Coffeetime
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Coffeetime
-
-
I'm heartbroken for you, Rosie. I am so very sorry. Words aren't enough.
-
I have three. They're all large and visible- that's not a problem for me. They were all original art drawn for me by the artist (well, one is a quote so I guess it's not art) and well thought out. I didn't start getting tattoo'd until after I was 30. I am saving for my fourth, which will either be a rose half sleeve or two large roses on my shoulder and arm. All are black and grey. I love mine. They are part of a metamorphosis to me-- it's all very personal so I don't tend to tell people the "meanings" behind my tattoos. It's enough that they are meaningful to me, IFYWIM.
-
I got my first paycheck in 11 years yesterday. :) Wasn't very big- but man did it feel good to have earned it!
-
Now I am thinking about having a glass of wine reading this thread. But I already brushed my teeth. So tomorrow, people, tomorrow. I can't be the only one?
I'm drinking a beer.
Well, typically it'd be a vodka sprite or a glass of wine… but tonight? I just spiked my eggnog. ;)
-
I didn't think she should ask someone not to drink, so no, I don't think she should ask someone not to take property prescribed medication. I think if the OP is that concerned about it, she should simply not leave her child there, rather than trying to exert control over someone else's moderate drinking.
But I do understand why the OP might feel upset that someone caring for her child had been drinking, and I am trying to look at it from her perspective. Alcohol can be dangerous. If I hired a sitter and found out she was drinking, I would be upset - even one drink. If I found out the pilot of a plane had just one drink, I would be furious about it, because even one drink impairs judgment just a bit. So really, its a matter of degrees. Even one drink will impair judgment, but for most of us, that isn't really important if we are not driving, operating machinery, etc. But pilots and air traffic control operators really can't drink before a shift - even if they are big men who can "handle" their alcohol. The gun owners I know don't carry a concealed weapon and drink even one drink. ER nurses don't have a drink with dinner before reporting for work etc. I feel fine having a drink and being a Mom on the same night. But I understand someone not feeling ok about that for their child, and I think the OP is taking some heat, so I am trying to see the argument from her side.
Alcohol is simply more dangerous, even in moderation, than cinnamon or nutmeg. When my son went off the college, we talked a lot about alcohol, responsible drinking, looking out for your friends if they have been drinking, etc. I neglected to mention nutmeg:)
I am not sure where the diabetes thing is coming from. Yes, it creates long term health risks. The diabetics I know seem to control their blood sugar well and I would feel my children were safe in their care.
But she didn't say that someone caring for her child had been drinking. She said that some of the adults were drinking. Not the mom who was watching her son. Her concern wasn't that the person caring for her son was impaired. Her concern was that her son would see an alcoholic drink in the hand of an adult.
-
Yes, we waited quite a bit to tell with #4 and #5. With #5 I had my dh tell family members I knew would have less than enthusiastic or rude reactions. ;)
As far as waiting because of the risk of miscarriage- pregnancy news spreads like wildfire, and having to tell a vague acquaintance you just ran into in the grocery store who is loudly congratulating you on your pregnancy that you, in fact, lost the baby just adds to the pain of the loss. After that experience I always told a very few close friends or family members with the stipulation that it be kept on the DL until I was further along.
-
Well you get what you pay for. You probably get seen quicker than you would in Canada.
I'm in the US now and the difference is night and day. Yes we do have excellent coverage. However the quality and the thoroughness of visits were night and day. My dr. visits in Canada were very inferior to what we have received here.
With the variance of replies from Canadians on here, I wonder if this has more to do with locality than with the system itself.
I have lived in areas where this would be the case in the US- low quality doctors, inferior care, long wait times, etc.
I have lived in areas where I have amazing doctors- thorough, caring, get you in quickly and work to develop a good relationship.
Same system, same coverage- vast difference in care.
Thoughts?
-
If by free you mean you don't have a copay and you don't get a bill for your portion, then yes it is. But someone IS paying for it. The taxpayers.
Yes, but here in the US we pay our taxes, AND our monthly insurance premiums, AND our deductibles, AND whatever percentage of treatment isn't covered by insurance, AND for procedures that are not covered by insurance… I would venture to guess that after adding all of that up we are paying much more in the US for far less coverage.
This is a really interesting thread. Loving all the info. Makes me want to move the 300 or so miles up to Canada, frankly. ;)
-
Facebook has many ways you can control your input/output.
