First - even though we have separation between church and state, that does not exempt church non-religious activities from government oversight.  So the answer to the first is also twofold.  First, that it is a cop out by government to absolve themselves of their mandated responsibility.  And second, the government is "of the people", so it is OUR obligation, not some uncaring faceless bureaucrat, to make sure such abuses do not occur.  It was a failure on OUR part that your situation was not remedied earlier.

Second, Charity is SUPPOSED to be voluntary.  Coerced charity is not charity at all, and perhaps that is why liberals are, as a group, the least charitable folks around.  They see everything as charity, regardless of the intent or the willingness of the giver.  Charity is done voluntarily, not at the end of a gun.

I understand your points Tova, but they reflect the problems our society has created for itself.  Forced charity, which is no charity, and looking at Government as some mythical beast that is not "We the People".  That Mythical beast has stopped being the nice old grandpa and become the tyrannical master of its former masters.  And we have lost our freedom because of our own apathy.

It is.  Nothing about humans are perfect.  We are MOSTLY a capitalistic country, but not pure.  The things you point out are the socialist part of the society.  Just because they exist in a predominantly (for now) capitalistic society does not make them capitalistic.

No, that is communism.  Socialism is just the government owning the means of production,  And your dictionary.com definition is true. And that is why we are not a socialistic society (yet), but parts of it clearly are.  It is not an either or, but rather a matter of degrees.   Only a fool would argue we are not more socialistic today than we were 3 years ago.  You do  not nationalize giant companies - whatever the stated purpose or noble idea behind it is - without moving society from one pole - Capitalism - to the other - Socialism.

Only a fool would expect less laws and gov. involvement in a country where the population is growing.  The more people in a space, the more mediation required.  For instance, NY city has tons of "nanny" laws about spitting on the sidewalk, where you place trash at the curb, etc.  Things people who live in less populated areas scoff about and believe they'd move before putting up with that crap.

TYet these laws proved necessary.  More people congregated in a small area, more rules required to ensure everyone gets proper use of public spaces their taxes help maintain.  Without them some jackass always ends up ruining it for everyone. 

I really don't care what it's called.  Forced Charity, taxes, whatever.  Expecting people to pay for the mechanics of a government and society they benefit from every single day in myriad ways just seems like common sense to me.

That's nice in theory but solves nothing.  When no one is held personally responsible for doing something, then nothing gets done.  You can talk about "we the people" and responsibility till the cows come home, but most "we the people" are too busy working and raising our own families to even know where to begin when it comes to taking abused/neglected/orphaned children into the home.  And most don't want to know.  Not their child.  Not their problem.  Short sighted, but a dominant mentality none the less.

Ever had a 4 hour board meeting and nothing gets accomplished for all the talk?  When our electric went out with the ice storm, last week, I waited for my cell phone to charge in the vehicle before calling it in.  An hour after power was out, I was the first person on our grid to call.  Everyone assumes someone else will take care of it.

I don't understand this sentence.  What is a cop out?

I just checked with a good friend who is a MSW.  She said outside of breaking the law (abuse, etc) it certainly does if the orphanage/group home is privately funded and accepts no gov. grants/money. 

I know Doc already answered this and I agree with what he said but also roads, and national defense is something that is used by everyone equally.  What you're advocating is like DG said holding a gun to our heads and telling us we have to pay for other children who are not ours as well as the responsibility of caring for our own while others abdicate their responsiblilty.  You're telling us that we need to be enablers instead of holding these parents hand to the fire.  It's not the same as roads and national defense. 

I believe if these parents cannot care for their children then they need to let them go via adoption.  There are so many parents out there with aching arms because they cannot have a child.  I just heard about another case where a newborn baby was found in a toilet.  We are never going to be able to completely stop this and enabling parents seems to be making things worse, not better as we continually see these things happening. 

I would definitely consider it.  Remember I did take in foreign kids on a regular basis who were stranded in this country while going to school here and had no place to go during breaks.  Not quite the same thing but our house had many kids from various backgrounds living with us on and off. 

some are, some aren't.   There are alot of individuals and churches I know of (including ours) who are doing our best to help the comunities around us.  We are never going to take the place of a natural parent.  But that doesn't mean we aren't helping out and yes, bringing kids into our homes if needed. 

but yet somebody did call.  You did.  Up until then no one was worried about it.  Whenever I called in the past I was just one of many who did.  Eventually when it gets bad enough someone will call.  See, what's happened is the government has been a nanny for so long we've just let them.  That's what happens when you're enabled for so long.  You sit back and let them.  You're just proving our point.  Government interference has made us lazy not better. 

