Tag Archives: Marriage

Commentary

Dennis Prager explains the conflict between parents and the state

Leave a comment

The article talks about how the power of the state is bounded by 1) traditional religion and 2) parental authority in the family.

Excerpt:

The second most powerful obstacle to the state and government assuming primary authority is parents.

It was no meaningless phrase when baby boomers on the left declared, “Never trust anyone over 30.” Who was over 30? First and foremost, their parents.

As with religion, the further left the state or ideology, the more it seeks to undermine parental authority. In the Soviet Union, Komsomol, the Soviet Youth League substituted for parents. Mao, too, did what he could to destroy the family’s authority. Although no way comparable to Stalin or Mao, the American and European left also seek to undermine parental authority.

The battle over parental notification in the case of abortion is primarily about parental authority.

The battle over sex education in schools is largely about that, too — who gets to teach youth about sexuality and homosexuality? Parents or schools (i.e., the state)?

The battle over school vouchers is in large measure also a battle over governmental authority versus parental authority. Who gets to choose where one’s child attends school — the state or the parent? The battle over who gets to actually educate our children has already been lost to the state in the vast majority of cases. It is why the left is so uncomfortable with home schooling — parents, not the state, get to teach children.

As the late James O. Freedman, former president of Dartmouth University, said in a commencement address in 2002, the purpose of a college education is “to question your father’s values.”

Just as the left has substituted the authority of the state for the authority of God, it has substituted the authority of the state for that of parents. And just as God has been reduced to a non-judging, non-disciplining pal, so, too, the left wants parents to become non-judging, non-disciplining pals of their children.

In a nutshell, the left wants to have ever-expanding authority over people’s lives through ever-expanding governmental powers. It does so because it regards itself as more enlightened than others. Others are either enemies (the right) or unenlightened masses. It is elected by demonizing its enemies and doling out money and jobs to the masses.

I find that the expanding intrusion of the secular state into the family (via the schools) is very frustrating. I am concerned that the state will turn my children against me using my tax dollars. And the worst part is that if my children reject Judeo-Christian values, then they would actually be hurting themselves, and imposing social costs (e.g. – health care costs, etc.), on the rest of society. I think it would hurt me a lot to take so much trouble to have and raise children and then to see them become immoral, self-destructive and ungrateful to their parents.

News

MUST-READ: Mandatory curriculum in Ontario schools promotes homosexuality

3 Comments
Political Map of Canada

Story here from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The Ministry [of Education] put out its new Health and Physical Education curriculum for grades 1 to 8 in January, and a spokesperson has confirmed to LifeSiteNews (LSN) that the new curriculum will be mandatory for all schools, Catholic and public, in September 2010.  The high school curriculum will be released this spring, and will be mandatory as of September 2011.  At this point, it is unclear, however, whether Catholic schools are to be forced into teaching elements that violate Catholic teaching.

The new curriculum, replacing a previous version from 1998, aligns with the Ministry’s campaign to promote “equity and inclusive education” in Ontario’s schools, which includes the advancement of homosexualism and transgenderism.  A notable aspect of the curriculum’s revision is the attempt to instil a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly normal.

[…]Students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others.  A desired response has the eight-year-old student recognizing that “some [families] have two mothers or two fathers.”

In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include … personal characteristics such as … my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”

Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.”

One of main reasons why I want to get married is so that I can raise children to have a relationship with God and to make a difference in the world for him. I have had that view since I started working in my teens, often working multiple jobs at the same time – and I mean white collar jobs in the private and public sectors, right through undergraduate university. And all this so that I could buy my wife and children everything that would help them to serve God as much as they wanted to, e.g. – if my wife wanted to be a stay-at-home mom and to homeschool, no problem.

Now suppose a law like that is passed here in the United States and applies to public and private schools. How would I then look on the viability of marriage and child-raising then? My children, (all children, really), would be taught anti-Christian views of sex for a good deal of their academic life before going to college where drunken hook-up sex abounds. And this indoctrination would be at my expense, since public school teachers are paid out of taxes I have to pay. And early sexual activity would predispose my children away from Christian faith.

Do you think that news stories like this affect my plans to marry? They certainly do. I think liberal voters need to get serious about asking themselves exactly what makes men interested in marriage and parenting in the first place. Speaking for myself, I want to raise children who share my values and worldview and who serve God effectively when I am gone. When government forces its anti-Christian views on impressionable young children, that’s a disincentive for responsible men to marry.

(Don’t say homeschooling, the left doesn’t like homeschooling)

It’s everywhere in Canada

By the way, Jennifer Roback Morse recently had a scary post about even worse laws governing schools in Quebec.

Excerpt:

The news from Quebec is not encouraging for those who love liberty. In their new Quebec Policy Against Homophobia: Moving Together toward social equality, Provincial government of Quebec just gave itself permission to take all necessary steps to wipe out, not just “homophobia,” but also “heterosexism.”

And it happens in British Columbia, too.

Excerpt:

In response to a case filed with the Human Rights Tribunal in 1999 by gay couple Murray and Peter Corren, the BC government decided last year to introduce new curricula from Kindergarten to Grade 12 that would be “inclusive” and homosexual-friendly. The pro-gay courses may become mandatory with provisions for barring parents from opting out or opting for an alternative course (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html).

Today, the BC Ministry of Education released the draft overview for the new Grade 12 Social Justice pilot course, which is the first course to come out of the agreement with Murray and Peter Corren.

Comments will be strictly moderated. You know why.

Commentary

Melanie Phillips has a radical plan to stop the breakdown of marriages

2 Comments

From the UK Daily Mail.

Here’s the problem:

Devastating new research by sociologist Geoff Dench shows that not only is one in four mothers single, but more than half of such mothers have never lived with a man at all and are choosing to live alone on state benefits.

[…]Back in the mists of time … relationships between men and women were based on a bargain between the sexes which, although never stated openly, everyone accepted as a given.

Women realised they needed the father of their children to stick around to help bring them up.

In turn, men committed themselves to the mothers of their children on the basis that they could trust they were indeed the father because the woman was sexually faithful.

Today, this bargain has been all but destroyed. A number of factors have conspired to make women and girls think they can go it alone without men.

The first has been that so many women work and are therefore economically independent. Next was the sexual revolution which saw women becoming as sexually free as men.

In short order, any stigma over having babies out of wedlock was abolished. Then there was the collapse of manufacturing industry, which deprived many boys of the job prospects which once made them an attractive, marriageable proposition.

Finally, the coup de grace was administered by welfare benefits to single mothers which enabled them to live without the support of their babies’ fathers.

The result of all this was that many women and girls decided they no longer needed their children’s fathers to be part of the family unit.

This has given rise to an increasing number of women-only households where fathers have been written out of the family script for three or four generations or more.

The consequences of such family disintegration – as is now indisputable – are in general catastrophic for both individuals and for society.

This problem will not be cracked, however, unless women come to believe once again that their interests lie in attracting one man to father their children and then stick with them. Which is where my proposal of a Man Benefit comes in.

Click here to find out what the “Man Benefit” is. This is a fine article, and every man and woman who wants to understand how big government government causes the destruction of the family should read it. Then forward it to all of your friends. I think that we have a problem today where we just don’t think intelligently about what it takes to have a good marriage. Does government help children to grow up in stable homes, or does government make it more likely for children to grow up in a broken home? What does the evidence say?

This column by Stephen Baskerville is a nice follow-up to Melanie’s article.