You can hide anyone you want to so they don't show up on your timeline. You'll never see their updates unless you purposely go to their page and look. I use that one for particularly political people. ;)
You can also utilize the "restricted list". Anyone you add to this list will not be able to see any of your updates unless you post them using a "public" privacy setting. I use this for particularly political people as well. ;)
You can "block" anyone who is particularly troublesome. They won't see that you even have an account- unless you participate in the same "groups". Personally, I don't do groups. I am also an introvert and I don't like the dynamic in most groups I've been invited to.
HTH!
ETA- I ignore friend requests all the time. And I'm ok with unfriending people who are rude, toxic, etc. Even if I'm related to them. :p
-
If she had an anaphylactic reaction at 11am, I'd look very hard at what she did and what she ate or drank between 9 and 11 am. It doesn't have to be something new. It isn't uncommon to develop an anaphylactic allergy to something you've eaten your whole life. And allergy tests aren't as accurate as we would all like. My dd tested negative to tree nut and shellfish allergies which have sent her to the ER many, many times since those negative tests.
Also, If she's allergic to dust, do you have some very good air filters for her room?
Yes to the bolded and that's one of the most frustrating things about having a child with severe/possibly life threatening allergies. My son has been diagnosed with a latex allergy based on reactions and exposures but his test (blood) was negative. We carry Epi and proceed as though that is the allergen at the advice of the Dr. but there is always a fear in the back of your mind that you're avoiding the wrong thing. :(
-
With families that don't allow any internet usage with their kids phones, they set the phones up so that if the kid uses internet at all, the parent phone immediately sees what they've been looking at. I know adult men that keep accountable to a friend doing that.
iPhones and iPods actually have really good parental controls.
I know for my 12 year old's iPod touch I own the passcodes (he isn't allowed to know them) so I control all downloads and content controls. Right now, because he's not really very internet savvy (he's just not really interested in surfing the web and never has been) I also have the internet and Youtube turned off and the content controls turned on. As he gets older and more conversations happen I'm sure we will reevaluate allowing internet on with controls.
I think the technology is great and I have no problem letting my older kids take advantage of it-- but you HAVE to pay attention. Know what your kid's phone/ipod is capable of. Be familiar with how to use the technology and how to keep a close eye on activities.
-
I would do it in a heartbeat and plan to... someday.
I've had 5 kids, lost all the weight and I feel fantastic. But the skin on my tummy is "wrinkled" and I'd LOVE to get it taken care of. And yes, if I had the tummy tuck I'd have the girls lifted a bit too.
-
Ugh. I hit my plateau a couple of weeks ago. Cannot lose despite running and really watching calories.
I lost 7.9 lbs in two weeks and then just stopped.
Granted, I'm within a healthy BMI-- but I'd REALLY like to lose 10 or so more lbs. I had to be on a progesterone supplement for a few months for some "female problems" and I put on 15 lbs!!!! :confused1: :glare: :cursing:
-
:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:
-
Yeah, I guess it is not abusive if it doesn't rise to the level of false imprisonment and permanent mutilation?!
It is not a stretch to see that physical and sexual abuse is often present in patriarchal households where physical punishment is seen as a religious imperative. My mother was gravely abused by her mother (to the point of physical disability) and she went to her grave still, 50+ years later, seeking her mother's love and approval. You don't need to physically block something if your child is broken and will do everything to maintain your affection. And people can be abused emotionally, spiritually and verbally.
The bolded-- it's also important to understand that these types of patriarchal cults actually can attract abusive people. Because you do NOT question your authority and your parents hold god-like control over your life, it can foster abuse very, very easily. (And there are many, many stories of abuse.)
-
fwiw, my mother flirted with ATI when I was growing up. It was my father (ironically) that put the lid on it, so we never got as "deep" as the stories I've read on recovering grace, but deep enough to understand the pain. I spent a few years in my early teens convinced that music with a beat invited demons, and that African music was devil-worshipping music. My mom and I did wear pants everyday except Sunday, but we ate only wheat bread (but with margarine, I wish Gothard had preached against the devil in margarine too, if anything's the devil, it's margarine! :ack2: ).
I have a feeling you and I have quite a bit in common. My dad was the one who put the kabosh on the whole "only wearing skirts and dresses".
-
I don't think there is much you can do. It helped me as a teen to be involved in the church youth group, which my mother was originally opposed to, but eventually allowed. Being in the home of a stable Christian family where the mom was a high school physics teacher helped. Though it also helped that they were what most would characterize as being ultra-conservative. They didn't see the devil in white bread, but they did see it in high-fantasy (I don't think the high-fantasy genre ever made it on Gothard's radar, so that was weird). They pushed college attendance (at conservative Christian schools) and liked CCM, even the soft-rock CCM.
