Archives For Parents

We learn a lot from Indigenous Australian history about how good, well-intentioned, government can go wrong (and get it wrong) when said governments go too far by removing the rights of parents, and assume the role of father and mother in the community; more specifically in a child’s life.

Leftist bureaucrats and activists know this history, yet only seem to pull it out when it suits their mood, or when they see some political opportunity to advance their agenda.

The Left’s hypocritical push for more governmental control over families/children in education, should raise alarm bells about the ideology they seek to build their utopian society upon.

Why push for programs they know are harmful?

Why support this push, when we know from our Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, the complications caused by pride, dismissive contempt and programs of dependency?

Why agree with the Left when they demand similar programs for Australian society today?

For example, under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, we’re all but legally forced to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.

The LGBTQAII+ worldview imposes on everyone around it the demand for complete silence towards the child, with threats of legal action if anyone dares to break with the pseudo-religious, LGBTQAAI+ ideological paradigm.

If a child asks who, or whether they have a father or a mother, and a person answers “yes”, they’ll be tried before the convert, pay a tax or die crowd. Then shouted down as “homophobic” or “transphobic”.

As we’ve seen with Israel Folau, and doctors who raise truths about abortion, all are forced to take the Mark, or face “cancellation” or a denial of trade. The love is love lie must be maintained at all costs.

Likewise, if a doctor innocently asks about a child’s paternal or maternal medical history (as they tend to do), could find themselves slapped with a suspension. The ironic charge? “Psychologically harming a child with heteronormative assumptions”, and/or a law suit because they’ve presented themselves as an “enemy of the LGBT community” for seeking scientific facts.

Doctors who require essential background medical information in order to provide the best available care, may be forced to break their “do no harm” oath by conforming to this big business backed, legally supported culture of silence.

The final solution from Radical Feminists and LGBTQAAI+ “Pride” industry is to remove father and mother altogether. Hence the blueprints for non-gender specific labels such as “parent one and parent two.”

Biological facts, a child’s genetic medical history, a healthy self-identity and the opportunity to function properly in a society, through equally shared male and female parenting roles are not just cancelled, they’re outlawed.

This is part of the radical feminist belief that a gender segregated society, where neither man nor woman meet, is the true feminist – truly tolerant society (via Mary Daly et.al).

Thus, making Mark Latham’s proposed bill to counter curriculum revisions in educational institutions of huge importance.

In talking to Alan Jones about the proposed legislation, Latham cited the helpful role of the “many good teachers out there”, but called the revisions ‘a massive insult to the millions of parents in NSW,” because the revisions basically say to mums and dads, “you’re no longer on the scene, schools have got to do this job. For someone to say that schools should be the main unit of passing on social values and morality in our society, is what my bill wants to address. Parents must have that role and should be [enshrined] in law.”

Should curriculum revisions that impose Leftist, LGBQAAI+ ideology (for example: safe schools, intersectionality, critical theory; Marxism) not be critiqued properly and stopped, “parents will be written out of the education system.”

Latham’s proposed addition to the education act should halt this, and at the same time remind those running the education industrial complex that enrolment in kindergarten doesn’t mean a transferal of parental responsibilities to the state, where kids are handed over to activists to be made in its image.

The bill gives a voice to the majority, who, based on voting trends since 2016, want to see a strong “no” to the creeping bureaucratic takeover of parenting by the state. (Along with strong protections against ideological indoctrination by Leftist dominated institutions, and their now infamous herd thinking.)

As Latham states, “the role of schools is to serve the family, not the other way around…Teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is political indoctrination and it’s got to end.”

Education begins in the home. Parenting involves the gift of passing down a life story.

Home is where kids first interact with the world; first interact with story; first encounter what is means to be human.

Children learn that they belong. They learn patience. They learn through experience that human freedom has limitations through anatomy and biology – that humans need to crawl before they walk.

They learn the difference between a loving “no” and a responsible, gracious “yes.”

Denying men and women the right to remember and be remembered, turns children into strangers, parents into aliens, and robs people of their shared stories.

Latham’s bill will hope to set in stone the role of parents in teaching kids ‘values and morality’, by re-emphasising that a child’s ‘social and emotional development’ are the domain of parents, not government funded institutions.

Though the bill doesn’t mention historical mistakes, the very existence of it acknowledges them. When NSW politicians go to vote on it, the lessons available to them from Indigenous Australian history should give good reason for their complete support.

Mark is to be applauded for his stand.


First published on Caldron Pool, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Karina Halley on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

rl2016-christmas-letter-with-borderInstead of writing letters to Santa Clause, we write to the Grinch. The aim is to persuade the Grinch to give Christmas a second chance.

This is our second year of using such a brilliant, practical lesson in persuasive writing. [i]

It’s quirky and fits well with our homeschooling style.

I had another focus for craft last year around this time, which meant that I had to leave out the part where we get to make a Grinch face.  This year, however, I needed a craft-filler with some level of serious coolness, so it was full steam ahead.

If, like us, you haven’t sold your kids the line about Santa Claus “bringing nice things, only if you do nice things”, this is a real alternative to the Dear Santa petitioning.

