Kidnapped For Christ

[Highlord Laan]

It isn't legally considered kidnapping if it is done with a parents knowledge and consent.

It can easily and rightfully be called criminal abuse though, and the only reason this shit hasn't been is the asinine shield of it being "church based."

[Alyrium Denryle]

So it's fine for parents to have their children dragged off to the other side of the globe and psychologically abused so as to "set them straight." Yes, it does do wonders for military training. Said training is also applied only to volunteers and not some kids and teenagers that disappointed their bronze-age barbarian parents.

I see you failed reading comprehension. Here. Let me help you before I recommend that you go back and visit the sixth grade.

Then you break down their self esteem, show them they have no control etc. Then, you get them in a group, and rebuild their identity, rewarding them for pro-social behavior, punishing them for anti-social behavior, and slowly give them back control and self esteem.

...

If it works for getting people to kill, it can get at least a subset of anti-social people to not be as anti-social.

Do you see the bit where I am talking about anti-social behavior? Violence, drug-addiction etc. Did you not read the first post I made where I made mention of the fact that parents do now own their children and that such things need regulatory oversight that may well include case-by-case approval by a regulatory body?

Here, let me help you, because you are obviously too stupid to do anything but break your nose with your own knee-spasms.

On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of oversight. Parents Do Not Own Their Children. Before this is permitted, the parents need to have to get permission from some oversight body, or there needs to be some mechanism by which a teenager can challenge their "detention", or seek legal emancipation. As it stands, the potential for horrendous physical and emotional abuse is simply too great. Hell, these people could be molesting children, and there is absolutely no way for authorities to ever find out. That is not acceptable.

Oh, and how about them not all being fundie prison camps. I was not defending those. I was saying there is a place for the ones that seek to correct criminal and often violent or self destructive behavior

The[sic] bad ones by contrast either dont do this properly, or they use them to bad ends. Not all of them are fundamentalist prison camps.

See?

Now hang your head in shame for failure to read the posts you are responding to.

[Scrib]

I am opposed to this on principle, simply because for the one that is there to deal with violent, "troubled" teens there's another (or ten others) there to break down perfectly fine gay/atheist/slightly rebellious because their parents don't want or know how to deal with the situation. There should be some sort of oversight on these schools (which is of course, why they're not in the States) and on the parents. You shouldn't be able to uproot your child's life because you disagree with any particular action they took, especially not if you're going to send them far out of the reach of any governmental bodies designed to protect them in case something goes wrong.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am opposed to this on principle, simply because for the one that is there to deal with violent, "troubled" teens there's another (or ten others) there to break down perfectly fine gay/atheist/slightly rebellious because their parents don't want or know how to deal with the situation.

Not all of these "boarding schools" are religiously oriented. Just thought I would point that out.

Other than that, yes. They need oversight, and some decisions that are currently given over to parents need oversight by regulatory bodies.

[ChaserGrey]

It can easily and rightfully be called criminal abuse though, and the only reason this shit hasn't been is the asinine shield of it being "church based."

Except that there are plenty of secular programs that do the same thing- they just call it "behavior modification therapy" instead of "bringing them to the light of Jesus". Look up an outfit called WWASPS if you want details. They've been shut down now (or at least forced to go underground and surface with another name), but they operated using similar practices for years.

[Baffalo]

*sigh* Why is it that people can defend this kind of thing? Let me put it in simple terms why this should be illegal: IT'S CHILD ABUSE!

Wikipedia, shine some light on our topic please:

Child abuse is the physical, sexual, emotional mistreatment, or neglect of a child. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Children And Families (DCF) define child maltreatment as any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child. Child abuse can occur in a child's home, or in the organizations, schools or communities the child interacts with. There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, psychological/emotional abuse, and child sexual abuse.
Different jurisdictions have developed their own definitions of what constitutes child abuse for the purposes of removing a child from his/her family and/or prosecuting a criminal charge. According to the Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, child abuse is "any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm". A person who feels the need to abuse or neglect a child may be described as a "pedopath".