All that to say, in my mind they were still pretty "safe," even when they were "edgy." You have to remember that in this group the world is pretty dangerous. Having a statue of Buddha around you could turn you into a pagan idolater in no time flat. So breaking out, whether there is abuse or self-abuse going on or not, is a very scary proposition. So I think the most you can do is emphasize that you don't intend to endanger them. Emphasize that you're fine with them not dating, not wearing pants, not listening to some music, etc. But if they want to talk about anything you're open to discussion. Let them know that you think they themselves, and their happiness, is important to you. At the moment, the comment in your OP about them not calling themselves "teens" tells me that they don't see anything "off" at the moment. Trying to intervene for people who don't think they need intervention never ends well. So the only thing you can do is make sure you're a safe door to knock on if they need you.
:iagree:
Except it doesn't have to be Buddha. It can be a Cabbage Patch doll. My parents let us keep our dolls that were given to us (because we were the "normal" ones) ... but only after they had burned their "birth certificates" to destroy any demons that had attached themselves to them. (See why I put "normal" in quotations marks?) :lol:
I agree with everything SarahW says here- the statistic is that less than 1% of kids raised in ATI stay in it. So the chances are that at some point, some of them are going to want/need a place to escape. And yes, I say escape because, at the level of involvement you're describing, the likelihood is that when/if they leave they will be disowned by their family. Be that place. The only way you can do that at this point is to have a relationship with them that conveys to them (without challenging their beliefs that they clearly still hold) that you love them unconditionally and always will.
And also? You rock. :thumbup1:
-
Actually, I have read it, which I posted back on the first page of the thread.
I'm not engaging in this conversation because I really don't have anything at all nice to say about the this particular fundy movement. I'm not normally interested in adoption, per se. I picked up the book because I am interested in what Western charities are doing in impoverished countries.
As to the book... I think she tries to hit many angles of the picture. She doesn't try to push any particular agenda that I can determine, although some of her case studies are clearly studies on specific agendas within xtian adoption circles -- that IS clear in the title, after all. This article is just one small part of the book, and it is unfortunate that they cut it out of context. I think her conclusions are rather fair, even though I may have come to different conclusions myself. ;) I believe the final point is that foreign adoptions are vulnerable to an incredible amount of corruption and manipulation, and when people access it with disingenuous intentions, it is a cruelty.
Audrey- I missed your post on the first page. Thanks for jumping in. I have had the exact same reaction to the book- which is why I posted. I felt like a lot of people were making assumptions about what the author had written, what her "agenda" was etc. based on an article that, I felt, took the most sensational story from the book out of context.
-
Every so often I read something that just makes my heart sink. Tonight it was that Mother Jones article and then the other places the links posted took me (no longer quivering, above rubies, etc)... I've read those sites before but sometimes it all seems more clearly sinister. Basically the thing is this... we have extended family who are into this stuff. No birth control, long hair, long skirts, homeschool only, no college, no media, ATI, no insurance, home birth, KJV-only, no traditional medicine, and on and on and on. Recently the wife mentioned to me the Trim Healthy Mama book and I didn't realize it was related to the Above Rubies people until tonight... when I made that connection, my heart sank in an "of course" kind of way. As if she would have just come upon a book about fitness/diet and been allowed to read it without it being from a sanctioned source. I am not kidding; this is the way the dh thinks. It really, really freaks me out. I am not bothered that a family would have a lot of counter-cultural convictions; fine, whatever floats your boat. What freaks me out is the apparent lack of ANY critical or independent thinking.
So, I'm scared. I guess that's the long and short of it. I'm scared that this is more cultish than we realized. I'm scared for their kids. They have 10 kids and the oldest is 17. So far, no one has rebelled. But I stumbled onto an ex-QF blog tonight about some teen girls who were hurting so badly they became anorexic or cutters. There is so much pain on these ex-ATI/QF/fundie sites. SO MUCH PAIN. The kids in the family I'm referring to are quick to correct you if you call them teenagers (they don't "believe in" teens years/adolescence). But I just have this sinking feeling that it's all going to come apart and it's going to be horrible when it does.
So many things bother me about this situation. The lack of insurance (medical/life). The lack of priority on education (their kids are very, very far behind academically). The way no one is allowed to have an original thought/opinion about anything. The view of women as temptresses. The deceitfulness when they relate to us... they act like they have these convictions they have come to independently when really (as I learned more tonight), it's just hook-line-sinker ATI, Above Rubies, etc.
