Parenting Police.

[buddy999]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is why the divorces and the separations are the real problem.

Though I don't believe divorce is always the best answer, there are certain circumstances where divorce is the only answer. Domestic violence is one of those cases. Even in these cases, the parent initiating the violence still needs to be held responsible for the support of the children.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If one wants two parents to raise the child then the two parents need to stay together with the child.

What you're saying here is that if a couple has a child, they should stay together regardless of the circumstances. Granted, some couples do stay together for the sake of the children in the marriage however, in most of these cases the marriage does eventually break up and the results can do equal, if not greater harm on the emotional health of the children involved.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The root of that problem is in the gov getting into the religious institution of marriage and the gov granting the easy writ of divorce that undermined the Church's authority and now we have a secular / gov mess to a religious problem.

Although I agree that the institution of marriage is and always should remain a religious ceremony, the fact is that the government does get involved. Every time a couple is married by a Justice of the Peace instead of a Priest or Minister ordained in a valid church the government is involved.

Regardless of what religious community you belong to or the circumstances surrounding your divorce, when there is a child involved in the marriage it is the responsibility of BOTH parents to provide for the child.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Child support is really gov subsidized adultery.

Child support is regulated by government in order to ensure that the parents provide for their children when a marriage breaks up. Adultery may provide the basis for the breakup of a marriage, it is brought about by one parent or the other not being faithful to their commitment to the other person and has nothing what-so-ever to do with the government.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

This is really a conversation we can have outside of this thread, no reason to confuse JPC's addled brain anymore than it already is, but is the verse supposed to stand on its own, or taken in context with the other verses?

The verses before 5:8 deal with Widows, how they are to be treated, looked upon, thought of etc. The anyone in 5:8 is anyone who died and didnt take care of their family, and they are worse than unbelievers.

Want to get into the whole Mustard Seed debate again?

It is in direct relation to widows or (to extend it beyond that) even those in need due to a family loss. Can a divorce fit into this context? I believe it can. This verse tells me that, especially within your own blood, we are responsible to each other, esecially when you suffer the loss of a family member. In those days, one of the harshest thing that could happen to a woman is the loss of her husband. He was her (and the family's) form of income and support. I imagine divorce was something that was extremely rare in those days, but I believe this verse, in today's culture (where divorce is the norm), addresses this same problem of family support.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

It is in direct relation to widows or (to extend it beyond that) even those in need due to a family loss. Can a divorce fit into this context? I believe it can. This verse tells me that, especially within your own blood, we are responsible to each other, esecially when you suffer the loss of a family member. In those days, one of the harshest thing that could happen to a woman is the loss of her husband. He was her (and the family's) form of income and support. I imagine divorce was something that was extremely rare in those days, but I believe this verse, in today's culture (where divorce is the norm), addresses this same problem of family support.

If this quote for family responsibilities doesn't help, how about this one?

2Cor12:14 Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.

Or, to give an idea of what God thinks of parents that don't look out for their children (whether they choose to communicate with them or not ):

Ps103:13 Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

It is in direct relation to widows or (to extend it beyond that) even those in need due to a family loss. Can a divorce fit into this context? I believe it can. This verse tells me that, especially within your own blood, we are responsible to each other, esecially when you suffer the loss of a family member. In those days, one of the harshest thing that could happen to a woman is the loss of her husband. He was her (and the family's) form of income and support. I imagine divorce was something that was extremely rare in those days, but I believe this verse, in today's culture (where divorce is the norm), addresses this same problem of family support.

It is really a moot argument unless the gov is to be the enforcer of misguided Bible text.

So that even if one is a horrible sinner then God forgives them and Christ paid the punishment in full and the gov needs to get out of the enforcing mixed up Bible interpretations.

Thus if a parent is an unbeliever as TP and Ops define it per their interpretation then you still have no right to steal the parents money nor to be putting deadbroke parents into jail to satisfy the unjust child support laws that give extras and luxuries to spoiled kids.