Emphasis mine.

Now, let's look at what's happening. A child, without consent and via the actions of a consenting guardian, is violently abducted from their home and shipped miles away to a facility that then proceeds to dispense punishment without any further oversight from the parent. They are then subjected to psychological abuse in an attempt to manipulate them into accepting a new mindset, which is basically brainwashing. In the case of the kid being dropped off in the Arizona desert, had the child fallen and broken his leg, the potential for starvation and death was extremely high, especially since we don't hear of any sources of water available during his trek.

Technically illegal or no, cases like this should be investigated. IF, and the key word is IF, IF a judicial or legal body reviews locations such as this and determines they are legally operating within the laws and not promoting child abuse, then they should be allowed to continue. However, if they are found to be in violation, the organization or the parents, potentially both depending on the circumstances, should be prosecuted for child abuse.

What I find most appalling is that this occurs during a child's teenage years, which are some of the most emotionally critical periods. They will argue and rebel, but shipping them off to a place that will torture them unless they get on the 'straight and narrow' doesn't count as a solution except in the most dire of circumstances. If a teen is suicidal, threatening bodily harm, excessively violent, overly sexually promiscuous to the point of being a major health risk, or any similar circumstance, they should be referred first to a person with actual psychological training. If that person then agrees that more thorough steps should be taken, they can be. However, just because a kid is gay does NOT warrant them being tortured. And that's what this is, torture. If it happened to a prisoner instead of a teen, being shipped to a location outside legal US jurisdiction and then subjected to severe forms of discipline, we'd protest immediately. But because they're teens and the parents gave consent, we shrug our shoulders and say, "Tough luck kid."

[Thanas]

The mere act of dragging kids out of the country seems like a perfect recipe for abuse of power. There is no reason such camps cannot operate in the USA - unless they are doing something illegal or highly questionable, of course.

I would be very wary of the existence of these camps outside the USA, outside the legal system.

[Serafina]

I am opposed to this on principle, simply because for the one that is there to deal with violent, "troubled" teens there's another (or ten others) there to break down perfectly fine gay/atheist/slightly rebellious because their parents don't want or know how to deal with the situation. There should be some sort of oversight on these schools (which is of course, why they're not in the States) and on the parents. You shouldn't be able to uproot your child's life because you disagree with any particular action they took, especially not if you're going to send them far out of the reach of any governmental bodies designed to protect them in case something goes wrong.

That logic is completely asinine. "Currently 9 out of 10 are bad, so it's bad on principle". Nevermind that one could put up regulations that remove the bad ones, and that such has already been done in other countries.

There are several things a closed-environment school can achieve without any abuse.
- Remove the kids in question from their everyday life and routine. This is a common therapeutic measure and generally quite effective.
- Break habits. This doesn't necessitate any abuse, it comes with the change in routine, and the inability to follow such habits due to the changed routine
- Rules that actually have to be followed 24/7. This is simply something parents can not provide, because a large part of a teenagers life will happen outside of their control, away from home.
- Social interaction with peers under observation and based on an outside set of rules. Again not something that can be achieved at home no matter how many therapy sessions you do.



Now that doesn't mean that these specific camps are remotely okay. The main problem is sheer lack of outside oversight, that's something that simply has to be provided.

[Scrib]

I am opposed to this on principle, simply because for the one that is there to deal with violent, "troubled" teens there's another (or ten others) there to break down perfectly fine gay/atheist/slightly rebellious because their parents don't want or know how to deal with the situation. There should be some sort of oversight on these schools (which is of course, why they're not in the States) and on the parents. You shouldn't be able to uproot your child's life because you disagree with any particular action they took, especially not if you're going to send them far out of the reach of any governmental bodies designed to protect them in case something goes wrong.

That logic is completely asinine. "Currently 9 out of 10 are bad, so it's bad on principle". Nevermind that one could put up regulations that remove the bad ones, and that such has already been done in other countries.