They love God and in a lot of ways, they are doing a great job. They certainly read the Bible as a family more than we do and the way their family is "unworldly" is refreshing. But more and more, I just have this terrible sinking feeling.
When is a way of thinking (or not thinking) and living cultish or dangerous? When do you try to help people who seem brainwashed? My dh is great about talking to the kids about grace at every opportunity ("we don't have to earn God's love, the law is fulfilled in Christ, isn't that awesome?"). But other than that, I don't see how we can throw these kids a lifeline without undermining their parents.
I'm also really tired of being lectured about the next Gothard/Campbell/Pearl-sanctioned "neat thing" every time I see them.
Ugh. Any words of wisdom? :(
:grouphug:
www.recoveringgrace.org
Gothard/IBLP/ATI survivors group. You need to spend time reading there- they do a wonderful time at analyzing the spiritual abuse dished out by Gothard.
I was raised in it-- not as deeply entrenched as it sounds like your family is-- but even to the extent that my parents believed his twisted teaching it greatly effected my relationship with God and my view of myself.
-
Coffeetime, I'm sorry- but we're right in the middle of this. I really did not mean to sound combative, but I am clearly frustrated.
I have not read the whole book, you're right. When it's available at the library or second hand I will get a copy. Her premise, the excerpts I've read, the interviews I've found... (I haven't jumped in with zero idea what she is saying) they do bother me. I honestly did not mean to dump that on you/this thread but I can see that I did just that.
I don't feel like arguing the points in red above, because I don't feel like it should be an argument and it seems neither do you.
Listen, FWIW we do believe in adoption, we are not infertile, we are a happy healthy realistic family, and we are on year seven. SEVEN. And we are longing now to bring home a daughter from China with "special needs"* that would have put her in a bad-to-worse situation for the rest of her life. My longing is to expand our family because we're just not done yet, and there is definitely the thought that there are kids in orphanages or foster care that need a home. I cannot change the government of China, but I can hope that seeing people love kids who some Chinese traditions might call unlovable will change that judgment. I think it IS changing it. There will still be moms hiding in the bushes waiting to be sure somebody picks up their baby in China. What they are asking the adoption community to change there is not within our purview as foreigners, but the answer is not to pretend the baby isn't still in need of a family and the family is likely to be overseas. I'm doing what I can do and what I've always wanted to do. Of course my being Christian has a bearing on it: it should have a bearing on every thing I do, just like any other human's world view will do to/for them. It saddens me to see adoption and Christian adoption in particular called into question. It excites me that this controversy might bring more people into the field of child welfare. In the interviews I read/watch of her and other new critics of Christian adoption, however, I see a call for putting on the brakes.
So that's what I was responding to...
* the Chinese definition of special needs is not what might pop to the mind of an average American: we're talking things that can be remedied with a surgery or two, things that don't necessarily have any long term limiting effect. I mention this because I don't want to portray my family as some heroic group scooping up a needy child. Unless you can imagine that without disdain, in which case my cape should be covered in sequins.
Here's what I have read: The Boston Globe article where I am enabling tragedy, The Daily Beast article where I am dominating the adoption "circuit and it's dark underbelly", and this excerpton the NPR website, where if I begin to feel disappointed at not adopting particular children then my motives will again be questioned, and spur the need for her whole book. I also read this interview.
PS I can't help it, I will try to clarify again: I don't think the adoption push is wrong, nor do I think intl adoption is perfect. I would not want everyone to turn a blind eye, but I'm concerned that a bunch more undirected oversight from agencies already supposedly overseeing things will have the effect of the Hague Convention. It slowed things down in ways that were NOT intended, and some countries threw up their hands and closed their borders when they could not figure out how to enforce compliance. I'm sure you know all this. The criticism of Christians in general trying to adopt because of their beliefs seems mean-spirited and sensational. Tying the entire "evangelical" movement to some town that took on slaves from an orphanage in Liberia is a fallacy. Joyce may couch her criticisms in disclaimers that many Christians are well-meaning, but that falls flat. It concerns me.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
I also appreciate that you are in the middle of it. It's completely normal that something that would just make me raise my eyebrows would create a deeply personal reaction for you. :grouphug:
To reiterate- I love adoption. I have adopted family members. And I think you should definitely have a cape covered in both glitter and sequins. :hurray:
-
No one is pretending that everything is peachy keen. Pushing adoption in a church is not the opposite of wanting better for the children in tough situations in various countries. Why must it be seen as "in competition with"? Churches with large adoptive communities usually do not say every family must/should adopt, but that every family can find a way to support adoptive families or orphanages. They are dedicated to awareness of what is going on in the countries affected (including the US foster system).
