Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dknv
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
The whole "village" concept is one of irresponsibility for the people that *should* be raising their kids, the parents!
|
Sometimes children only HAVE 1 parent. Sometimes, children have personalities such that they cannot tune it to what their parents say, but yet a favorite uncle or grandfather or cousin is able to reach them. A myriad of possibilities exist that defeats the black & white opinion stated here.
When I think of the term village, I think of it being used interchangebly to also mean, 'extended family'. I don't think Mike was pointing out that a 'village' has to take responsibility to take care of the children - but rather, that everyone has an opportunity to experience SPIRITUAL growth as a result of it working right.
Chill pill time? |
Perhaps I should clarify... when I'm talking about parents... I don't necessarily mean "biological parents"... I'm talking about someone that can be a constant/stable influence for the child. Of course it could be a member of their extended family, or foster parents, etc. But you can't pass a kid around between 30 different people, some of which are strangers and expect them to develop into a stable adult.
My ranting is more directed to Hillary's book and the concepts contained therein, not at Mike's statements. She goes on to push the "village" concept as a form of government, which IMO takes all the worst aspects of big-liberal-government and makes them 10 fold while eliminating the usefulness that liberal-endorsed social programs normaly provide. Plus, that woman rubs me the wrong way.
