Since when does obeying the law mean not thinking for yourself? Following rules isn't blind or unthinking; it's a rational choice that recognizes the law is there for a reason. People who don't like a law or believe that it is immoral can work through legal means to change it.
Even the great civil rights leaders worked within the framework of the law whenever possible. Civil disobedience has its merits, of course, but it is rational to try legal recourse first and then disobey if there is a moral imperative to do so. Smoking at age 15 does not come under the heading of rational civil disobedience; it comes under willful stupidity.
We have a number of laws in my town that people think are silly, particularly those that pertain to septic tanks and wells. For example, our town counts every room on the second floor of a house as a bedroom regardless of whether it actually is a bedroom. So if you have 5 rooms on the second floor, then you must have a 5-bedroom septic tank. If you want to add onto your house, then you must increase the size of the septic tank, even if the addition does not include a bedroom.
This is annoying and can actually be counterproductive, because a septic tank that is too large for the number of users does not work efficiently, but the intent of the law is nonetheless reasonable. It was designed to limit development and to ensure safe drinking water, since everyone in town also has a private well. So although the law may not be perfect, it's still a useful law.
Still, people think they are within their rights to disobey the law and build illegal additions. They may call this civil disobedience, because they genuinely question the law, but I think of it as just plain breaking the law.
Do I want my children to get themselves into the business of discerning all the nuances of the law and then deciding whether to obey? Nope. In this house, we will do our best to obey and expect our kids to do the same, taking the consequences (fines for speeding, etc) when we screw up. Talkiing about why you respect the law (or why you think it's a lousy law) does more to teach a person morals than just telling them to feel free to disobey any laws they don't agree with could ever do.
I'm not sure that I consider following the law to be learning morals, I believe that our own personal values are our morals and I think my kids have a good sense of what those are, and these may or may not coincide with what the laws are.
I guess I"m a little confused (I haven't read through all the replies yet) I don't think that teaching morals = teaching about law.
If we're talking about morals - to us that's all about personal responsiblity, sexual cleanliness, responsibility to family and community, choosing the right, etc. okay maybe it does = teaching about law.
Laws are established rules thatt are there for some reason - they don't always make sense, but for the most part they do.
Pages
Since when does obeying the law mean not thinking for yourself? Following rules isn't blind or unthinking; it's a rational choice that recognizes the law is there for a reason. People who don't like a law or believe that it is immoral can work through legal means to change it.
Even the great civil rights leaders worked within the framework of the law whenever possible. Civil disobedience has its merits, of course, but it is rational to try legal recourse first and then disobey if there is a moral imperative to do so. Smoking at age 15 does not come under the heading of rational civil disobedience; it comes under willful stupidity.
We have a number of laws in my town that people think are silly, particularly those that pertain to septic tanks and wells. For example, our town counts every room on the second floor of a house as a bedroom regardless of whether it actually is a bedroom. So if you have 5 rooms on the second floor, then you must have a 5-bedroom septic tank. If you want to add onto your house, then you must increase the size of the septic tank, even if the addition does not include a bedroom.
This is annoying and can actually be counterproductive, because a septic tank that is too large for the number of users does not work efficiently, but the intent of the law is nonetheless reasonable. It was designed to limit development and to ensure safe drinking water, since everyone in town also has a private well. So although the law may not be perfect, it's still a useful law.
Still, people think they are within their rights to disobey the law and build illegal additions. They may call this civil disobedience, because they genuinely question the law, but I think of it as just plain breaking the law.
Do I want my children to get themselves into the business of discerning all the nuances of the law and then deciding whether to obey? Nope. In this house, we will do our best to obey and expect our kids to do the same, taking the consequences (fines for speeding, etc) when we screw up. Talkiing about why you respect the law (or why you think it's a lousy law) does more to teach a person morals than just telling them to feel free to disobey any laws they don't agree with could ever do.
I'm not sure that I consider following the law to be learning morals, I believe that our own personal values are our morals and I think my kids have a good sense of what those are, and these may or may not coincide with what the laws are.
<CENTER><A href="http://www.youngsurvival.org/"><IMG src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/jennt1111/mindy2.jpg"></A>
I guess I"m a little confused (I haven't read through all the replies yet) I don't think that teaching morals = teaching about law.
If we're talking about morals - to us that's all about personal responsiblity, sexual cleanliness, responsibility to family and community, choosing the right, etc. okay maybe it does = teaching about law.
Laws are established rules thatt are there for some reason - they don't always make sense, but for the most part they do.
SO - to respond to your specific questions...
How are you working with your tween/teen
Pages