As to the evangelical purpose: First, every family will give their children a world view. Evangelicals (and I'm fine if you connote that with a fairly extreme version of the word) have a view that is predicated on an absolute truth existing. As Penn Jillette says, wouldn't they be huge jerks if they really believe other views lead to terrible outcomes yet never said anything about it? Never thought of evangelizing their own children as one benefit/duty of parenting? Didn't look around them and try to "save" every person they might influence?
Again, you (and the author of the baby catchers) are assuming that the growth of adoption in Christian circles is something that cannot be based in real concern for the kids and the countries they come from. That just by wanting to "save" more children, the overall goal will automatically be selfish at heart (to serve their own sense of a good deed or a need to be heroes) and will actually damage the kids/countries. I find it so deeply insulting. And let's be honest: Christians have always outpaced other demographic groups in intl adoption
Have you read the book? Have you listened at all to what I've said? That's a whole lot of assumption.
If you are truly curious about what a family must do to adopt, try some of the courses at Adoption Learning Partners. Read more about where the fees actually go. Read something with an opposing viewpoint or a level-headed response to the criticisms of the "new" adoption push.
Like I said before, I HAVE read both viewpoints. Then I decided to go directly to the source and read the book that everyone was talking about.
Her use of Ukraine as an example is a bit of a shock. The outcomes for "in-country" children are not necessarily better, and the way they are encouraging that is through money given directly to Ukrainian families who do adopt. Kind of like in America? In a system so broken by poverty and other social ills, you would say that they should stay there in exclusion of countries with larger populations and resources? Are you convinced there are enough stable families ready to adopt those kids? Do you jump on the no-one-should-deal-with RAD bandwagon but allow it to be inflicted on people from their community without a second thought? Why not allow/encourage both in-country and intl adoption? And it's not true there are no people wanting to adopt Ukrainian children with special needs. It happens quite often and yes, it's almost always Christians- since you're reading blogs I would encourage you to find some of the groups of blogs dedicated to int'l special needs adoptions.
You are really seriously twisting my words here.
My problem is with the premise that doing one kind of good means Christians must be blind to or worse not care about the potential dangers in a system, and that one kind of good should also be outlawed until we can all sit back and fix humanity. Good luck with that. No one, I mean NO ONE has said anything of the sort. How about we applaud the adoptive community and ALSO point people toward real changing work on the problems that cause a need for it. Another field, btw, dominated by faith-based organizations.
You are clearly not interested in listening to what I am saying, because that's EXACTLY what I and others are doing, so I'm going to just go ahead and step back. The only reason I posted is because I seem to be the only person who has actually picked up the book and read it. Assumptions are being made about what is in the book, so I thought I'd put in my 2 cents- having actually read it.
-
The Bible verses often quoted about caring for the orphans do NOT actually say we should adopt. There are plenty of ways to do something for orphans without adopting them if adoption isn't the best way to build a particular family.
I think this is actually key to our understanding of orphan care. And I see a rise in agencies and organizations, including the One Child Campaign, who are trying to help people understand that adoption is sometimes the answer- especially for true orphans with abusive situations or no living parents or extended family, but it isn't the only answer. There are, unfortunately, many many children in orphanages who are only there because their parent/parents can't afford to feed them. Some of their families believe they are only there temporarily. Adoption fees are anywhere from $25,000 to $65,000. That's not a comfortable thought. Like I said before, none of this has an easy answer. But the conversation is important.
-
Rick Warren does not speak for all evangelicals, he doesn't even come close to speaking for a small number of evangelicals. People think he does because he has a mega church, but in reality, I know far MORE Christians that do NOT identify with Rick Warren and his agenda, than do.
It's like saying because one priest in one priest from one large parish preached that everyone should be adopting internationally, then all Catholic parishes push for international adoption. Not so. Just because one high profile preacher says so, that doesn't mean that anyone else is following it. We've not had a single sermon preached...not one single one...on the virtues of international adoption or anything related to it in the last three evangelical churches we've attended. church one - 350 average attendance per Sunday, church two - 920 average, and church three - 275 average.
I know a lot of people think R.W. is the face of evangelicalism, but he really isn't. He is kind of his own animal and MANY people do not follow his ideas.
Faith
Hmm. I don't think I said anything about Rick Warren speaking for all evangelicals.