Let me follow that up by saying that I have no issue with who the modern myth of Santa is based on. Nikolaos of Myra did exist. He stood by his convictions, made some mistakes, such as punching a heretic or two and gave to help those who couldn’t help themselves.  He’s my kind of Saint; the John McClane of all Christian forebears.

What I stand opposed to is teaching kids something that will cause them to question their trust in us as parents later on in life. If we manipulated them with the Santa line, it’s only right that they’d wonder whether there were other areas where their parents weren’t being completely honest with them.

This is as psychologically abusive as any Christian parent misrepresenting the fear of God in an attempt to encourage a child to behave.

Santa Claus isn’t the problem, the lie perpetuated by the modern myth of Santa is.It’s the packaging, not necessarily the content of that packaging.

For parents, teachers and homeschoolers, speaking the truth in love should be of paramount importance. Even when there are family members who might get angry with us for not wanting to become co-conspirators in what is, in all bluntness, an outright Westernised, excessively commercial, lie.

This may seem heartless. It does to some in my own family. I ask, though, isn’t it heartless to raise kids to believe in a lie; to abandon them to figure out the truth for themselves? Isn’t it heartless to misconstrue the truth and distort reality? Not just this, but then consciously employ that lie to manipulate a child’s behaviour?

Coming from a highly dysfunctional family, I’m more accustomed to the effects of this. I acknowledge that this has left me with a slight bias. For reasons other than Santa Claus, I’ve not only experienced it, I’ve also witnessed the harm done by parents who don’t tell their children the truth and instead lead them to believe a lie; the impact of which is made worse when that lie is used to control a person’s behaviour. It doesn’t end well for either the parent or the child. [ii]

If I am going to be teaching my children about faith and reason, these need to be taught with integrity. Believing in the modern myth of Santa Claus isn’t an example of what a faith that seeks understanding looks like.

There is nothing heartless in teaching our kids the truth about Christmas; teaching them about Jesus Christ and the fuller meaning of Christmas is part of a rounded holistic education. The nativity alone confronts our inhospitable tendencies, doubts, weariness and need for rest.

In answer to the charge that I’m simply swapping belief in Santa Claus for belief in Jesus Christ, I would say, no. The context is totally different.

To begin with, I’m not teaching my kids about Jesus Christ for personal gain. It’s a gift given to them to benefit them. It’s not something I’m taking from them to benefit me. Secondly, my sources come from authorised, written historical recounts about a real historical person. Thirdly, in contradistinction to neo-Pelagianism and some well documented bad theology, I’m not teaching them that they’ll get nice things, if they do nice things.

There is no anxiety about whether Santa is happy or sad because of their behavior. There is joy in a deeper learning about the immanence of God, in Christ, who is Immanuel [God with us]. One extended by the fact that on the 25th December every year, most countries in the Western World and the church in the majority world, join together to mark what is generally considered to be the birthday of Jesus Christ.

It unifies ethnicity and draws together cultures. It opens doors and hearts to the good news, has even prompted a ceasefire, brought respite to busy workers and seen both, rich, poor, king and queen bow equally before the one who is, and was, and is to come.

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
– (Isaiah 9:6, ESV)

If choosing to do this makes me the Grinch or someone like a Dickensian Scrooge, so be it.

grinch-christmas-rl2016


Notes:

[i] How the Grinch Stole Christmas Persuasive Writing Project

[ii] Sir Walter Scott’s, ”O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive” from  ‘Marmion: The Battle‘ comes to mind.

back to HomeschoolSunday involved preparing curriculum for a new Homeschool term. This was made more strenuous by a letter we received the other day. In it we were reminded about stricter guidelines now being set up for home education in our state.

For those foreign to attitudes in Australia towards homeschooling, the best way to illustrate them is by stating that they range between indifference, curiosity, confusion and sometimes hostility.

The general notion is that since the Commonwealth (Federal Government) and States provide “free” schooling, why homeschool?

It is not always the case, but hidden within this is the cultural hang-up that wrongly views “kids as burdens to be offloaded, and their successes paraded only when the result reflects “exceptional parental conduct.”

I feel sorry for the school teachers who are overloaded, overworked, underpaid and largely have their role misunderstood. Granted, the system works up to a point. However it ceases to function effectively when the State (or any private institution) begins to walk away from endorsing the fact that teachers are professional educators, not substitute parents. Nor, to use a more blunt analogy, are they glorified baby-sitters.

Parental responsibility is still the most significant part in the effective education of children. This includes making time to not only be concerned about the place of education, but participate in the method of education and contribute to the progress of their child’s education.

It is part of a more broader political party view, but some State Government representatives in Australia, see Home Schooling as primitive, biased and regressive.

For example:

”Without the watchful eye of teachers, some children could end up trapped in abusive settings or left without appropriate learning opportunities,” Greens MP, Dr John Kaye said. (source)

Although helpful to some degree, this new bureaucratic push has some unhealthy weight to it. As a result it is being felt. So for now we are back to homeschooling, but for how long, I couldn’t say.

The good side to this fresh approach by our governing agencies is that it means some empowerment for homeschoolers. For instance, a more targeted practice in the art of “review, review, review” and the opportunity to promote the benefits of homeschooling to those generally unaware of the them.

This can only translate as support. Otherwise we’d be consumed by the fact that it appears as though it’s a politely veiled, politically driven, disincentive to continue.

(Original image credit: digitalart)