then it becomes the parents job to prove to the government they can protect their child

clash*

this is a bit of a problem

even when its clear the parents are causing problems, the government solution to remove the child usually doesn't end up help the child much

look at how much of a mess our foster system is

True

i think a slightly better solution would be allowing the local community to remove the child from such a situation and if the can prove to the government that the child did, indeed, need to be removed, then they grant these new temp parents protects. there is still risk for abuse in such a system

makes sense

but i think a local church group will do a better job protecting kids than the government, and i'm an atheist

lol

Either way, not much can be done

The problem is, the government does the child little more good when their intervention is justified, yet have the power to take a child out of a home that is perfectly functional.

Then there is stories like the UK and a similar one in the US

Yep

The UK one was a child diagnosed with basically a fatal condition then refused to allow the kid to be moved to another country for treatment under the premise it was in too bad a condition to move and that moving it was child abuse

The US one was worse imo

They took their sick kid to a children's doctor

I remember the uk one

The doctor diagnosted the child with some disease and the parents didn't believe it for one reason or another. I forget the exact reason but it was situation where such a disease didn't make a lot of sense, so they wanted to wait on treatment as they got a second opinion.

Well the doctor contacted the state and the state came in to take the child.

"child endangerment"

yep

I don't believe we have a resources problem in the western world so much as we have a logistics problem.

I think there are enough people willing to part voluntarily with enough of their money to cover most costs people need welfare for. Even to cover medical debt not currently covered. And even cover things most people don't see as nessisary

yep

Same goes for community members willing to help kids from broken families

This is one of the failings of the atheist movement imo. The have not found a good replacement for the church to anchor communities.

I am a christian and dont have a dog in that fight

I believe you do.

You don't believe in leaving your atheist neighbors on their own just because they are not Christian do you?

You wouldn't say fuck you to them if they needed help would you?

How would you feel if a Satanist Church reached out to you to help you?

Not what I mean

I mean, I have a simple solution to the lack, fill what was there before

I have no incentive to encourage people to find alternatives (in fact it would be against my goals)

By implication, I don't believe that such an anchor truly exists without God. It would be weirder if I disagreed with that idea

For my view, whatever you have as your 'anchor' is your communities' God.

i have seen too many "Christians" who's belief in god is nothing more than statement with 0 facts behind it to believe God is really required.

i think for them social pressure is more the deciding factor

also doesn't explain godless religions which have a similar anchoring effect

those are more of the Asian religions