My point was that there IS a well-documented, mainstream, evangelical movement pushing adoption. RW was speaking at an adoption summit, with other evangelical churches were in attendance. I don't understand denying that there IS a movement. I'm glad that in your personal experience you haven't seen it in your churches. I have.
This may be splitting hairs, but whenever I hear people push adoption (Christians/Evangelicals/whatever) I never get the impression that it is about saving their souls because their country is heathen. Never. I have not ever heard anything at all related to that. What I hear is a push to give these children love and families. It's not because their country is bad, the local population is bad, or anything like that. It's the simple fact that the person speaking thinks children without families should be in families, and that Christians are called to love and care for orphans. I think everyone believes it would be best for the children if they had never come into care, assuming they aren't abused and starving out of care, and everyone believes that it would be best for children to be adopted domestically, but right now children are growing up without families and dying because for whatever reason their birth families and birth countries cannot or will not provide love and a family. Some people see "adoption first, second, and last," as evangelicalism and others see it as family building. I don't see how 1,000 families giving homes is a bad thing. Would it be better to have 1,000 kids without a family? Perhaps those kids would have been adopted by others, but perhaps not. I don't think the motives have anything to do with spreading Christianity to the kids or their communities.
I do see the troubling connection between supply and demand- that maybe if adoption was less profitable more parents would choose to parent, but that's more of a theory than any kind of fact and testing it would definitely cause harm in the short term. I wonder what the orphan stats are for countries like Romania that used to be a big sending country but has been closed for years? I wonder if the numbers of kids in care declined when international adoption stopped or if the children kept coming in?
FWIW, I'm not an adoptive parent or anything, but I have friends who have and who would be described as evangelicals.
You are correct that the whole "saving their souls from eternal damnation" is more of a fringe movement. Absolutely.
Clearly, 1,000 children adopted is not a bad thing. The problem, IMHO is this whole numbers and goal setting thing evangelical churches like to do. (Saddleback is not alone in this) It feels dehumanizing- like these kids are just a new goal to reach. I also believe that it does contribute to an overall atmosphere of... classifying? (I can't really think of the right word)... church members, which can lead to feelings of pressure to be one of the adoptive parents. It just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe that's just me.
Interestingly, the supply and demand issue is covered in the book (I haven't finished the book yet, so I'm sure it will be talked about more). She talks about the Ukraine fairly extensively, and it seems as though they have been pretty successful since limiting overseas adoption at stemming trafficking- nearly all babies and young children are adopted nationally now. Sadly, that leaves mostly older children or children with health problems for overseas adoption. Americans aren't as interested in those children, unfortunately.
FWIW, I am very pro-adoption. I am not an adoptive parent, it just wasn't in the cards for me- but it is something that has been on my heart since I was very young. Adoptive parents have my eternal respect and love.
Having said that, I recently witnessed an international adoption situation that left me feeling uneasy about the Christian adoption movement. Then, I read the Mother Jones article, I read some of the backlash, I read Jen Hatmaker's blog post and Caleb David's post- so I decided to read the book. And so far she's made a lot of very, very important points. It's a very emotional, nuanced, problematic, issue and I don't think anyone has all the answers. But pretending like everything is peachy-keen and there are no problems, corruption etc. isn't going to be helpful. The ends can't always justify the means.
-
"Several" / "pushing." First, I'm not sure we have the same definition of "pushing," and second, "several" does not a majority make. I get around, and I know zero Christians who push or have been pushed to adopt internationally. And I also know zero adoptive parents who did it to spread Christianity. I am not saying none exist, only that when talking about something that is not mainstream, one should avoid language that implies it's common (or common to a broad group). If you really believe that the average attendee at an evangelical church equates international adoption to evangelism, I think you're misinformed. Perhaps because of articles like that. It may be worth noting that some of the most popular countries for international adoption are much more Christian than the USA is.
Rick Warren is quoted at a 2012 Adoption Summit as saying "When I say 'orphan care' it's adoption first, second and last." He then goes on to boast about how they're now halfway to their goal of having 1,000 families in their congregation adopt. It IS being pushed in evangelicalism.
Would you leave your 3 children in the car?
in The Chat Board
Posted
Middle school age? Of course! But I would check the laws in your state first just to make sure it's on your side. In my state, it is legal to leave children in the car unattended as long as the car is not running and the weather is not inclement. (Too hot OR too cold). But for goodness sake, my middle school age child babysits for me at home- why wouldn't he be able to sit in a locked car alone for a few minutes?