I agree, Sac. Which is why I've repeatedly said for my HS daughter, cool. No problems. Younger kids? Some sheltering is required and prudent.

Out of curiosity, do you shelter them from your political points of view? Or is the complaint more that you need the early years to make sure they're properly indoctrinated against other views?

Our Headline "DUH" of the day:

Story here

VAM.

I say to you the same thing I said to MBC. That completely baffles me. Part of parenting is passing along your morals and values to your children while they are young, trying to guide them in the direction you see best, hoping they will see the world the way you do when they get older, but understanding that they may not.

Honestly, I find these questions from you and MBC.....scary, for lack of a better word.

Why are you so "scared" they may not think the same way you do?

Guess I better call my dad back and tell him he screwed up by raising a daughter who can form independent thoughts separate from what he believes.

At least we know he screwed up when I was young and he started explaining the political process in very basic terms.

Wait, are you arguing against parents getting involved with their kids? That being a supportive parent squashes independent thought?

Ok, now I'm scared also.

I hear what you're saying, Leo, but my children would be raised in a different way. I'd let them learn and hear what they wanted. It's what they do with what they learn that would grab my attention. As long as they're not hurting themselves or breaking the law, who they are is up to them. I would not deny my children access to something like a presidential speech. If it were any president speaking I would sit with my kid and discuss things with them after. But telling a kid 'no, you can't watch that' makes them think 'I'm going to see it no matter what now'.

I'm curious, why are their questions scary? I'm confused by that. When I am secure and content in my beliefs, things are rarely scary.

I must have missed a page, didn't see the back and forth with MBC (though you never answered when I asked the same thing a few pages back).

You shouldn't be scared by me. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily and of course parents tend to pass on their view of the world to their children (it is no accident that while everybody feels their religion is obviously and intellectually the obvious one the most reliable indicator of religious belief in an adult is to see what the religious beliefs of the parents were). I just think you're dishonest in how you frame the objection. Your issue is not with young children being exposed to ideas they can't understand (what you said), your issue is the idea that the teacher would intrude on your territory in taking advantage of them being too young to understand to try and ensure that by the time they are old enough to understand they've already been taught your point of view as the correct one (and thus, are much less likely to question it even once capable).

You also moved the goalposts. Initially you said you didn't trust Obama. Then you shifted that distrust to the teachers. As has been pointed out, if that is the concern it exists independently of whatever the president is doing. But I'm sure you've done your best to make sure your children are in an academic environment least likely to challenge your personal views.

===

In third grade we a required class activity was to read one article from the local newspaper and write one paragraph summarizing it and develop a scrapbook through the year. Am I correct that you would object to such an exercise since it exposed our young minds to all kinds of news and ideas (I can't remember if the oped page was included but I know everything else was)?