That crap just does not word, and Bible based slander is a new low.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is really a moot argument unless the gov is to be the enforcer of misguided Bible text.

So that even if one is a horrible sinner then God forgives them and Christ paid the punishment in full and the gov needs to get out of the enforcing mixed up Bible interpretations.

Thus if a parent is an unbeliever as TP and Ops define it per their interpretation then you still have no right to steal the parents money nor to be putting deadbroke parents into jail to satisfy the unjust child support laws that give extras and luxuries to spoiled kids.

That crap just does not word, and Bible based slander is a new low.

So, the Bible is wrong. The representatives of the people are wrong. Society is wrong. The laws are wrong. Enforcement of the laws is wrong. 99.9% of the people who talk with you are wrong. The manner in which billions of people choose (not are forced, but choose) to live worldwide is wrong. The only one in the right is YOU, JPC.

You never did tell me what your son has to say about this, though I've asked you dozens of time. Did he feel he was bathing in the luxuries his step-dad provided (since you wouldn't provide) for him? Does HE feel that he was no longer your immediate family because you chose to not stay in communication with him? Does he share your gratitude for his mother, and understand your feeling no sense of regret for the pain you put your family through? Does he share your belief that he's not morally obligated to provide for his offspring? Does he feel temporary welfare kept his cup overflowing? Tell me, oh wise saint of singlehanded righteousness, how did your philosophy work out for you personally?

And, once again, how is it slander if it's true?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That crap just does not word, and Bible based slander is a new low.

Well, it's not surprising you would find that many of us believe you have a responsibility to the children you bear as a "new low" yet don't see the low you have stooped to in shunning your responsibilities to your own child (your own flesh and blood).

[Ender]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

My study of history does dictate that religion and politics go hand in hand - and any political leader that is fool enough to avoid the religious dictates has been doomed to fail. I challenge anyone to show me a politician or political policy outside of religious influence that has ever succeeded. Napoleon was an example of a political leader that failed to bring in religion to his aid.

You should do a more conductive review of history, sorry to say. The Roman Empire was under two different religions - up until Charlemagne, the Romans were pagans. I do believe it was around 800AD that Charlemange was crowned and the Roman Empire became "Holy". Much after the highest power struggles. Augustus/Octavius (depending on what you feel like calling him and when you're referencing to) had the audacity to convince many of his people that he, himself, was a God. The 'rise' of the Roman Empire was all due to an 'unholy' religion, whereas their beliefs were scattered due to some of the government's personal desire of being considered a god or god-like being. Sure, it's still religion; but that was only to convince their people to follow them to war. How about the USSR (prior to "Russia", obviously). Their communistic government eventually moved to an Christian Orthodox-based religion and that was around the time of their downfall. While their communistic government controlled forms of religion, it was actually surviving pretty fair (lets not go too far into politics there).

My point is, there have been many civilizations and governments that have fallen at the hands of having a strong religion-based background. It gives them an extremist perception and causes misunderstanding of the government by its people and foreign relations. Many people on a foreign perspective believe that the president addressing "god" in speeches devalues the opinion. Perhaps you should go to the United Kingdom for a little while (particularly London or more 'mainstream' areas like Birmingham and Newcastle as well) to get a deeper understanding of what I mean. Not everyone is going to be catholic or christian, it's just how it is. Using your religion as backing to your statements, as I've already explained, devalues your opinion. To make it worse, you're not even using the scriptures properly either. People toss scripture right back into your face and you just say they're misinterpeting it. Isn't that's what the Roman Empire did during its 'downfall'? Explained that anyone who spoke ill of the church are naysayers and deserve...death? torture? And that's something that's considered productivity within a government? If you're blind to how other people comprehend text, then you shouldn't really be using it as backing. "God's Words" should be something that is taken personally, as the 'church is in the heart' as many people have explained to me (personally, I'm Buddhist). People's translation of the holy scriptures just means that it's how 'God' wanted to speak to them.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I see no problem with that except that it is not a "bias" but only my personal knowledge and experiences. In fact I see my so called "bias" as my blessing. I figure that without my perspective then I would be another one of these blind sheep following a foolish path.