Wow.  Yes, that is acceptable for electricity I suppose.  But forgive me if I find it totally unacceptable to wait until it gets bad enough when it comes to providing children with basic human needs.  By that definition we should only feed the starving, mend the critically ill, and remove children from the most sadistic homes.

I'm not for that.

This just isn't accurate.  I suggest you read the Historical Overview of Child Protective Services.  In a nut shell, as far back as our roots in English Common Law, the government has defined a certain standard in child rearing and enforced it by removal of children when it is violated.  Why?  Because children are a resource that must be nurtured/reared/fed/tended.

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the church has never (in this country) been a substantial child protective/care provider on a massive (which is what the numbers show social programs dealing with kids to be, MASSIVE) level.

Consider it, sure.  Many people do.  But there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.  There are at least 70,000 kids right now in the system that need adoption...you can make it one or two less in just a very short few interviews.  There are @ 7,478 just in Florida as of 2010 (childrensdefense.org)....Whatchya waiting for?

I'm not picking on you, just making a point.  The idea sounds good, sounds Christian, but somewhere between the idea and the actual doing, things don't pan out, life happens.  Meanwhile these kids aren't getting any younger, and new ones are brought in everyday.

How exactly is removing children from an abusive/neglectful home enabling parents??

First of all, I don't know too may parents who would just "let them go."  I can think of a prime example from right here on JU of someone allowing their children to live in squalor and screaming harassment/law suits/etc whenever authorities came to check on/speak for those little ones.  How was that enabling?

There are plenty of children ready for adoption right now (approx 70,000 in 2009, though other figures go as high as 115,000 in 2010).  Again, like Doc you are long on "should/need-to-do" and short on exactly how that is accomplished without government.  Even with a centralized (at the state leve) system, with many people devoting their entire professional lives to children, full time all week long, there are still 70-115,000 children ready for adoption and no one from the public stepping up to fill that void.

Not individuals.  Not churches.

Talking about it?  Sure.  Adopting?  Some, but not so much. 

Saying there are "aching" arms sounds good on the surface, but reality doesn't bare it out.  They must be awfully picky empty arms if we still have so many children ready for adoption but no one to adopt them. 

Trends in Foster Care and Adoption—FY 2002-FY 2009
(Based on data submitted by states as of July 29, 2010)
Source: AFCARS data, U.S. Children's Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm

This is where we agree to disagree I guess.  I do believe we are responsible for all the children in this country.  (How can anyone be pro-life and not believe this?  Do children matter less this side of the uterus?)

I'm not advocating for bad parents (that would be enabling) I am advocating for the children who have no voice; no choice; and whether you like it or not, are a resource this country can't afford to squander.  And if we do, we'll all live to regret it.

One does not beget the other.  All the more people still must obey the same laws as when there were fewer.  We do not HAVE to have more laws just because we have more people.  We do have more laws, but that has nothing to do with the number of people (just look at states losing population and the number of laws they have versus 3 or 10 years ago).

I disagree - and that is the very core of nannyism.  The laws we have do not make us more civil, nor less crowded.  They are just the same rules that parents have for children, and that is why it is called nannyism.  We do not NEED a seat belt law.  It is YOUR choice (or should be).  We do not NEED laws about texting and walking.  People do stupid things.  And sometimes die from them.  And laws are not going to change that fact.

Forcing people to pay for a common defense is benefiting all.  Forcing people to pay for Chris's Addadictomy is not.  You are trying to mix the 2 and cry fowl when indeed, it may be the law, but it is hardly equitable, fair or just.  it will never be fair, so do not even try to get there.  The optimum outcome is equitable, as that is the only thing that is quantifiable.

The cop out is trying to say "separation of church and state" when it comes to the welfare of children in a church run sanctuary.  regardless of who is running it, it still has to follow the rules of society as it is extracurricular to the belief system. Therefore, the government still has to monitor them.

Read the bolded part.  That is ALL the government should be responsible for in the first place!  What would you expect of any institution?  If they obey the law, then they are doing good - or the law has to be changed.

I wholeheartedly agree!  But holding a gun to my head and saying "you must do this" is not taking responsibility. It is a cop out.  And that is what we have now.  Liberals holding you hostage to THEIR "shoulda's", not yours or mine.  I can take care of my "shoulda's".  I understand not everyone can.  But you just threw the baby out with the bathwater.  No one can take care of their "shoulda's" because you no longer have the option. 

Really?  I think its just one very crass way of saying...you live here, you prosper here, you enjoy the freedom our ancestors bled for, now it's your turn to help the next generation. 

First you say we don't need more laws, and then here you say we need to change them.  As I'm sure you're aware, there are many immoral and potentially harmful things to do to children that aren't spelled out in the law.  But that's really off topic.

