From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (A Guilty Bystander)
Subject: Re: Family Values and Arbitration
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:27:40 GMT


Andrew Fusco hits several nails exactly on the head:

 a) "the crux of the argument here is at what age a child becomes an adult"
 b) "We all agree that children do, in reality, mature differently[.]  We
     establish age limits on such matters, however, so that the system can run
     more smoothly, without the chaos of trying to include every exception."
 c) "This argument in no way criticizes the legitimate interests of the
     state in defending the children from abusive or otherwise lawless
     parents."

So far, I think everybody agrees about these points.  I disagree with Mr Fusco
about some of the values, however.  He seems to prefer a system that runs
smoothly without trying to include every exception -- I think that the people
are more important than the pigeonholes, and that if chaos is needed to give
more people fair treatment, then chaos it should be.  (Depending on how much
chaos is traded for how much fairness, whether changes will actually improve
the system, and how difficult the transition would be.)

Several examples have been given of situation in which The System has gone
wrong; but at the same time, everybody seems to agree that we need SOME
system.  Several people here are apparently happy with what we have; some
think it would work better if it were changed.  Hillary Clinton (who probably
has far more experience with the law than any of us) seems to be in the
latter group.


The only thing I've found irritating about this discussion is the number of
people who have drawn sweeping conclusions about how bad everything will get
if we adopt Hillary Clinton's plans.  How much legal expertise do you people
have, anyway?  Been to law school, have you?  Studied child abuse precedents?
Have you even read the details of Ms Clinton's proposals?  Have you any
statistics about child-parent disputes winding up in court?

To make the point: Have you got any worthwhile evidence at all?

So far as I can tell, most of the CHRISTIAns who've been doomsaying how bad
things will get if children are allowed to initiate court proceedings are
passing judgement on ideas they know little about and can't be bothered to
investigate.  (Not that I find this astonishing; I have come to expect it.)


And then we have judgements of other people; Mr Fusco wrote:

> Besides Hillary Clintons obvious desire to increase the employment
> opportunities for lawyers, she shows a blatant disregard for the
> institution of the family, and arrogantly assumes a judge should be able
> to "supervise" and "overrule" the decisions parents might make.

So far, the presented evidence is less than a single paragraph by Ms Clinton.
You've concluded that another Christian (who is a mother herself, remember)
has "blatant disregard" for the family on the basis of a single out-of-context
paragraph delivered to you by way of a tertiary reference.

Mr Fusco is not alone, of course -- the original article in this thread was
from somebody who made the same judgement on the same basic evidence, and
since then several others have chimed in.  Whoever said "Christians shoot
their wounded" was mistaken; Christians torture their healthy and leave them
to die.

Is it any wonder that many non-Christians think of us as closeminded,
judgemental, ignorant fools?  How many people see Christ in snap judgements
and sweeping conclusions?  Is that the Jesus we want to show the world?  One
who speaks from ignorance and doesn't care to learn?


I suppose I should say "I'm disappointed in all of us" because of the snap
judgements and pronouncements from ignorance, but it wouldn't be true.  It
bothers me, but I expected no better; how can I be disappointed?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU