| Does it Take a Village?
God gave children to parents, not to the
State, to love, nurture, teach, discipline, and train up into
adulthood. It does not take a 'village' or the
'Collective' or State-run 'Care homes' to raise a
child; it takes a loving and biological/adoptive/foster family.
Please see the article
Communism and the Family for the ideology underlying the
'Collective'.
Some of the Specific Issues
The ideology of the State being the
parent of all children results in:
- the arrogant over-riding by
State Social 'Services' of the inherent and prior right and
responsibility of family members (grandparents, aunts and uncles,
older siblings, cousins) to take into their home the child or
children of another family member who is genuinely incapable
of raising them, before either non blood-related heterosexual
couples are considered as foster or adoptive parents or the children
are placed in State 'care'; and
- the politically-correct
insistence that children be given to
homosexuals (and now
Muslims) despite there being very many
heterosexual or Christian/secular couples willing and able to foster
or adopt them,
- the pernicious
Named Persons
Scheme conjured up by the Scottish National Party.
The Reasons Given
Of the various spurious 'reasons'
given by the UK's Child 'Protection' system for depriving children
of their parents and parents of their children, the following three are fast becoming the most
common:
- "'emotional
abuse': This has been by far the
biggest contributor to the explosion in the numbers of children
taken into care since the 'Baby P' scandal in 2008, rising by 92%.
And most have not been for actual emotional abuse but simply for the
possible 'risk' of such abuse happening in the future;
- a second
charge against parents which comes up too often is their failure to 'co-operate with professionals'
[1], such as the social workers
who are tearing their family apart;
- a third reason used to
justify 90% of child removals is the role of those 'independent'
psychologists hired by social workers to report that the
parents suffer from such vague conditions as 'borderline personality
disorder', or 'narcissism', leading them to 'put their own interests
above those of the children'" [source].
| [1] "Does the word
'professional' now mean someone who's paid to have an
opinion?" / "'Professional' is used to
ensure that social workers are regarded as undeniably
'infallible' ... All of their decisions are based on
opinion and ... are influenced by prevailing theories.
The discipline itself is theory based and subject to ...
current whims" [comments at
source].
"It is worth noting that the record of the 'science' in
areas such as child-rearing, education and relationships
is a dubious one. It has consisted largely of
ever-recurring fads that rarely achieve any positive
durable results" [source].
"It is understood that
social work in the 21st century is dynamic and evolving,
and therefore no definition should be regarded as
exhaustive" [The Code of Ethics for Social Work:
Statement of Principles, British Association of
Social Workers, (1975/2002/2012/2014)]. |
Social Workers
Naïve young social
workers indoctrinated at college into
(amongst other questionable "dynamic and evolving" theories)
Cultural Marxist claptrap, and
- who lack (a) an historical knowledge
or understanding of, or love for, the family they blithely tear
apart and (b) the wisdom that comes from the experience of age
and the fear (reverence) of the Lord (see, for example, Proverbs 2:1-11),
- who have never even
had any children of their own let-alone raised them to responsible
and well-adjusted adulthood,
- who genuinely believe 'Social
Care' is "in the best interests" of any child,
- who virtue-signal their
politically correct credentials by fast-tracking homosexuals
through the intensely invasive and time-consuming assessment
process that heterosexual couples are forced to go through, and
then see, hear, and speak no evil when that trophy child is
subsequently beaten and
murdered,
- who would rather a child be raped
and pimped by
rape-gangs than themselves be called a
'racist', and who, when questioned about this, respond only with
a deflective "But what about the parents?!"
- who have been trained to reply
to any questioning of State/Social Services 'care' of children
with the mindless and sanctimonious whine, "I am worried that
... [you have] a negative view of social workers and social
care..."
...are certainly not in any position to
counsel, instruct, lecture, or make judgements about, any parent or any
family.
State 'Education': Indoctrination into
Cultural Marxism
| "The nation would
benefit ... from having far fewer humanities students
and in the cases of politics, sociology and social work,
no students at all ... The arts and humanities faculties
in our universities are a breeding ground for cultural
Marxism. ... these people are a scourge, because their
heads are full of theory rather than life experience.
... Would a social work profession that recruited solely
mature adults with life experience rather than
youngsters with degrees in social work be held in such
low regard by the public? No, of course not! ...
Progressives love humanities degrees because it gives
them years to indoctrinate impressionable young people
without experience of reality challenging the academics'
cultural Marxist dogma" [source].
"Replace [humanities] with
history on authoritarian movements, so the students
understand what happens when cultural marxism takes
root" / "With some life experience it is far
easier to spot idealistic theories put forward by
university lecturers who themselves may have limited
experience of the real world" / "Learning
opponents' ideologies is the best way to refute them.
But clearly this is better when the individual is more
rounded in their outlook and this comes with wisdom and
experience" [comments at
source]. |
Please see
here,
here,
here, and
here, for more
on State 'education'.
State Control
The
terrible reason underlying all such pernicious interference by the
Social 'Services' and their legal cohorts in the secret
'Family' Courts (with the collusion of our police force,
state school teachers,
and medical doctors) into the sanctity and privacy of parents and their families is
the deliberate agenda by Western Governments to replace God-ordained parental authority
with God-less totalitarian State authority over children, as seen
here.
| "[W]e've always had a private notion
of children, your kid is yours and totally your
responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion
of these are our children. So part of it is we have to
break through our kind of private idea that kids belong
to their families and recognize that kids belong to
whole communities" [Melissa Harris-Perry, quoted at
source]. "First it was
Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village to raise
children by community effort and cost. Now it's
über-leftist Melissa
Harris-Perry who says it takes a 'community' to care for
children. By 'community' she means the State ...
Harris-Perry believes that she and her cadre of social
do-gooders are better equipped to raise other people's
children ... they want all children plugged into the
collective so their energies can be used to grow the
State and to be dependent on the State ... the State
must involve itself in the life of children so they are
taught so-called Progressive ideals with money
confiscated from working families and implemented by the
State" [source].
In August 2005 Lianne Smith was employed
by Cumbria County Council and working closely with a
wing of the Dept for Children, Schools and Development
Agency... "she was highly suspicious of Children's
Services talk of a 'common purpose' regarding children.
Supposedly 'safeguarding all children from harm', Lianne
saw that the 'common purpose' was really a dangerous and
controlling State move whereby anyone working with
children would become 'quasi social workers'. This
would effectively place every child under Children's
Services control, rather than their parents', even if
there were no circumstances around a child or family to
merit Social Services intervention" [source].
"Children belong to us - and the
'us' in this case is the State. This is Big Society with
a vengeance. The children are not part of a family;
they're not of the parents; they're simply there for the
State. And of course, the Scottish
government has taken this a step forward, because we can
now see, with the Named Persons scheme, that, really,
parents are only seen as 'caretakers' of their children
while they're growing up; they're really owned by the
State, and if the State deems that the parents have
made any mistakes or got anything wrong or are teaching
their children the 'wrong' things - that the State
says are the wrong things - then those children can be
simply taken away from the parents" [source]. |
The Sanctity and Privacy of the Family
The family was designed and created a
very long time before the State, or the Collective, or
Communitarianism, or Communism, was thought of. Strong and
stable families are the foundation of a strong and stable society,
and the destruction of families inevitably leads to the destruction
of society and thence the nation - as Marx knew very well:
| "Marx and Engels
considered that the nuclear family was one of the main obstacles to
Marxism and they therefore, in their revolutionary zeal, counted it
as one of the principle enemies to be destroyed or undermined. Since
the 1930s the Frankfurt School's Cultural Marxism, and its 'march
through the institutions', has been seeking to achieve this end by
the Fabian tactic, not of outright revolution, but of wearing us
down, bit by bit, in the hope that we will give up and that the
family will then fall. This is the real drive, apart from
materialism, behind getting women to abandon the home and to
deposing the man from his responsible role as head and breadwinner.
... The attempt in Scotland to appoint 'named persons' for every
child is one of the latest attempts to achieve this goal by
appointing what is really a State Intruder into the family. They
want to corrupt our children at school with 'sex education' and
'citizenship' lessons - really promiscuity and class war - and then
provide the conditioned child with an anti-family 'champion' in the
home. ... All these moves are part and parcel of a horrendous
Marxian package. What did the Jesuits say about giving them the
child and they would give us the man?... We need to be ever vigilant
about all of these related threats. Above all things the child needs
protecting from the State" [Letter to British Church Newspaper,
20 September 2013, p.9]. |
'Then They Came For Me...'
Social Services 'professionals' and 'experts' truly think their own families, their own children, their
own parenting methods, are safe from state interference and state
control. Today, it is true, they are. Today, the subjective winds of
Cultural Marxism's politically correct dogmas are behind Social
Services personnel. Today, they ask
the 'served' the question 'Do you think Social Services should be
involved?' and the 'served' give them the required answer,
because they fear what will happen to their children if they don't.
Today, it's only the 'lumpenproletariat' and the 'dissidents' who
find themselves monitored and their children removed.
But the
winds always change direction eventually... Stalin eventually
came for the Politburo, and tomorrow, or next month, or next year
the 'professionals' and the 'experts' will
themselves be asked that terrible ideological question they once
asked of the 'served', and what then will their answer be?...
Tomorrow, or next month, or next year the 'professionals' and the
'experts' will themselves be on the wrong side of the State
they now unquestioningly serve...
| "If we look at the type of people
that are targeted by the Social Services for this type
of treatment ... there is a sad truth coming out here
... having eaten up the lower classes, whom,
traditionally, the British upper-middle classes have not
cared two hoots about, they're now finding that the
beast is coming to eat them..." [source]. |
Will there be anyone to
fight for them and their children?...
Social Engineering
Please pray for these children and
their parents who are the victims of the UK's (also the USA's and
some European countries') evil social engineering programmes carried
out by social workers, family court personnel, police, state school
teachers, and medical doctors. Please also pray for the eyes
of all these 'professional'
useful idiots
in the Social Services to be opened that they may understand that
their attempts to steal a child from its parents is an
abomination in God's sight, and that, far from protecting children,
they are doing all these little ones great and lasting harm.
For a more comprehensive discussion of these issues, please see
The
Camel's Nose [soon to be uploaded]
"And he that stealeth [a child], and selleth him..."
(Exodus 21:16)
"The words of a talebearer are as wounds,
and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly"
(Proverbs 18:8)
"Every fool will be meddling ...
Withdraw thy foot
from thy neighbour's house:
lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee"
(Proverbs 20:3b; 25:17)
"Seest
thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope
of a fool than of him"
(Proverbs 26:12)
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
decrees,
and that write grievousness which they have prescribed"
(Isaiah 10:1-3)
"Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!
when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the
power of their hand. ...
So they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage"
(Micah 2:1-2)
"It
is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through
whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he cast into the sea,
than that he should offend one of these little ones"
(Luke 17:1-2)
"Let none of you suffer ... as a busybody in other
men's matters"
(1 Peter 4:15)
"Never,
anywhere in the Holy Bible will you find God giving civil government
any
authority to rear or direct the rearing of children ...
God told parents, not the government, to 'train up' their children"
(Laura Rogers, Societal Structures vs. Restructuring, as quoted in Berit
Kjos, Brave New Schools, p185)
|
You are
very welcome to make copies of this article for personal
research or for free distribution by print or email, but
please respect our conditions that the content remains
intact (including this copyright statement); that no
misleading impression is given that we are necessarily
associated with or endorse the distributor; and that
proper reference is made to the title and author.
Website owners are encouraged to link to this page, but
you must not incorporate this article into your own
website without our prior written consent. Thank
you and bless you. |
© Elizabeth McDonald
http://www.bayith.org
bayith@blueyonder.co.uk
|
