Taking away children from parents due to religious reasons is extremely rare. I know many CPS workers and they really do their best to keep families in tact because usually a crappy parent is better than a random foster parent. CPS also does a lot more than just abuse cases, I can only speak for NY CPS workers, however, I promise there is much more good done through this orgranization than bad
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Its people who walk around believing that because you know one person who doesn't abuse there power that the whole organization is to be commended. Strong families and a moral society alleviate the need for CPS. So with our society more immoral than ever yes there is a need to make people take care of there children but the answer is not to cover up the problem with CPS its to fix the problem.
please do tell me how our society is now immoral than ever
Gay marriage the mass outbreak of sexual harassment blasphemy more pornography sites on the internet than the amount of people who looked at porn 80 years ago. Need I say more?
Terrorism which is killing people just to insight terror not like most wars in the past.
Do you own a television or have kids?
Because if you dont I dont understand why your trolling on a page about protecting children and second your part of the problem if you do. You are telling me you cant see how immoral society is. Do you look at statistics or understand what they are look at drug use domestic abuse and most things most people unlike you consider immoral. YES the world is more immoral than ever do you live under a rock?
most people dont consider gay marriage or porn immoral (if this werent true then it wouldnt be the most googled item) jtlyk also crime rates have been declining steadily since the 90s http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
you are simply conflating things you dislike with things that are immoral and btw terrorists are only slightly more effective at killing than law mowers; lawn mowers kill 20,000/yr while terrorists claim 35,000
Lol where did you get those figures a cracker jack box?
pewresearch and ourworldindata.org feel free to google them
I am glad you only responded to the things that you do not find immoral. And if porn was moral it would be ok to go to work without clothes. Give me a break my opinion has nothing to do with society and how blind, ignorant, and evil most people are. It is in our nature we were created not to be perfect. The false idea that you can be perfect or anything you want is and will continue to have massive consequences that are leading you and most people on this world astray. How old are you maybe 20 and gay I assume I am a child of the Lord not of satan. I could never ask you to or even make you understand my opinion or view point. It takes truth to see it not just in yourself but in the reality of the fallen world we live in. I will pray for you and I do not expect you to understand you never will until you find what truth is and no man can give it to you.
Domestic abuse has unquestionably decreased since the beginning of time, years ago it wasnt seen as a problem it was just how you disciplined your wife. drug abuse has always been a problem, look at the chinese opium epidemic.
Your argument about clothes is silly. You claim that if it porn was moral then nobody would wear clothes. Why would that be the case? there are plenty of practical reasons to wear clothes to work 1) hygiene 2) modesty 3)fashion
I am not gay tough i see nothing wrong with being gay.
Is there anything else i'm missing?
You do not consider gay marriage or porn immoral. Just because people privately look at porn does not mean it is not immoral.
Since i believe there is nothing wrong with it the burden is on you to tell my what you do think porn is immoral.
What I do think porn is immoral? Do you mean what do I think is immoral about porn. A lot first off if there was no porn period there would also be no child porn are you going to tell me your ok with child porn next? Also if it was moral no age limit would be required to view or make it. Same with alcohol and tobacco.
Her objection to the vaccine was religious- they took her son because she refused to have him vaccinated.
I know, I said that such a thing is rare.
uh...not so rare.
I know a guy who is bedridden and out of work cause he has cancer.
Child Service is threatening to take their child .
oh and cancer is somehow religious?
also I have a difficult time believing that... it is much more likely in NY that if you cannot take care of housely duties due to illness you will be given aids to help out, thus making it easier for the parent to care for their child
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
Im not claiming it didnt happen. I am saying that I find it unlikely do to my own eexperiences.
reading comprehension is a thing.
btw 2 cases of religious persecution seems like grounds for calling it rare.
two cases that we KNOW of.
in the whole world 2 cases would be considered rare
My own experiences with CPS directly contradict your assertions. I heartily recommend looking at what happened to Masha, the infamous Siberian Mouse, in the hands of CPS after being rescued from abusive pedophiles.
CPS is a horror show, that is infested with people intent on taking advantage of kids through gaining the power of government over them - the power of force. While some people who intend do help also try to use the extant means of helping children, in a world possessed by governmental monopoly, the deliberate and machiavellian tactics of networks of abusers is simply far beyond their ability to reckon with.
CPS's own statistics reveal that at least a third of kids drawn into their control are abused in that system. I submit they dramatically conceal the actual truth. Every single kid I ever knew who had been in foster care was abused.
You may be, or know, someone whose intent is benign. Your anecdotal experience isn't statistical, it isn't scientific. Look beyond your personal experience to data, and you will have to acknowledge the reality - CPS is intended to serve a market for children to abuse.
It is the primary purveyor of children to abusive parties.
Families are the most protective institution extant.
i will not touch on foster homes, that is not my intent and not my knowledge base. What I have been saying from the beginning is that taking children away is an extremely small amount of what CPS workers do. Secondly, I fail to see how it is the fault of CPS workers taking away children when the real problem seems to be those who foster children.
And this is exactly why it is American whites whom the UN says should pay reparations for slavery, even though it was Africans who enslaved, and sold, most slaves that ended up in America in the 18th century.
The CPS serves exactly the same role as gangs of slavers did in Africa. It provides product to the market. This doesn't absolve the market.
But it sure as hell doesn't absolve the CPS either.
I can find no evidence of the UN claiming this. Whom sold salves is important, does this mean we should disregard the atrocities committed for hundreds of years? The CPS is a government funded agency, they make no money by putting kids in foster care.
Literally, the first link on a search.
You're not even trying.
While government agencies make no profit from any corruption, it still goes on. Why? How? What could be the mechanism that drives corruption?
Could it be that the corrupt people in government agencies use the assets of the government to enrich themselves, rather than the agencies?
What do you think?
You're not even reading. This article talks about a group in the UN which hopes to have current economic issues which are typical in African American communities to be remedied. This is not the same as being paid reparations for slavery, not even close.
Of course governments are filled with corruption and there is plenty of money to be made. I cannot see who would profit from foster children other than the foster parents who get money.
You're right. I didn't read the article at all, and merely linked it to show that my contention that the UN is advocating reparations from white Americans to the descendents of slaves in America - as long as those slaves weren't white - was easily shown via a simple search.
You said you had no evidence of such claims.
I vehemently disagree that reparations are appropriate, so don't bother reading such drivel.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which was your implication.
All I did was search for 'UN slave reparations America' and paste the first link.
There were many, many more, and I have seen other quotes from the UN that does, in fact, advocate such reparations.
You are welcome to read on down the list.
I have better and productive things to do.