UTT - Blog Post 11

Read the following articles and then respond to the question.
http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/40453137.html
http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70325/
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/children-parents-and-obesity
Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?  This is due Feb 10th at Midnight. 

       Yeah, this is probably a pretty touchy subject, but I’m going to give it my best shot, aiming really for how the government has acted in the past in different areas like nutrition, discipline, and the basics of child-rearing in a solid, stable family. These can be telling signs for the future that can predict how the government would respond if given more involvement, and thus control, in the categories of parenting and the family.

       First, let’s look at nutrition. One of the articles (the third one) has demonstrated that the government really botched up the nutrition that they provide in their lunch meals in public. While it has reached out to schools in attempts to control the obesity that its lunches have encouraged, the government still doesn’t put any backing into its programs and announcements, which makes them useless. So, in the area of how children and overall the family eat, I’d have to say that the government should stay out, because they really don’t have the organization to enforce the necessary habits that families can provide on their own.

       Another area that the government should be limited in is the area of discipline. By setting standards that apply to every family in every way, as the government has discussed with alarming frequency, it completely disregards the character and personality of the child which is being disciplined. As we well know, some kids may only need a word spoken to reform their behavior, while others need more powerful reinforcement. The government, though, would not have the time or resources to invest in how to correctly each and every child, so it would be far more of a hindrance than a help—and the family is a far more effective institution to maintain to deal with the issues of discipline.

       Moreover, how a government reacts to a solid, stable family environment is very telling in how it would control the future development of children. The government of the United States is, rather decidedly, lacking in those areas—it focuses on keeping children in special “common education” groups rather than giving them the love and care that only a true mother can provide. I would therefore state that the government should not extend its efforts to impose its views of the family on the American public because it would do more damage than help, and harm the next generations.

       Overall, then, it’s pretty obvious that the government should keep itself out of the family and how it conducts itself because past efforts have shown to be less than profitable for all parties. My opinion echoes this, obviously, because of my own Christian views, but it also stands to reason for the evidence presented above.