Personal experiences is the ultimate cause to bias in a particular situation like this. You have an experience that would, to many others, explain why you feel as you do. You're speaking in circles in hopes of erradicating or removing bias against you. I understand why you feel like you do, but I can obviously see the bias in you commentary in the original thread-starting post. Heck, I wouldn't have much problem with it as long as you came out and admitted it (and I'm sure more people would be less 'annoyed' with you, at least a little). It's only human nature to be little bias in how they perceive the world around them. But to deny it is foolishness and is asking for people to treat you as they have thus far.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do understand the negativity and I fully expect the "gossip" to help me acomplish my truest goals of getting the message out and strirring up the rabble in our democratic Republic.

The "gossip" is where you're going to fall. The Internet is as vast world, and just because this is a forum to suit those whom live in Southern Maryland - I'm sure it's not the only people who come and poke their heads around to see what's going on. Your particular behaviour here causes others to speak ill of you to their friends outside of the forum due to your political juxtapose between religion and how the government has decided to evaluate child support.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Because religion is the base and I trust the custodials and particularly I trust the women to do the right thing once they see the wrong being done now. So the fact that I rock the ill-gotten worlds of the custodials is the idea in many post.

Perhaps, but not everyone is going to take your religious squabble and take it in as a serious gesture. You're placing it in the hands of women to handle how it's taken. Have you ever thought that sometimes it's the woman who's paying child support? It seems like it's all bias in one way or another with this thread. I understand your position, obviously; but I don't understand how you expect people to accept it based on your background with a very similar situation. In public relations, you are yourself. You can lie all you want, but your past comes creeping up on you one way or another. This is one of those things where your past is causing bias against you due to your lack of responsibility in the past. Plus, I'm certain that those who are defending the opposite side (in contrast to your own opinion/statements) are just women; nor am I saying that you were implying it. Many men understand that their children are their responsibility as well as their ex-gf/wife's responsibility. In fact, aren't most cases whereas the man doesn't get proper visitation rights of the children that causes the male to cease child support? Or that they're absolute nihilists who think that once you've "forgotten" someone or they're not longer living with you that they no longer of your responsibility.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Child support is a legal responsibility done by the Courts so it is the legal system telling parents how to raise their kids. That is the reality and saying not is a falsehood. Your contradiction is not accurate.

I do not see how the Courts are telling parents how to raise their children. I see them telling parents that they're responsible to raise their children or support the materialistic needs of the child(ren) involved in the situation. It would make more sense if they were telling parents what all needs to be done in order to raise the child - but they're not. They're telling those who are not in custody of the child that they're responsible for the materialist portion of raising a child, at the least. I'm sure a few Judges here in Southern Maryland have had the audacity to mention something about how people should spend more time with their children and the likes - this is common sense and a lecture. Those who abandon their children are seen as ..well, to refrain from profanities, I'll just say they're seen in a very negative light. That isn't just the Courts deciding this, but also the opinions of the "common person". At the end of the day, that's who has the say - is those who have personal experiences and demanded the government do something about it.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I do not see mine as being hypocritical. The hypocrisy comes from one doing wrong and talking right, but it does not mean some one that made mistakes in years past and now preaches the virtue of not making those same mistakes. You are mixing up hypocrisy with honest repentance.

Considering I have a college degree, I don't think I should be lectured about vocabulary issues just due to your own misrepresentation of your views. If you weren't speaking of a hypocrtial perspective while you lecture us here, then you wouldn't avoid those who bring it up or just insult them due to their negative perception of 'prying' into your personal life. Once you become a politician, you no longer have a private/personal life - it opens the book on you and people get to judge you on your past, your present, and your future goals/promises. You know all this and I shouldn't have to 'lecture' you about it either.

