Freedom for Children: Views from Fidel Castro and James Dwyer

A couple of weeks ago, Rick mentioned James Dwyer’s new book, “The Relationship Rights of Children.”  He ends his post saying, “notwithstanding my very strong disagreements, I have found Dwyer’s work challenging and instructive.”  I have not yet read his new book, but his previous books were challenging and instructive to me because they reveal the logical workings out of a certain strain of liberalism, which I have said elsewhere, is a new form of totalitarianism.  In Dwyer’s state as in Castro’s

Cuba

, the state must limit parental freedom to raise children so that the children can be educated to conform to the state’s conception of the human person – the autonomous self-definer and self-chooser in Dwyer’s state and the economic man of communism in Castro’s state. 

We see that this strain of liberalism stands for the freedom to make right choices (according to the dictates of the liberal state).  The freedom of those who make wrong choices must be sacrificed at the altar of the liberal state and in the name of freedom.  Parental freedom to raise children in a religious home must give way so the state can teach children to act on their sexual feelings unencumbered by the feelings of guilt and shame imposed by unforgiving religious doctrine.   Dwyer’s dream for education and child-rearing is working itself out in other areas of American life.  The freedom of conscience of doctors and pharmacists must, according to some, be sacrificed so those who desire contraceptives can receive them as easily as possible.  The freedom of the Catholic Charities to refuse to cooperate in the contraceptive mentality is sacrificed so that some of its employees can receive contraceptives at lower cost.   The list goes on – nurses and abortion, adoption by gay couples and Catholic Charities in

Boston

.  The freedom of the wrongheaded is subordinated to maximize freedom and minimize inconvenience for the rightheaded.  What I like about Dwyer is that he doesn’t mask the goal of his brand of liberalism.  And, although I strongly disagree with his goal, I appreciate his forthrightness.

I am interested in learning Dwyer’s views about the nature of the human person – its origins, purpose, and destination.  In other words, I would like Dwyer to make his anthropological assumptions explicit.  As Meira Levinson says in her book, The Demands of Liberal Education, “one must know to what end(s) one is educating, and these ends cannot be given by the concept of education itself.  Thus, education can function as a substantive, directed practice only if it is embedded within broader practice or set of goals.” (p.4).  These goals, should, I suppose, correspond to the nature of the human person.  I will email Professor Dwyer in the hope that he is willing to comment for us on who are what is being educated when we educate the human person.