Reader Mail, 9/20
Reason welcomes all responses. If you do not want your message published, please put "Not for publication" in the subject line or body of your message.
(Page 2 of 2)
Not a Watchtower reader
I keep trying to tell myself that those two decapitated Jehovah's
Witnesses in the Philippines really were a bad thing. Maybe they
rang one doorbell too many.
Kevin Carson
Re: Can Kids Handle the Truth? (9/10)
Ancient Chinese secret, eh?
The healthiest means of dealing with unpleasant truths is to
confront and illuminate them. This is, at least, as true for
children as for adults. There is far too much assumption that
people are incapable of absorbing and dealing with these blows. Our
leaders presume it is their role to shield us. Shielding our
children, in turn, is just as unnecessary and unhealthy. It creates
an atmosphere of mistrust between parent, child, and teacher just
as disinformation by government creates an atmosphere of mistrust
among citizens.
This does not mean we should force information on our children
unprepared. The right course for parents is to prepare kids in
advance to deal with their emotions. We have been conducting a
national dialog on this for over a year, yet spent little time
listening to how kids are feeling about it. Are they getting the
right sort of message from what they hear and see? Do they
understand the self-justifications made by terrorist, hate groups,
societies and governments alike; and recognize them for what they
are? Do they know how to decide for themselves what is true and
what is propaganda? Are they secure knowing they are protected, yet
are also part of the system of self-defense? Are they learning how
to stand-up to bullies without becoming one?
If they are having strong emotions, what message does it send them
that even the First-lady of the nation thinks they can't handle it?
These same children have seen the events of "Waco Texas", "Ruby
Ridge", "Oklahoma City", and the "Colorado school shootings", as
well as the "Twin Towers attack"; all in full-color, stereophonic,
real-time coverage. The nightly TV news is strewn with stories of
drive-by shootings, gang-wars, abductions, parents drowning
children, children shooting parents, car crashes, houses burning,
floods, drug-deaths and rape. Yet we must shield them from the
current media flaunting and flogging of our national pain? Are they
not to be allowed participation in the national longing to find
meaning, healing and pride? It is considered ok to impart to them
every noxious issue of sexuality, sex orientation, drug-use,
divisional diversity, and mental deviation. It is ok to justify and
encourage positions that are mentally uncomfortable and morally
dishonest. Yet, it is not ok to help them make sense of horrors
inflicted on us by twisted, evil people?
National leaders are not unlike parents in their motives for
secrecy and protection. But this nation was established under the
concept that people are resilient and capable of managing their own
affairs. We take it as a given that governments are inferior to
self-sufficiency. This applies to children also as they mature. I
do not want my child robbed prematurely of his childhood, yet his
own quick intelligence and questing for understanding easily
outraces any shield I could deploy. I share the First-lady's belief
that children should be preserved from artificial exposure to
"adult matter". It should not be forced on them as it has been in
the media and schools. They should come into such knowledge in the
proper time and stage of development. But the larger events and
issues, the ones that arrive unbidden, or beyond our control must
be dealt with by talking with them positively, and by listening to
them rather than ducking an issue.
Ultimately, a sense of self-sufficiency is the best (and probably
only) protection we can impart to them. To paraphrase a chinese
proverb: "shield your child from adversity and he'll be ok... for
now. Teach him to handle adversity and you will shield him for
life."
Bob Stapler
Columbia, MD
Have I mentioned that I don't watch
television?
Mr. Doherty,
As a reader of Reason magazine I have come to appreciate the
differing points of view presented by your magazine. I do not
always agree with the writers, but respect the intelligent dialogue
that your magazine represents.
I understand that your piece was editorial in nature, and a
legitimate expression of your opinion. I am one of, what I would
assume is, an excessively small percentage of Americans who choose
to turn off the television and memorialize the events without the
help of the national media.
My question about your article revolves around this
statement:
But the first lady's anti-TV counsel is based on the notion
that kids have especially delicate psyches, and need extra
protection from the facts of reality when such facts are violent
and unpleasant.
I admit I am a single person with no children, so my parenting
skills are on the theoretical end of the spectrum. As I understand
it the role of a parent is to guide and nurture a child to becoming
a healthy and productive member of society. Protecting a child on
an emotional level is as big apart of nurturing as protection from
physical trauma. They do not have the life experience nor mental
capacity to process images and information as adults. Children are
not just short adults, they are more delicate, and they do need the
protection afford to them by their caregivers.
In a time when children are growing up faster then seems possible,
when they are confronted with social issues that were unimaginable
thirty years ago, I think it is a wonderful idea to protect the
remaining innocence of childhood, we can be assured that the harsh
realities of the world will be waiting for them when they are ready
to handle them.
Laura Bush, as a parent, an educator and intelligent human being
offered reasonable advice to a nation of parents looking for ways
to help their children understand a totally irrational act. If as
you suggest " Kids should understand it, not hide from it." do you
have the resources to explain the concept of death to a child who
has not yet mastered the concept of forever, or national policy to
a mind whose highest priority is figuring out a way to stay up past
bed-time.
Heidi Smith
Norman, OK
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Google