There are several things a closed-environment school can achieve without any abuse.
- Remove the kids in question from their everyday life and routine. This is a common therapeutic measure and generally quite effective.
- Break habits. This doesn't necessitate any abuse, it comes with the change in routine, and the inability to follow such habits due to the changed routine
- Rules that actually have to be followed 24/7. This is simply something parents can not provide, because a large part of a teenagers life will happen outside of their control, away from home.
- Social interaction with peers under observation and based on an outside set of rules. Again not something that can be achieved at home no matter how many therapy sessions you do.



Now that doesn't mean that these specific camps are remotely okay. The main problem is sheer lack of outside oversight, that's something that simply has to be provided.

My whole point was that sending your child to a school in another country without government oversight is a recipe for disaster. What regulations?Who's going to lobby for and make them? You do realise that these schools aren't in US territory right?

I have less of a problem with the school being in a far-off part of America than it being outside the country completely. That way the good ones could be monitored and the bad ones shut down. I can't support taking away the rights of parents to move their kids by force simply because it would seriously fuck a ton of normal parents, but the government should at least be able to monitor the situation.

I'm not denying the benefits of some of these schools, I'm pointing out that it's a terrible idea to have schools plucking citizens of a country away and forcing them into a country where they have little legal protection.

Not all of these "boarding schools" are religiously oriented. Just thought I would point that out.

I'm aware.

[Zaune]

The mere act of dragging kids out of the country seems like a perfect recipe for abuse of power. There is no reason such camps cannot operate in the USA - unless they are doing something illegal or highly questionable, of course.

I would be very wary of the existence of these camps outside the USA, outside the legal system.

That would depend on whether or not the US has a federal agency roughly equivalent to the Office for Standards in Education, better known as Ofsted. If it's up to the individual states to decide what is and is not acceptable in a private school then there's not a lot that could be done unless a child actually died.

[Simon_Jester]

There are federal laws about traveling across state lines to commit a crime.

For a random example, here's a passage from the US legal code (again, federal) about interstate domestic violence.

This comes from a constitutional loophole: the federal government generally doesn't have jurisdiction over crimes committed entirely within a state. But it does have jurisdiction over any crime that crosses a state line.

So if the reeducation camp is in a different state from the child, there can certainly be federal regulations governing its conduct, and punishing any child abuse in the camp.

[Korto]

Maybe so, but crossing borders would seem to make it harder to check up on.

I can see how a program like these schools could help someone with particular psychological problems, but if it's to be considered a psychological treatment, it should be treated as one. I would like to see it prescribed by an accredited professional (preferably not connected to the school) with follow-up afterwards (with everything written down), and active independant oversight with spot-checks. Nothing allowed out of the country, that's just begging for trouble.

[Simon_Jester]

Although you might have degrees of this; there are some classes of boarding schools that serve some of the same purposes (get the child out of their bad habits and into a supervised environment), but aren't actively trying to break children psychologically, and I don't think that should be quite so monitored.

But if a boarding school is viewed as rehabilitative psychiatric treatment, it should be treated like one, YES.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I've seen stuff like these schools for years. If I can give one piece of advice to a parent considering something like this its NEVER send your child to a 'boot camp boarding school' outside the United States. It becomes incredibly more dangerous for kids when they don't have the protection of US Law. I saw a doccumentary about places like these 15 years ago, sad to know they're still going on.

[Aleva13]

It's not necessary for these camps to operate outside of the United States. The organization WWASPS operated at least one re-education camp in Utah.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but there are at least more laws for them to worry about inside the US, rather than out. Hence the advice.

[FSTargetDrone]

I wonder how many of these parents who are so concerned about their child's morals bother to actually visit the place before they ship the kids off.

[CaptainChewbacca]

In the United States, kids have more protections and are able to more easily contact the outside world.

[FSTargetDrone]

In the United States, kids have more protections and are able to more easily contact the outside world.

I was referring to the ones in other countries. I just wonder how many kids are delivered with the parents never having actually toured the places.