Your religious ramblings are kind of frustrating. Ask a pastor or priest what would they recommend if the father was beating the children and wife. Would they tell you "You should let God sort it out, or the woman should not provoke her husband to resort to violence"? Or would you get told that they should be behind bars or at least away from his immediate family (based on your own definition of the phrase). To insinuate that the government shouldn't have had any jurisdiction in marriages just contradicts your own statements entirely. You're promoting religion in governments, but now you're saying the governments should stay out of religion. These things aren't one-way streets. Your reference to the Roman Empire is the epitome of what is expected from a religious foundation when a government is involved with them. You're wandering back and forth with your reasonings, this is the very reason why people find flaws in your reasoning and posts - because they're quite ..obvious.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I find that to be a cop-out excuse, because the broken family unit is what hurts the children most and not keeping the family unit together. They can still separate without getting a divorce but that divorce still only comes from our family break-up laws by our immoral gov and that is what I want to change.

This one was coming a mile away, as soon as I said what I did. If the broken family unit is the indefinite struggle of a child's psychological problem, then you should go to some abuse support groups (physically and sexually). I'd like to see how you react when they tell you that they hate their parent(s) for doing what they've done to them and wish the government took them (if both parents) or that the father/mother would've gone to jail sooner for doing what they did. The Broken Family unit excuse is a greater cop-out than any; because a father figure (or motherly figure) can be useful throughout life - but it doesn't exactly have to be biological. But the abandoned family figure should still be responsible for what he/she brought to the family prior to leaving it. Having two parents fighting every evening does cause psychological trauma to the child; that's self-explainatory. If you try to dispute that fact, you're absolutely mad - no offense. A couple who aren't truly a 'couple' shouldn't really be together, children or no children. Otherwise you're just sitting there and causing problems and stress for the children involved.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is a bunch of worthless crap - or slander more correctly.

Slander? No, incorrect. You, yourself, have mentioned that you're "regretful" of what has happened in the past - except that you can't really elude these facts, no matter how many times you try to. Have you ever seen someone that was recieving child support complain that they're taking too much money out of their former lover's (husband, boyfriend, lover) cheque? No, I doubt that. Have you seen someone who has a fair amount of money complain about losing $200-800 a month from his/her check for child support? Certainly, but is it always called for? No, definitely not. If you're making $40-80k a year, I don't see why a couple thousands are going to kill your financial standing if you're meant to be held responsible for your biological child. It doesn't just work in the way you've mentioned, at least you've aknowledged that much about the government. But your past whereas this is applicable to where you seem to have regret over not doing something the "right" way (legally) reflects as to why you feel you need to change it. It's something that's called 'Victim Impact Response'. From basic understanding, if you change what you feel guilty about - you shouldn't have any reason to feel guilty about it any longer. Now, I don't expect you to admit this or respond positively to it - but it's just what can be seen through your posts (at least, a fragment of what I'm speaking of, if not entirely).

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I know some others see me through their own false and negative perspectives but I do not see that as any concern of mine. I do not attempt to gain that kind of control over others, especially beligerant others.

As a hopeful political representative, I would expect you to have a firmer grasp on how public opinion works. If you cannot relate to a person, yet you're speaking against their opinion - they will take offense to what you've spoken. Beligerant others? That's kind of harsh coming from someone who is perceived as beligerant himself from a community perspective thus far. I didn't speak of controlling others; but relating to them is a totally different point altogether. I merely suggested it so you can, for once, reflect on why others would feel as they do in regards to your statement. Empathy is the greatest tool of the human psyche, for it gives you the ability to comprehend why others feel as they do. I would strongly recommend you tap into that part of your ability as a human being if you wish to succeed anywhere in life.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The green karma is a sign of conformity and security for those that need such feelings.

I've never felt the need to accumlate 'respect' on public forums. Just said it because it was funny as to how some people feel that karma is something as simplistic as a forum's respect meter =p

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Ender

The Roman Empire was under two different religions - up until Charlemagne, the Romans were pagans.