My whole point in this conversation is simple..certain social programs benefit everyone in society, and every one above poverty level should help pay for them.  This is not a license for bigger gov.  In fact the mechanisms are already in place, but consolidation and elimination of duplication need to be done.  We could actually do more with less, if people would just agree certain social programs are necessary for the prosperity of the nation and begin there.

It's not a cop out.  If religious (or any) institution uses tax money to care for children, they need to prove they're doing exactly what they say they are.  

And caring for the nation's children benefits all too in the long run.  That's my point.

I don't even know how to answer this Doc.  Without law there is chaos.  Without laws someone could walk in your house, kill you and move in.  That's not a Nanny state, that's civilization.  I'm not talking about seat belt laws and things you do in the privacy of your home (which does not effect society negatively)...I'm talking about laws that govern public places, and shared resources...and since I consider children a resource, laws pertaining to the proper care and maintenance of them...lol

This doesn't make any sense to me.  Maybe I'm off my game tonight.  What you're saying is states that have a larger population make laws to ensure basic rights aren't violated, but when people leave they don't take them off the books?  lol.  That's pretty standard practice and the reason we still have laws like in Alabama where wearing a mask in public is illegal, even on Halloween.  Laws are rarely repealed.

Giving some one a moral obligation is not the same as coercion.  Again, coercion is not a noble activity, and rarely in the best interest of anyone involved.

Note the qualifier.  If is the biggest word in the english language.  I did not say we need more laws.  I said IF the laws are not working, change them.  Change means making them work.  It does not mean ADD.  To verify this fact, go to your Outlook Tools/Account Settings and check out the buttons.  You have ADD CHANGE DELETE.  There is a reason that add and change are separate.

We can go around and around until we churn ourselves into butter.  But you seem to be missing that we are saying the same thing (at least with your summarization quoted above).  I think the confusion comes from your belief that I am advocating NO LAWS.  While "too many" can be taken to the extreme of "none". that is not my position.

great!  grab 200 million other Americans and make it part of the constitution.  I would support it in that regard.   But I will disagree with you now.  It is our MORAL obligation, not our fiduciary requirement.

This affirms my suspicion that you are taking my position of "too many" to mean none.  Nowhere have I advocated no laws.  However laws that say "no murder" are not the same as saying "Thou Shalt Wear a seat belt".  The latter is nannyism, the former a requirement for a civilized society.

No, I was refuting your contention that we need more laws because we have more people.  We do not.  The number of people we have is not a prerequisite for the number of laws we have since all people (most of the time - congress manages to exempt itself) are subject to the same laws.  You do not need a law saying "murdering Southern Sudanese is illegal" since we already have a law saying nurdering another person is illegal.

This is too far off topic, and maybe needs its own thread.  Each law, or potential law should be weighed individually imo.  First to relevance.  Second to redundancy.  Third, to constitutional rights.  (Not necessarily in that order.)

Which in a nut shell means, I ain't doing it until I'm forced.  No matter how bad the country needs it and it'll benefit us.  To hell with the kids, to hell with the country, I got me and mine, that's all that matters.

Good thing our ancestors didn't think like that.

Got it.  You aren't anti-law, but anti-NANNY law.  Clear.  (Except for the comment about the constitution above...lol)

Taxes are not noble.  The act of war is not exactly a "noble" activity...but sometimes it takes ugly to get beneficial things done.  Especially when dealing with certain dead beat mentalities. 

Good codicil, otherwise we would have had more than one problem.  But second (to the constitution) is does it infringe on freedom.  What you should do is not what you must do.  The difference is called freedom.

No.  I am not forced to donate to charity.  I am not forced to donate blood.  I am not forced to help an old lady across the street.  Yet I do.  And  MOST people do.  But I am not going to force ALL PEOPLE to.  Again, the difference is freedom.  We are free to be idiots and cretins.  You may not like it, I may not like it, that not all are as generous or big hearted, but that is not our place to force them to be (for in the forcing, the act no longer is charity but becomes servitude - the opposite of freedom).

Good Point!  And they had no laws that REQUIRED them to be magnanimous.   Your statement belies the meat of your contention.

Nanny is the most insidious.  But not the only laws that are superfluous, demeaning, or, IMHO, unconstitutional.

Again,. taken to extreme, I agree with you. In moderation, yes they are.  WWII and the disposal of Hitler was not noble?  I think 20m Jews, Slavs, and Poles would disagree with you - if they still had a voice left.  War can be Noble (It often is not), and taxes are Noble when they actually do provide for all a common good.  not for select few, but for all.  Defense being the most apparent, but others, like roads (since all use them, whether as a driver or passenger). are examples.

