I have put in a lot of effort into understanding the country social conservatives, and it appears that they come from an understandable place. They want to live according to their beliefs, and they want the government to leave them alone.
The problems happen as follows. These people have children; and many of them are not nice to them. This then attracts the attention of government social services. These people then say that they are facing government tyranny and government overreach, so they run around with guns in the forests shooting at trees.
Who is right and who is wrong? I believe that it is a matter of degrees. If you have broken every bone in your stepson’s body, or if you raped your daughter every day since she was 4, then you should lose your child. But if all we see is occasional slaps here and there, then having the child taken away really is government overreach and government tyranny.
I am a parent myself; and I’ve never been violent or abusive to my daughter. I haven’t needed to; she has always been a good kid. However any number of other parents are not so lucky.
Nothing justifies incest or severe violence against children, and people who do such things should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In case of low to moderate violence, in most cases children will forgive their parents as they mature. That is because they will be dealing in the world with much worse people than their parents, and that will give them appreciation for their parents, even if their parents were not perfect. I was raised in such a situation, and I have forgiven my father. He and I now enjoy a good relationship.
Is family sacred? I believe that any human arrangement is as good or as bad as what goes on in it. If the sanctity of family is used to excuse misconduct within the family, then this discredits family as such. So then people who object to this misconduct decide that something is wrong with family. I used to be one of these people; then I had a family of my own and realized how wrong that stance was. I have decided to practice the most important family value – that of being good to my child. My daughter is doing well in school, has lots of friends, and is in no kind of trouble. If I can do it, then so can the next man.
Is it government overreach to take away children who are being mistreated? Once again, I believe that it is a matter of degrees. If the child’s life is in danger, or in case of severe violence or incest, then that is the correct way to go. But if all we have is minor to moderate violence, then it is not.
My ex-wife had a custody battle with her ex; and I wanted to take a conciliatory approach. Her ex had done things that were wrong, but I didn’t see them as having been grave enough to disqualify him from parenting. My stance got me branded a coward and a traitor, but I believe that it was the correct stance. No father wants to see children denied a meaningful relationship with their father. However the father also has responsibility for what he does with his fists and his mouth, and a good father would call a bad father on his misconduct.
In the case of these people it is, once again, a matter of degrees. The no-violence-at-all standard is unrealistic, and families being torn apart for low to moderate violence is wrong. The social services should be focusing on confronting severe wrongdoing and leave lesser wrongdoing alone. Then they will no longer be seen as tyrannical and will be actually doing their job of making things safer for children without drawing to liberal people the hatred of social conservatives.