[The Yosemite Bear]

IF I Recall Correctly Cheney invested in one of those places...

[Darth Wong]

It isn't legally considered kidnapping if it is done with a parents knowledge and consent.

It can easily and rightfully be called criminal abuse though, and the only reason this shit hasn't been is the asinine shield of it being "church based."

Indeed. If a parent locked his own chlid in a bathroom for an extended period of time, that would be illegal confinement. How is it acceptable to lock his own chlid in a harsh school unless the kid has done something so extreme that he could face criminal prosecution otherwise?

A kid who is looking at a lifetime of violent crime, for example, has probably already done enough that, if he were an adult, he'd be in prison already. In that case, taking away someone's personal liberties is par for the course. But a parent can't just decide to do it arbitrarily. There has to be oversight and regulation of this "industry".

[The Yosemite Bear]

stop this war on freedom of religion when it comes to child slave labour, kidnapping, abuse, sexual abuse, etc. That is for other people, this is a christian nation,,,

ok, yes I was channeling the fundy devil's advocate, and their asshole defense is not valid.

[Mr Bean]

It isn't legally considered kidnapping if it is done with a parents knowledge and consent.

It can easily and rightfully be called criminal abuse though, and the only reason this shit hasn't been is the asinine shield of it being "church based."

Indeed. If a parent locked his own chlid in a bathroom for an extended period of time, that would be illegal confinement. How is it acceptable to lock his own chlid in a harsh school unless the kid has done something so extreme that he could face criminal prosecution otherwise?

A kid who is looking at a lifetime of violent crime, for example, has probably already done enough that, if he were an adult, he'd be in prison already. In that case, taking away someone's personal liberties is par for the course. But a parent can't just decide to do it arbitrarily. There has to be oversight and regulation of this "industry".

Wong the problem with these schools is not their methods which in many cases is a literal copy/paste of US military schools and actual basic training right down to the same training regiments and schedule, their issue is the goals. If you want to tear someone down and rebuild them as someone better able to follow order who's also neater and more consciousness, by all means these schools can achieve that goal. However if you want to beat the gay out of them, your going to fail because that's not something direct intervention can change.

Example two test cases, lets call them Big Gay Al, and Snake because I am unoriginal.

If Al and Snake are troubled teens, sending them into the wilds of Arizona, or the mountains of Virgina to spend six to ten weeks in harsh regimented life-style won't kill them and could probably help them. After all if they are not deciding when to wake up, go to sleep, when to eat and when to work out, their diet is being regulated and controlled. Combine that with the alien setting away from friends and family, but also away from potential issues aside from the separation to being with, and you create a environment where they can be focused on a goal or task. It could be anger issues, drug problems, personal issues even weight loss. But if it's something that is not 'fixable" like homosexuality or the camp does not know what it's doing then yes issues can result.

Personally any time your leaving the country to attend one of these camps it raises a red flag.

[ChaserGrey]

Indeed. If a parent locked his own chlid in a bathroom for an extended period of time, that would be illegal confinement. How is it acceptable to lock his own chlid in a harsh school unless the kid has done something so extreme that he could face criminal prosecution otherwise?

It's legally acceptable for a parent to send their kid to boarding school and not have it be considered abuse or taking away their liberties. That's what these places are, and I wouldn't want to take that right away from parents if they want to exercise it.

There has to be oversight and regulation of this "industry".

This is the real answer. The whole thing is decentralized and poorly regulated, to the point where some of the marketing materials produced are outright deceptive about what students will go through. Make boarding schools get inspections from the state to make sure conditions aren't abusive. (I'd be willing to substitute an accreditation visit from a recognized secondary school association for that, to try to avoid putting undue burden on places that are actually providing legitimate education.) Might even need to do a "blacklist" of countries where parents cannot send minor children to be educated, essentially limiting it to places that have a functional child welfare system, as a short term fix. The abusive places tend to operate in places like Mexico or Jamaica, where enough money in the right places can basically insulate you from any real scrutiny.