Nice article and comments ... looks like I am out of my league here though. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, right (?), wrong (?) all make for good discussions and I am so happy to have run across this one … but the problem is the parents (the adults). I know there are many religious practitioners in these comments and (except for the idiots who are just hateful), I would have no problem with any of you managing my own children (in my demise) or any of the millions of parents in America who are honest citizens trying to succeed in life. But the choice is not ours to make (without planning of course).

So it always comes back to the ADULTS. It is ‘We the People” who elected all the practicing criminals in our Government … through our votes and because we allowed our own society to plunge into debauchery with ever diminishing moral fortitude. We gave them the power to damn near do anything they want to do ...  and they do! We were obviously lied to by the bureaucratic children destroying everything America was Great for … and our freedom.  

We have been bouncing back and forth from good guy to bad guy, well forever. This (R) will be our salvation from the bad (D). When (R) has done as much damage as possible, he becomes the bad guy and we elect a new (D) savior. Back and forth … I mention this because I can go back to most major elections and the same brouhaha we are being fed today (with time corrections) could and was used in every one of those elections, all the way back to the early 70’s …

So if we are so inept that we cannot resolve (or elect people who can) at least some of our own corruption adequately (Oh contraire) in 40 years … what do you think is going to change in our future? Are the bad people electing these miscreants, I think not? I like to think most people (generalization Doc) have a good heart and intentions but are undereducated, ill-informed and brainwashed conditioned for things of interest to their circles and usually to the detriment of most outside their circles (the rest of us).

I do not have the answer here but as cruel as this may sound, the children are secondary right now (you know I am not talking about any kind of abuse so please don’t start) because if we cannot straighten out our adult problems and bring some kind of normality and sanity to our lives neither you or I or most of the children will have much choice left at all. It all comes back to the adults. So in this eventuality (as things indicate) and if “We the People” do not make some forward progress soon … well I am just glad I am older and will not have to witness much of it.

Honesty, conviction and morality exist in my own atheistic circle, but I find these qualities few and far between in the world around me (collectively Doc, ok). I am sure everyone here is upstanding and all, but we do not even make a dent in the number of people surrounding us. Well lets see how much trouble I get here

The word Liberal and its derivitives Liberalism, is essentially a notion from the 18th century when State, Civi Society and Market three huge overarching concepts came todefine the rlationship betwee individuals, groups of individuals and the structures of power over them. In this context a liberal would be one who would like the State to be non interventionist, the Market free (Adam Smith) and Civil Society enlightened. Now none of these ideas hold much water.

Why I am a liberal.

There is no such thing as choice. You live in a deterministic universe and have no free will. (scientifically proven since the 70s, and never been disproved in a lab since then)

Leaving people to their own devices and then punishing them for the outcome is not only unfair, but will always do more harm then good. What is truly despicable is playing the percentages to mitigate this, and then making a buck off of it. eg: Policy A will produce +15% criminals, but the cost of mitigating this nets us 8% profit.... never mind if we settled for 4% profit while putting some into a social "entitlement" we would only make 4% criminals. (this is actually what happen behind the scenes when they crunch the stats based on previous history vs new policy)

That is not to say liberal leaders are doing the best job considering the above, but ultimately what needs to happen in society is for a sort of "programming" for citizenship to create a stable baseline of fairness.

You can't do that without everyone chipping in, and without everyone being onboard and able to understand the human condition.

One school of political thought is closer to this then the other.

Ha, ha, ha, tell that to the pro-abortion crowd!

So you are one of those who are tainted by a materialistic philosophy which posits we do not act according to our own deliberate choosing!!!!.  They are mistaken and need to come back to common sense.

It is certain that man has free will, a fact of which we are all conscious. I know quite well that I am responding to you becasue I have freely chosen to do so. Had I wished I could have just read it, ignored it and gone to another site. At any moment that I am typing this, I'm free to cease. telling us we have no free will would be about as intelligible as telling us we don't exist.

Determinism is a pessimistic philosophy, destructive of morals and true religion, Making men a mere automation and a slave of his environment or heredity, it denies the essential notions of imputability and responsibility and scorns free homage of mind and will which we owe to Our Creator and Lord God.

There are no facts, scientific or otherwise, which justify the denial of free will. The denial of free will is absurd and any position which can be reduced collapses by the very fact.   

Almighty God made man's will, but He did not "make it up" for man so that it was determined independently of man in a given direction. Man makes the choice his will enables him to make though he need not make that choice. If man exercises his power in a wrong way, it is not the power which causes him to do so. It is the man's own soul and personality which uses its will wrongly.