fearing Christians.

>> But what if the child wants to attend Church and he is not
>> allowed to?  Should our Christian police, equipped with laws
>> passed by Christian lawmakers, who were elected by Christian
>> voters be able to force the parents to let the child attend
>> church?

> I'm afraid this tragedy occurs all too often in our society, not
> always necessarily at the hands of atheistic parents.  A child is to
> honor and obey his parents, period.  Before you go over the edge, this
> does not mean submit to sexual/physical abuse etc.  Until the child
> is able to leave the home he will have to make the best of it.  If the
> parents actually prevent the child from coming to know his savior, I'm
> sure there will be a special place in Hell for them.

"...this does not mean submit to sexual/physical abuse," according
to whom?  It seems to me that abuse of the soul (by not attending
the Church) is worse than physical/sexual abuse.  Now you said that
this happens all too often.  So does abortion and "we" want to
outlaw that.  Why can't we outlaw the act of preventing our kids
to go to Church?  Why can't the children hire an attorney and sue
their parents?

>> And I don't see why your concern about living with godless
>> parents is limited to adopted kids.  What sin did the biological
>> child has committed?  Why are you condemning that innocent child?

> See above.  Because some children are born into poverty, should we
> advocate adoption into poverty?  Just which child is it that you are
> calling innocent?  Why?  Do you believe that orphans have committed
> some type of horrendous crime?  Rather than condemning anyone, I am
> advocating the best situation possible for adopted children.

But poverty is not a sin.  Why shouldn't we rescue (as in Op Rescue)
these children from their biological yet atheists parents?

> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU