Parenting Issues Debate

I hadn't heard about Smart's cousin.  That's awful. 

<<Do you mean in terms of their then knowing the full names of people working there, which may have discouraged them from harming family members?>>

There's that, definitely.  Also, I think people who go thru the trouble of getting a license are more likely at my home to work, get paid, go onto the next roofing job. 

And hiring someone who is homeless is asking for trouble.  I gather from this thread that I'm supposed to be naive, but I'm not.  ;)  Rather, I'm well aware that the homeless don't choose to live on the streets because they are mentally stable, avoid mind-altering substances and read Scripture every night.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201233443.htm#

I think their hypocrisy is what I found most unsettling.  They live in a very affluent area.  They could afford to pay fair wages for a day's labor.  Yet, they not only chose to take advantage of the homeless by paying less than is allowed by law, i.e., less than minimum wage.  They also claimed they hired the homeless because they were good Christians.

I'm a good Christian and I would never do that nor boradcast that hypocrisy on tv.  Anyway, every tv appearance by the parents reinforced for me ~ perhaps I am too street smart for my own good ~ how utterly and clearly foreseeable this kidnapping was.

It was never said what they paid him for the days work. The article only said that the mother gave him $5, then hired him to work on her roof for the day. You are making the assumption that they only gave him the $5 or that anything else they gave him was "less than minimum wage".

>>They also claimed they hired the homeless because they were good Christians.
I'm a good Christian and I would never do that nor boradcast that hypocrisy on tv. <<

What exactly is un-Christian about giving a homeless man an opportunity to earn some money? That seems pretty trusting and altruistic to me. Both of those traits are considered to be pretty "Christian" at the Lutheran church I attend. And again, you can't know that they're hypocrites, you were making assumptions.

>>Anyway, every tv appearance by the parents reinforced for me ~ perhaps I am too street smart for my own good ~ how utterly and clearly foreseeable this kidnapping was.<<

76% of child abductions in America today are done by a family member or someone known to the child. So when based on facts, it's not "street smart" at all to assume that a stranger is more likely to abduct your child. If you're going to assume that someone is going to abduct your child, it would be "street smart" of you to suspect your friends, relatives or neighbors.

I think her parents deserve a lot of credit.  They never gave up on her.  She is in college, has a job, will be serving a mission for her church and his trying to help other victims.   

You could as easily put some blame for her kidnapping on other people as well.  Should the government provide for homeless people so that caring individuals would not need to help?  What about the other people in Brian Mitchells life when he was growing up?  Could they have prevented him from becoming who he became?  How often do we ignore problems because we think that they are not our concern? 

Watch out then. Since my bi-polar partner, who once thought he was Jesus, when he had a psychotic break, is a liscensed handyman. He volunteers in our childs school too. (Shudder.) Though we are Buhddists, so that would probably preclude us from being hireable, because we aren't "good Christians" and don't "read scripture."

But Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Dugards kidnapper, had a home, a business and can quote scripture.

edited to add: (Because of course, to be homeless, one must be crazy.)

Poor economy contributing to upper class homelessness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=5534559&page=1