Katy Perry says she left her strict religious upbringing behind after her evangelical minister parents left her without a childhood.
The pop singer is on the cover of the June issue of Vanity Fair magazine, where she revealed the differences between hers and her parents’ way of thinking in an interview.
Between Skinner v. Oklahoma and the advent of modern substantive due process, procreation, at least in the eyes of many courts and commentators, became entrenched as a fundamental, if not absolute, right. And yet ironically, the establishment of this right, often taken as symbolic of personal liberty, has diminished autonomy for those persons inevitably caught on the other end of it – our future children. Expanding procreative autonomy has diminished public norms that might otherwise ensure that future children are born into circumstances that also expand their autonomy.
Kids are great. They're miniature versions of us, with smaller bodies, less-developed minds, and a whole lot less emotional baggage than we grown-ups have. But we decided a long time ago that kids don't have all the fully autonomous rights that adults do until they reach a certain age.
From: End Hereditary Religion | by
Historically, children were considered the property of parents. Under the scheme of patriarchy wives and children are under the control of the family head, the husband of the family.
Much of this hoary antiquated thinking is still promoted by far right conservatives and the vestiges of ancient thinking die hard.
By Kevin Maillard – Download 39 page PDF document
Here is the abstract:
Despite the collective view in law and social practice that it is intrinsically taboo to consider human beings as chattel, the law persists in treating children as property. Applying principles of property, this Article examines paternity disputes to explain and critique the law’s view of children as property of their parents. As evidenced in these conflicts, the Article demonstrates that legal paternity exposes a rhetoric of ownership, possession, and exchange. The law presumes that a child born to a married woman is fathered by her husband, even when irrefutable proof exists that another man fathered the child. Attempts by non-marital biological fathers to assert parental rights regularly fail, as states allow only one father to “claim” the child. This approach treats the nonmarital father as a trespasser and categorically favors the fundamental due process rights of the marital father.
From: Berkeley Law – Mary Ann Mason 1994, Columbia University Press
The relationship between parents, children, and the state is arguably the most fundamental relationship in a society. The social attitudes and legal norms embedded in this triangle determine the way we raise our children and provide the basis of social continuity within a nation. This relationship usually is unexamined. Only when the family breaks down, by virtue of the death of one or more parents, divorce, or parental incompetence or abuse does the state intervene to carry out and make explicit society's value. Temporarily, and sometimes permanently, the state becomes involved with the issue of custody and control of the child. And, at times, the triangle is transformed into a complicated matrix involving fourth parties: masters (of indentured servants and child slaves), stepparents, foster parents, and grandparents. The parties, too, often seek legal recognition in custody disputes.
After wading through the headlines this past week at DetentionSlip, something seems to be bubbling up more and more.
The issue here, is a general attitude in our society that people under the age of 18 are second class citizens. We treat them as property. Some folks in power actually believe it is ok to physically harm a child in the name of discipline. Others, think it is OK to use the bodies of children for their own sexual perversions. The common theme here, is “adults” in power operating on a value system that allows for them to use the bodies of younger folks without their consent.