A lot of people still consider the Catholic Church to be "pagan" having idols. And American protestants are seen as a modern nature God. The types of religion means little in a discusion about politics and religion because it is a dispute about power and not about any truth.

Mahatma Gandhi put it this way (and I agree) that anyone that thinks religion is separate from politics does not know what religion is.

Politics that try to take religion out of politics is in essance trying to take the power away from religion.

Napoleon tried to rule over religion and that helped him to fail.

We have done that by taking the power in marriage away from the Churches and given it to the gov and marriage is a failing institution now.

Originally Posted by Ender

Many people on a foreign perspective believe that the president addressing "god" in speeches devalues the opinion.

I can not agree with that even though Bush's religious mierepresentations irritate me too, I still believe it is Bush's only real strength. If we and the world did not know about his religious faith then he would not have any credibility at all. But even a wrong, blind, stupid faith IN GOD makes a person stronger then no faith or faith in some thing other then God.

Originally Posted by Ender

I do not see how the Courts are telling parents how to raise their children. I see them telling parents that they're responsible to raise their children or support the materialistic needs of the child(ren) involved in the situation. It would make more sense if they were telling parents what all needs to be done in order to raise the child - but they're not.

The gov telling parents how to raise their children was refering to telling the separated parents how to do it and not the custodials. The unjust child support laws are directed against the separated parents and that is who I was refering to.

[This_person]

This was in the wrong thread....

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I see I could have worded that better and I needed to spell out my point more correctly. I do not say the Bible verse is wrong - I say yours and Ops interpretation of the verses are wrong. Aparently I need to spell out things better too.

Out of sheer respect for my elders, and nothing else, I will concede that we disagree on how to "interpret" plain and basic English. It doesn't change the fact that 100% of the web-based bible study sites I went to agreed with my and PsyOps interpretation, but I'll concede you have issues with English, because you've proven it so many times

Perhaps I failed to explain this too. It does not matter to me that I am percieved as a "bad" person or even if you prove that I were some negative horrible person because I am prepared to sacrifice myself for the cause against the unjust child support particularly and for other things less particularly. Because of child support I have already lost my position and my posessions, was thrown onto the streets homeless and left to die because of child support, thrown in jail, beat up, slandered repeatedly, and more and worse, so degrading me is some thing that I have to face in fighting the unjust child support. I also suspect that the day will come when I will find myself again in physical opposition to the unjust laws and probably some day I will get back into the belly of the beast (jail) again as I intend to fight the dirty thievery to the end.

This paragraph actually scared me more for your sanity than most you've written. If you had at least tried to help your son get the best start in life you could, none of those things would have happened to you.

You've transferred the blame from your selfishness of not wanting to be there for your son onto the Child Support system. You've had to create a whole scenerio in your mind of being persecuted, when no one really cares about YOU, they care about your SON.

You went to jail for choosing to not support him. You've determined that all of society is wrong, that it's immoral to support your own flesh and blood. You've now gone so far as to define him as not your immediate family, just so you don't have to face that your religion, your society, and your family all disagree with your unique perspective. These are not responsible, respectable views. It's not slander, Jimmy. It's the truth. Whether you agree that they SHOULD be respectable or considered responsible or not is, well, irrelevant. They are not respectable nor responsible. That's been determined by society, your religion, the law, and your family.

When you said you didn't want to be put on the spot, you came another milimeter closer to responsibility. You understood that you were wrong, and didn't want to try and continue to argue your invalid points. You tire of constantly being forced to face your actions and views.

I do not speak for my son and I will not try to speak for him here either. My philosophy in actual practice is still under review so we must wait to see.

Okay, don't speak for your son, speak for yourself. I'll reword the question. Do you feel that your actions and inactions, your deserting of your family as you suggest people do (they can separate but stay married, and when they separate the parent choosing to leave is no longer morally responsible to their child, I believe is the train of quotes), and your strong views about neglecting your legal obligation of child support have brought you and your son closer? That you feel he respects you and your positions?